Download - WOOLSTON MANOR FARM, NORTH CADBURY: AN … · 83 WOOLSTON MANOR FARM, NORTH CADBURY INTRODUCTION Woolston Manor Farm is centred on a basin-shaped combe 1km to the east of North Cadbury,

83

WOOLSTON MANOR FARM, NORTH CADBURY

INTRODUCTION

Woolston Manor Farm is centred on a basin-shapedcombe 1km to the east of North Cadbury, Somerset.The modern farm buildings and former farmhousenestle on a rise some 200m to 300m north of atributary flowing westwards into the Cam. Thefarmland comprises slopes of every aspect formedfrom sandy beds, parenting light soils well suited tocultivation. A sampling transect had been designedto pass through the farm as early as 1996, as part ofthe South Cadbury Environs Project’s plan to obtainfield data from a representative range of geology andtopography within an 8 by 8km square centred onCadbury Castle (Fig. 1). However, in the Spring of2006, after evaluating the initial results, inconjunction with the documentary evidence, it wasdecided that the transect would be transformed intoa larger sampling block, commensurate with fiveother localities within the study area.

The farm is small by today’s standards andattracted only a low valuation when recorded in theDomesday Book (Thorn and Thorn 1980, 19, 55).Nonetheless, the very distinct outline of the modernfarm-holding is mirrored by a map from 1725 (Fig.2) and suggests a much earlier estate boundary.Within the outline many of the field boundaries andnames are little changed in nearly three centuries. Afurther indication of conservative regimes in the pastare the fine surviving earthworks in two fields.Trinities, a 3ha field in the south-west of the farm,has been protected by a schedule since theidentification of the earthworks from the 1947 airphotographs. The earthworks in Great Cowleazeappear to have gone unnoticed by archaeologists.

Despite noting the boundary characteristics, JohnDavey eschewed the opportunity for fieldwork onthe farm during an attempt to identify CadburyCastle’s Early Medieval landscape (Davey 2005).Hence there had been no archaeological fieldworkon the farm prior to that of the South CadburyEnvirons Project (SCEP) from April to November2006 and March to July 2007.

METHODOLOGY

The principal techniques employed by the SCEP aregeophysical survey with a gradiometer and thedigging of test-pits at regular intervals. At Woolstonthey were supported by very limited fieldwalkingand the targetting of additional test-pits atgeophysical anomalies.

To meet the project’s aim to identify and interpretsuccessive larger structural components of thehumanly modified landscape, magnetic readingswere recorded at 0.25m intervals along traverses set1m apart, using a Bartington Grad 601-2gradiometer. The data were processed using Geoplot3. This is sufficient to record ditches, stonestructures, large pits, hearths and concentrations oforganic debris at a specified depth range of 3m,although postholes and small gullies may also appearif they are filled with burnt material. The technique’sefficacy is likely to vary according to the targetperiods, depending upon the variety of boundary-types employed and the local geomorphology.

For each hectare covered a 1m2 test-pit was dugto natural at regular 100m intervals. The pits facilitateevaluation of the geophysical data, particularly where

WOOLSTON MANOR FARM, NORTH CADBURY: ANOUTLINE REPORT OF FIELDWORK IN 2006–7 BY THE

SOUTH CADBURY ENVIRONS PROJECT

RICHARD TABOR

83

SOMERSET ARCHAEOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY, 2007

84

Fig. 1 Geophysical survey carried out by the South Cadbury Environs Project

negative, against artefact distribution, whilstcontributing to a geomorphological map of thesampled areas (revealing fierce modern erosion byploughing). Fieldwalking was applied in two fields,Oat Croft and Card’s Piece, using the standard SCEPmethodology (Tabor forthcoming a).

Until 2005 the project aimed to cover a total ofapproximately 20% of each sampling locality withthe listed techniques (Tabor 2002, 9–13; Tabor 2004,96–101). However, there was a deliberate change ofpolicy at Woolston where our aim was to cover allaccessible land on the farm with gradiometry and

regular test-pits (Tabor 2008; Tabor and Randall2008). This revision was made because it has becomeclear that the farm presents a rare opportunity toexplore a succession of agricultural systems whichhave served a central habitative area for twomillennia or more.

