Version Online · 2020. 10. 26. · BURGESS HILL, WEST SUSSEX by Sean Wallis Thames Valley...

MIDDLE/LATER BRONZE AGE OCCUPATION AT MANOR ROAD,

BURGESS HILL, WEST SUSSEX

by Sean Wallis

Thames Valley Archaeological ServicesOccasional Paper 9

TV

AS

OP

9M

idd

l/

Lt

BA

Oti

tM

Rd

BH

illW

tS

SW

lli

Free O

nline

Vers

ion

MIDDLE/LATER BRONZE AGE OCCUPATION AT MANOR ROAD, BURGESS HILL, WEST SUSSEX

Free O

nline

Vers

ion

Published 2016 by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd.47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading, Berkshire, England RG1 5NR

Copyright © Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd.All rights reserved

ISBN978-1-911228-02-8

Cover Design and Typesetting by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd.

Printed by TVAS Press, Reading

Front cover: View of the site during the initial stages of excavation

Rear cover: Excavation of one of the pits containing loomweights

Free O

nline

Vers

ion

Middle/Later Bronze Age Occupation atManor Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex

By Sean Wallis

Thames Valley Archaeological Services LtdOccasional Paper 9

Free O

nline

Vers

ion

iv

CONTENTS

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ vList of Plates ........................................................................................................................... vList of Tables .......................................................................................................................... vIntroduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

Archaeological background ..................................................................................................... 1

Excavation result ..................................................................................................................... 1

PHASE 1 ....................................................................................................................................................4PHASE 2 ....................................................................................................................................................5

Roundhouse ............................................................................................................................................5Interior pits and postholes .......................................................................................................................6Outlying features .....................................................................................................................................6

Finds ........................................................................................................................................7

THE LATER AGE POTTERY BY FRANCES RAYMOND .........................................................7Form ......................................................................................................................................................7Construction traits and surface treatment .................................................................................................7Fabric and firing .....................................................................................................................................8Deposition ........................................................................................................................................... 10Affinities and chronology ..................................................................................................................... 11

LOOMWEIGHTS AND FIRED CLAY BY FELICITY HOWELL .......................................... 13 STRUCK FLINT AND CHERT BY STEVE FORD .................................................................... 15 BURNT FLINT BY SEAN WALLIS ................................................................................................ 15 HUMAN, ANIMAL AND BURNT BONE BY CERI FALYS ................................................... 16 CHARRED PLANT REMAINS BY ROSALIND MCKENNA ................................................. 16 RADIOCARBON DATING .............................................................................................................. 17Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 18

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 18

References .............................................................................................................................. 19

Appendix 1: Catalogue of excavated features ....................................................................... 21

Free O

nline

Vers

ion

v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of site in West Sussex and Burgess Hill ....................................................................................viFigure 2: Detailed plan of area excavated ...................................................................................................................2Figure 3: Close up of roundhouse. ..............................................................................................................................3Figure 4: Sections. ...........................................................................................................................................................4Figure 5: Pottery. .............................................................................................................................................................8Figure 6: Loomweights. ................................................................................................................................................13

List of Plates

Plate 1: General view of site during initial cleaning ................................................................................................. 3Plate 2: Pit or posthole 109 with loomweights ...........................................................................................................5Plate 3: Pit 110 during excavation .................................................................................................................................6

List of Tables

Table 1: Pottery fabric and ware