Geophysical survey covered in excess of 59ha(Fig. 3), fieldwalking covered 17ha, and 51m2

regular and a total of 59.5m2 of targetted test-pits havebeen excavated at Woolston Manor Farm. In addition,three small trenches were opened for a Universityof Bristol training excavation in Plain of Slait.

85


DESCRIPTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL FIELDS

Card’s Piece: Plateau north of a sharp south-facingdecline across the middle of the field, giving way toa very gentle, almost flat, north to south slope. Muchof the high ground, particularly a broad swathe alongthe east side of the field, has an abundance of stoneon the surface due to the plough cutting the naturalrock.

Oat Croft: Much of the field is taken up by the eastend of a west-to-east ridge and has slopes rangingfrom north, through east to south-facing. The northof the field is distinguished from the south by a west-to-east valley, on the north side of which is an areaof flat ground. Much of the high ground has beenseverely damaged by ploughing which is cutting intothe geological surface.

Trinities: The field occupies the lower south-eastfacing slopes of a narrow V-shaped valley throughwhich a stream flows. Two major terraces follow thecontours and in addition there are several platformsand banks, some of the latter defining tracks, and aprobable millpond. The earthworks were recordedby plane table survey. Scheduled and under pasture(National Monument no. 28855).

Withy Close: A moderately steep north and west-facing valley side opposing Trinities on the east ofthe stream. Long term pasture.

Plain of Slait: A plateau above a south-facing scarp,dipping gently towards the south-east. Ploughedannually resulting in substantial damage to thenatural rock on its north and west sides. Thedisplacement of soils towards the east has providedsome protection to archaeological deposits there.

Nine Acres (Rye Close): A moderate south-facingscarp below Plain of Slait. Long term pasture.

Rye Close: A slight south-facing slope in the northend of the field, below Nine Acres, giving way toflat ground. Pasture divided into horse paddocks.

Lady Field 1: A plateau dipping towards a valley inthe south-east. Under pasture at the time of surveybut subsequently ploughed.

Lady Field 2: A plateau gently dipping from northto south, with a well defined V-shaped valley of thesame orientation running the length of the field tothe east of its centre.

Great Cowleaze (Lady Field 3): The lower south-facing slopes and bottom of the combe, cut to eastof centre by the small valley in Lady Field 2. Thefield includes well preserved terracing, platforms andbanked tracks.

Quar Close (Pond Ground): A mound-shaped risein the lower part of the basin south-east of the main

Fig. 2 The 1725 map of Woolston Manor Farm and the modern fieldnames


86

farm buildings, bordering a quarry on its south side.Ploughed annually.

Seven Acres: Moderate south-facing valley sidenorth of the stream with traces of possible contourterracing. Permanent pasture.

Cribs Close: Moderate north-facing slope to thesouth of the stream, opposing Seven Acres.Permanent pasture.

Maize Cover: Narrow strip of land on the west sideof a ridge above the north-to-south valley in LadyField into which much of its soil has moved. Extremedamage to the natural rock by ploughing, causing abuild-up of stone on both sides of the west fence.Cultivated annually for game cover.

Little Eldridge: A narrow, steep-sided, trumpet-V-shaped north-east to south-west valley. Small formerquarry on its north-west side. Permanent pasture.

Fig. 3 The gradiometer survey of Woolston, 2006–7

87


Yonder Mead (Little Eldridge 3): A west-facingslope where Little Eldridge valley opens out.Permanent pasture.

THE GRADIOMETRY AND TEST-PITTING

The results of the gradiometry show a prevailingtrend of positive linear anomalies on anapproximately west-south-west to east-north-eastorientation apparently in a co-axial relationship withwest-north-west to east-south-east linears. On closerexamination of the plots (Fig. 3) it is clear that thereare several subtle variations within the prevailingorientation, some of which cannot be contemporaryjudging by the character of their intersections andoverlaps. Comparatively few linears are wholly atodds with the prevailing scheme. The followinganalysis attempts first to identify coherent boundarysystems before offering hypothetical dates for themin the light of the evidence from test-pitting andexcavation. To avoid duplications of maps theanomalies are presented in the hypothesisedsequence.

Early Bronze Age (Fig. 4)

Identified with system L, the phase is bestdemonstrated at L1 in Card’s Piece where twotargetted test-pits on the plateau recovered six smallgrog-tempered sherds, two of beaker type, from theupper fills of truncated V-profiled ditches makingup the east (TP 365399 128093) and south sides (TP

365396 128077) of an approximately 15m x 15menclosure. The only other finds were three flintflakes. The fill matrix of very red sandy silts suggestsa lack of organic material and is consistent with anearly date. The enclosure has a small annexe on itseast side, a form most closely parallelled by anexample at Milsoms Corner, South Cadbury (Taborforthcoming b). It seems likely that much of systemM in Plain of Slait, attributed to the Middle BronzeAge, has its origins in, and obscures, the expansionof system L in that field. The orientations of the twosystems are very similar (Fig. 5).

The attribution of L2 in Little Eldridge hinges onthe observation of two sherds recorded as charcoalin the section drawing of a deeply buried ditch fillin a regular test-pit (TP366200 127900). Twophotographs of the same section suggest stronglythat they are pottery sherds in a soft, black fabriclikely either to be Neolithic or earlier Bronze Age.Circumstantial evidence is offered by the presenceof later prehistoric sherds from contexts sealingseveral other sealing layers above the ditch.

Six small beaker sherds were found in regular test-pits below Maize Cover in Lady Field 2 (five inTP365900 128100 and one in TP365900 128000)but all were in modern hillwashes above earlierhillwashes which included Late Iron Age or Romano-British pottery. There can be little doubt that thesherds had moved downslope and that significantEarly Bronze Age archaeology has been largelyploughed out in the Cover. In Great Cowleaze a ditchsealed by hillwash into which a platform had beencut in the Iron Age contained only flint and is likelyto date to the this period (TP365893 127860). Multi-phase occupation in this field is so rich that its fullcomplexity would be revealed only by intensivefieldwork.

Fig. 4 The Early Bronze Age boundaries

Fig. 5 The Early (Card’s Piece) and Middle (LadyField 1) Bronze Age enclosures.


88

Middle Bronze Age (Fig. 6)

The phase is defined exclusively by system M andwas recognised only on the plateau in Plain of Slaitand Lady Field 1. It clearly derives from the previoussystem, as comparison between the plots of L1 andM1 shows (Fig. 5). The long narrow parallel boundarypattern is similar to that dated as Early Bronze Ageat Sigwells, Charlton Horethorne (Tabor 2008). A2m x 1m test-pit (TP365729 128246) targetting anarea of enhanced magnetism bounded within a spaceof 16m x 16m produced 20 sherds, most from a singlebiconical vessel of probable middle Bronze Age date,from an organically rich fill formed on theabandonment of a depressed floor area.

Later Bronze Age (Fig. 7)

The very thin evidence for the dating of a completere-orientation of boundaries in system P is largelyby its analogy to a pattern observed around CadburyCastle, most particularly at Milsoms Corner. There,the fills in the two surviving ditches of a south-to-north oriented rectangular enclosure have beenfirmly dated to the Middle and Late Bronze Age(Coles et al. 1999, 36–7). The same orientation wasfavoured for a temporary metalworking enclosureat Sigwells. Pottery with globular urn characteristicsand casting mould fragments for a Wilburton typesword (Tabor 2008, colour plate 6) place theenclosure in the 12th or 11th century BC. TheSigwells enclosure may have influenced asucceeding example which continued to developuntil at least the 1st century AD. However, by theLater Iron Age Woolston and Milsoms Corner, andby the later Roman period all three, had returned toorientations similar to those of the earlier BronzeAge, sometimes displaying an awareness of theancient boundaries.

Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age (Fig. 8)

The most surprising but best attested discoveries

were two 6m wide zigzag parallel anomalies (A1)which form part of a system including a gentlycurving ditch (A2), partly obscured by a pipeline.The latter ditch is respected by a much smaller ditchforms the southern boundary of Q2 (Fig. 9). A lowbank is traceable on the north-west and south-eastsides of A1, but in other places it has been ploughed

Fig. 6 The Middle Bronze Age boundaries

Fig. 7 The later Bronze Age boundaries

Fig. 8 Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age boundaries

89


out. The sole targetted test-pit (TP 365340 127632)investigated the south edge of the south A1 ditch.The character of the hillwash sealing the ditch fillssuggest that the upper part of the feature has beenploughed away. The fills suggest that the ditch had filledslowly and included flint, grog and shell-tempered,cordoned Bronze Age pottery and a hammerstone.Given the lack of later finds it is likely that the potterydate reflects the period of the features use.

The gap between the east end of A1 and the westof A2 is probably the entrance to an enclosure,presumably following the contour to take in the ridgewhich extends for another 400m west of Oat Croft.The dating for these substantial ditches suggests thatit may have been enclosed before Cadbury Castle.

The dating of G is much more speculative. Aregular test-pit in Little Eldridge (TP366300 128000)recovered two calcite and shell-tempered sherdswhich are sufficiently diagnostic to indicate activityof the period. They were associated with a subsoilformed directly over the natural and were not in thefill of a cut feature but the test-pit was immediatelyadjacent to one of several continuous and intermittentlinear anomalies running along the bottom of thevalley, reflecting its use as a boundary marker overa long period. To the south-west, close to the bottomof the valley’s north-west side, two of three sherdsfrom a buried soil sealing the L2 ditch in test-pit(TP366200 127900) were flint-tempered.

A rich Iron Age assemblage from a targetted test-pit in Great Cowleaze (TP365893 127860) includedEarly Iron Age jar and bowl types (JB2 and BA2;Woodward 2000, figs 149 and 160).

Middle to Late Iron Age (Fig. 9)

The targetted test-pit in Great Cowleaze (TP365893127860) included a total of 160 sherds with shellmixture inclusions. The range of forms included jars(JC2 and JC3), saucepan pots (PB1) and bowls(BC3.3 and BD6) of the Middle to Late Iron Age,amongst them a fine example of the South Westdecorated style. They derived from a ditch fill,occupation horizons and a dark hillwash immediatelybelow the topsoil, forming over a platform cut intoan early hillwash. Much smaller comparableassemblages came from other test-pits in the field.

The sheer density of high magnetic anomaliesobscures the coherence of the systems they represent.The earthworks were recorded in a plane table survey(Fig. 10) but it did little to clarify the phasing of theplatforms which range in date from the Iron Age tothe 14th century AD. The track, N1, probably

belongs to the Middle Iron Age as it is bisected by aQ4 ditch. The orientation of the Q4 linearscorresponds with systems Q1, Q2 and Q3.

Another field notable for Middle Iron activity wasLittle Eldridge. A regular test-pit (TP366200 127900)produced twelve sherds tempered with shell mixturesfrom a rapidly formed rubbly hillwash (context 003)which almost certainly derived from a quarry at thetop of the valley side. The sherds have only acoincidental relationship with a much earlier ditch.

By analogy with the north-west part of Sigwells(Tabor, forthcoming b), a loose but extensivegrouping of pits (R) on the Card’s Piece and Plainof Slait plateau (Fig. 9) probably started to formduring this period. It is thought that there may be inexcess of 5000 pits at Sigwells and of those so farexcavated the ceramic assemblage parallels thefabrics and forms from Great Cowleaze. A third densegroup of pits was identified at Hicknoll Slait (Tabor2002, fig. 5.22). All three groups share atopographical preference for cutting off a steep-sidedspur from a large plateau. All three spurs overlookCadbury Castle (Fig. 11) but the pit groups atWoolston and Hicknoll Slait are set in slight saddles,obscuring the view.

The rectangular ditched enclosure K (Fig. 12)encroaches slightly on the south-east side of the pitgroup and may first have been dug in the Iron Age.The inception of a sequence of square enclosureslinked to the west of the Sigwells pits was in theMiddle Iron Age.

Late Iron Age to Roman (Fig. 13)

The pit group at Sigwells grew most quickly duringthe later 1st century BC and the first half of the 1st

Fig. 9 Middle to Late Iron Age boundaries andtracks


90

century AD, when there appears to have been anabrupt cessation of activity (Tabor 2008). It seemslikely that pit group R had a similar life span althoughenclosure K certainly survived into, or was re-established in, the Roman period.

The track O in Oat Croft shares the orientation ofsystem F. Although only a slight trend in thegradiometer data, a regular test-pit (TP365400127600) showed at least two sustained phases of usefor what in effect became a ridgeway in and out ofthe settlement. It takes no account of any hilltopenclosure so the earthworks of system A must already

have been in an advanced state of decay, at least inplaces. A linear in F4 appears to be a continuationof O, suggesting a long, straight route. If the trackcontinued in the same direction it would have passed300 to 400m north of Cadbury Castle, suggestingthat during the Late Iron Age or earlier Roman perioda link to the South Cadbury area was more importantthan communication with its nearer modernneighbour, North Cadbury, to which it is now asatellite settlement.

The westernmost targetted test-pit (TP 6584127870) in Great Cowleaze revealed a Late Iron Age

Fig. 10 Great Cowleaze gradiometer and earthworks surveys

91


to Romano-British ditch sequence, the earlier havingbeen filled before being replaced by the later. Theditches appear have bounded one side of a trackwhich serviced the higher ground. A targetted test-pit 30m to its east (TP 65869 27870) offered a longersequence cut by a slightly later track (I4). An Iron

Age ditch was deliberately backfilled andsubsequently recut and backfilled (covering anintentionally deposited Durotrigan bowl) in the 1stcentury AD. This was recut by a Romano-Britishditch with a slightly different orientation (system F4),which forms the base for the dating of the similarlyoriented F1, 2 and 3. It would also appear to takeout of commission the east end of route O.

A large assemblage of 2nd to 4th-century ADpottery from a targetted test-pit (TP365808 127805)in Rye Close provided a firm foundation for datingthe F3 system. The pottery was recovered from twoditches, one of which had been recut, and a sealingblack abandonment horizon into which semi-articulatedgroups of roofing slates had fallen as it formed,presumably through sliding off a decaying roof.

The density of finds from Rye Close is a clear signof habitative settlement which can be traced at least140m further south-east through pottery in a ditchfound in a regular test-pit (TP365900 127700) inQuar Close. There was no dating evidence for aposthole to its west.

Post-Roman (Fig. 14)

There are no finds dated to the first five centuriesfollowing the Roman occupation. However, thegradiometer and earthworks surveys, coupled withtest-pit data, reveal some key horizontal stratigraphicrelationships. It is clear that the initial rectangularscheme of enclosure (K) was altered by an arcingdouble-ditched track (I1 Figs 12 and 14) but that

Fig. 11 Three pit groups in the study area

Fig. 12 Plain of Slait pit group and enclosure.(Note the weaker linear anomalies of M2)

Fig. 13 The Late Iron Age to Roman boundariesand tracks


92

the greater part of the enclosure remained in use andwas almost certainly recut after the track was made.This is demonstrated by the much greater magneticenhancement of the enclosure ditch readings on thenorth-west side. Given K’s Late Iron Age to Romanspan we can infer that the origins of the track areeither later Roman or soon enough after that periodfor the enclosure to be an observable, evenfunctional, feature in the landscape.

There can be no reasonable doubt that I2 and I1converge in I3 to form a droveway leading away fromthe settlement. Between the track I2 and the westfence of Lady Field 2 gradiometry revealed very fainttraces of small linear and polygonal features but theplough damage in this area is so great that there wasno discernible pattern. To the south, in GreatCowleaze, it can be seen that I4 is a directcontinuation of I2. The use of the latter during theRoman period, and the recutting of at least its eastditch in the 13th or 14th century, are a clear sign ofits persisting significance and the continuity ofhabitative settlement in the core area.

In Card’s Piece, system U takes account of thenatural contour, having a slight curve away from anorientation of origin based on linears extending southfrom I1 in Rye Close.

A strong magnetic response occurred in the lee ofa short length of low bank with a slightly differentorientation from systems F and Q (Figs 9 and 13). Atargetted test-pit (TP365940 127846) producedsherds of Late Saxon and Saxo-Norman pottery highin hillwashes sealing a deposit of carbonised grain(Fig. 15), lying over a waterlogged Romano-Britishabandonment horizon. The deposit may be EarlyMedieval.

Medieval (Fig. 16)

The modern road serving Woolston enters it fromthe west through a deep holloway, yet it is quite clearthat it is not an ancient route as it slices acutely acrossall the pre-medieval systems. Even now the layoutof fields north of it owe more to their Bronze Ageancestry than to the ‘new’ route. In the north, theeast components of system T1 owe more to system Iand indeed the track I4 was still in use in the 14thcentury. The Little Eldridge valley continued to forma natural boundary but the ditches in it (T2) were re-oriented to become perpendicular to the new road.

Three targetted test-pits in Great Cowleazeprovided pottery ranging from Late Saxon to the 14thcentury. Most notably TP365869 127870 revealedthat the east boundary of the main I4 track, leadingto the higher ground, was recut by a large medievalditch. The lower part of the ditch appeared to havestabilised after initial silting which included 13th-century pottery. The middle fills included most ofan articulated bovine skeleton. The extremely poorcondition of the bone suggested that the body hadremained exposed in the ditch for a considerableperiod, probably at a time when the settlement hadbeen abandoned. Subsequently, a very rapid fill

Fig. 14 Post-Roman boundaries and tracks

Fig. 15 Charred grain deposits low in the south-facing section of TP365940 127846

93


included over 800 14th-century potsherds, manyglazed and decorated including near complete HamGreen vessels, in turn sealed by slower-forming silts.Two small stoney features may relate to subsequentlate medieval activity. It seems likely that this wasan area of settlement abandoned rapidly following aperiod of intense stress (possibly the Black Death)which had been systematically cleared at some timeafter the original crisis. The presence of a fine fluted,handled, 13th-century mortar fashioned fromPortland Stone implies the proximity of a high statusor religious building.

A test-pit (TP 365893 12780) targetted the top ofthe southern edge of a platform where several lineargeophysical anomalies converged. A richly organicRomano-British abandonment horizon was cut by acesspit of probable medieval date, in turn cut by thetrench for very substantial footings. Despite theirsubstance it seems likely that these foundations aremedieval although their extent is not known as thestructure did not show as a geophysical anomaly.

Trinities, as a scheduled ancient monument, wasknown to contain the surviving part of a medievallandscape. Permission was granted for geophysicaland earthworks surveys, and for the excavation ofthree 1m2 regular test-pits and three 1 x 2m test-pitsto be targetted on the basis of the geophysical results.

The survey shows that system (D) was set out as asingle conception, perpendicular to the modern road,with only slight subsequent modifications to access.It is likely that there were several buildings on theplatforms but only one, which has a substantial areaof enhanced readings within it (C), is clearly

discernible from the results. A targetted test-pit(TP365494 127544) exposed two small ditches onthe north-east edge of C. They appear to have siltedup slowly until deliberately levelled upwards withorganically rich brown soil which included amoderate amount of structural ceramic lumps andseveral large lumps of slag. It is very probable that astructure immediately to the west of the test-pit wasused for metalworking. A targetted test-pitapproximately 15m further north-east establishedthat a ditch defining the east boundary of a trackwas probably of 12th to 13th-century date.

A second structure or small rectangular enclosurewas observed as a faint anomaly immediately belowthe north end of the upper terrace. The fill of aposthole in a targetted test-pit (TP 65582 27458)produced similar pottery as did the northernmostregular test-pit (TP 6560 2750), on the southern edgeof another platform. Most of the sherds were fromabandonment layers sealing a layer including smalllumps of ceramic and charcoal which may haveformed during the initial occupation of the area. Theamount of pottery is much larger than might resultfrom manuring and suggests nearby habitativesettlement.

The earthworks include part of a rectangularfeature in the north-east of the field (Fig. 17) whichbutts onto the modern stream and was surely anearlier millpond. The situation has long been the bestsuited to that purpose and the mill mentioned in theDomesday Book (Thorn and Thorn 1980, 19, 55)must have stood close by.

Anomalies B1 and B2 on the south-east side ofOat Croft clearly relate to system D and havesignatures typical of hollow ways.

SYNTHESIS

The south-facing slopes and light soils of the northpart of Woolston Manor Farm may have attractedEarly Bronze Age farmers who were introducing alarger arable component to their subsistencestrategies, although traces of long, narrow, boundarysystems are more often interpreted as ranch-like,hence for animal husbandry. The thin spread ofpottery over varied topography implies variedsettlement choice and a mixed subsistence pattern,although it should be noted that pottery on the eastside of Lady Field 2 might well derive fromploughed-out barrows.

The small Middle Bronze Age enclosure structurein Lady Field 1 surely contained a fairly substantial

Fig. 16 Medieval boundaries and tracks


94

dwelling in an exposed part of the landscape. As amagnetic anomaly it looks very similar to the earlierexample in Card’s Piece so there may well have beenhabitation on the plateau, perhaps used by peopletending flocks.

The south to north re-orientation of land divisionat Milsoms Corner appears to have been part of aprocess of creating more, purpose specific,enclosures, possibly as the acquisition of favourableland became more difficult. It is worthy of note thatin all three areas where the pattern was adopted itsuccumbed soon enough for succeeding schemes tobe based on those of the Earlier Bronze Age,although the process was a great deal slower, and ofa different character, at Sigwells. By the openingcenturies of the 1st millennium BC the distributionof pottery within the sample localities had shrunk toareas on or close to three key hilltops: CadburyCastle, Poyntington (Tabor 2008, figs 46–50) andthe Oat Croft ridge. There may have been a strugglefor ascendancy between three communities, althoughany conflicts were surely resolved by the later MiddleIron Age when Woolston, in particular, appears tohave become a thriving community able to farmsubstantial tracts of land, much probably underrotational ploughing. This might reasonably beregarded as the developed landscape whichcomplemented the contemporary developed hillfort.It was a landscape designed to grow crops andenclose animals, to collect and redistribute theirmanure, and to reduce the impact of soil movement

As noted at Sigwells and South Cadbury thereseems to be a distinct rupture, even an hiatus, towardsthe middle of the 1st century AD before existingboundaries were re-engraved on a subtly differentorientation. The landscape was structured much asbefore, and the processes of production were surelysimilar. At Woolston there are some traces of asouthward expansion. A far greater change isobserved in the highly speculative post-Romanlandscape. Many enclosures appear not to have beenmaintained, whilst the expansion of tracks andintroduction of a droveway in the north, creating aroute to and from the settlement, may indicate atonce a change in affiliation to other settlements anda proportional increase in the importance of animalhusbandry. However, we should note the physicalevidence of cereal production during the early partof the period in Great Cowleaze. Subsequent deepcharcoal-flecked occupation deposits imply thecontinuation of a busy and successful settlementduring a time which is widely regarded as veryunstable when viewed from the prevailingperspective of urban decay.

By the 12th century craftsmen and their familiesappear to have had an allotted habitation and workspace to the south-east of the core settlement, onterraced slopes overlooking the stream. So far wecan identify the Smiths and the Millers! Within twocenturies the industrial area had been abandoned,probably at the same time as parts of the core inGreat Cowleaze, where an abundance of glazed and

Fig. 17 The gradiometer and earthworks surveys in Trinities

95


decorated pottery illustrates the material andgeographical division between classes. Thesettlement was revived soon afterwards but themanor house was probably resited to the south ofthe modern road, where the 18th-century manorhouse now stands.

The core habitative area on the lower south-facingsides of the basin, within a strip of approximately400m from west to east and 100m from south tonorth, had remained such for over 2000 years by thetime the present farmer sold his house to acommuting solicitor in the 1990s. Indeed, it onlyexpanded westwards beyond an original 250m longstrip after the abandonment of the Great Cowleazeplatforms in the 14th century AD.

CONCLUSIONS

The landscape at Woolston Manor Farm is not onlyrich in the variety of its archaeology but, mostsignificantly, in its coherence. It offers a compellingopportunity to study a core area of habitationfounded in later prehistory, in the lower part of thenatural basin, which has used the same land unit upto the present in varied ways, reflected in changinginternal boundary patterns. Remarkably, we can seethe relationship of that scheme to its predecessor inOat Croft, where the only system Q ditch to deviatefrom a straight line respected the Late Bronze Ageditch, A2. There are also traces of much earliersystems made up of L and M in the north, looselytraceable in redeposited finds from the two east test-pits in Lady Field 2, possibly related to the earlyditch in Great Cowleaze, and extending eastwardsas far as Little Eldridge.

Taken as individual parts the archaeology atWoolston Manor Farm is interesting rather thanexceptional. The excellent quality of the earthworksin Great Cowleaze are unusual due to their earlierthan expected inception and subsequentmodification, on several occasions, up to themedieval period. The range of finds from the smallarea sampled so far suggests there may have beencontinuous habitative settlement from the laterMiddle Iron Age until the 14th century AD. Thewhole offers a truly exceptional opportunity toexplore a succession of economic systems within along-standing territorial unit. In particular it offersan unparalleled opportunity to investigate the ‘gap’between the Late Romano-British period and theLate Saxon. The term continuity has been muchoverused in archaeology but it appears an appropriate

description of the settlement and agriculture atWoolston Manor Farm.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the landowner and his son, Messrs.Royston and James Amor, who not only allowedaccess to their land for the work to be carried outbut also adapted their grazing cycle and backfilledmany of the test-pits, saving a large amount ofvolunteer time.

As for all the South Cadbury Environs Project’sachievements a huge debt is owed to the dedicatedgroup of regular volunteers who come one or moredays each week to do either finds analysis orfieldwork. At Woolston they were given exceptionalsupport from students doing placements as part ofthe University of Bristol MA in LandscapeArchaeology. Christopher Hooper deserves specialthanks for directing the 2007 training excavation inPlain of Slait. I am indebted to Duncan Black, NeilTinkley and Jodie Dubber for carrying out theearthwork surveys, contributing to the latter’sdissertation.

The fieldwork at Woolston was the last to becarried out within the broad scope of the project’soriginal formal design, as set out by the author in1996. Since 2001 funding from first the LeverhulmeTrust and, latterly, the Arts and Humanities ResearchCouncil has made the fulfilment of the plannedprogramme possible and I am very grateful to bothbodies for their support. Throughout that time ClareRandall of the University of Bournemouth hasprovided great moral, practical and academicsupport. Above all I am grateful that she has agreedto take over the leadership of the project as my owninvolvement has now ended.

References

Alcock, L., 1972. ‘By South Cadbury, is thatCamelot...’ Excavations at Cadbury Castle 1966-70, London.

Alcock, L., 1980. ‘The Cadbury Castle sequence inthe first millennium BC’, Bulletin of the Board ofCeltic Studies 28, 656–718.

Alcock, L., 1995. Cadbury Castle, Somerset: TheEarly Medieval archaeology, Cardiff.

Barrett, J.C., Freeman, P. and Woodward, A., 2000.Cadbury Castle Somerset: The later prehistoricand early historic archaeology, English Heritage.


96

Coles, J., Leach, P., Minnitt, S., Tabor, R. andWilson, A., 1999. ‘A Later Bronze Age shield fromSouth Cadbury, Somerset, England’, Antiquity 73:33–48.

Davey J., 2005. The Roman to Medieval Transitionin the Region of South Cadbury Castle, Somerset,BAR 399, Oxford.

Tabor, R. (ed.), 2002. South Cadbury EnvironsProject interim fieldwork report, 1998-2001,Centre for the Historic Environment, Bristol.

Tabor, R., 2004. Regional Perspectives inArchaeology: from sampling to narrative,BAR IntSer 1203, Oxford.

Tabor, R., 2008. Cadbury Castle: The Hillfort andLandscapes, Stroud.

Tabor, R., forthcoming a. ‘The South Cadbury

approach’, in Tabor and Randall forthcoming.Tabor, R., forthcoming b. ‘The geophysical surveys’,

in Tabor and Randall forthcoming.Tabor, R. and Randall, C., forthcoming. The South

Cadbury Environs Project: Neolithic to MedievalLandscapes. Volume 1: Method, themes andsyntheses, Oxford.

Tabor, R. and Johnson, P. 2002. ‘Sigwells, CharltonHorethorne: the identification and interpretationof Bronze Age to Early Medieval landscapes bygeophysical survey’, SANH 144, 1–24.

Thorn, C. and Thorn, F. (eds), 1980. DomesdayBook. 8: Somerset, Chichester.

Woodward, A., 2000. ‘The Late Bronze Age and IronAge ceramic type series’, in Barrett et al. 2000,325–46.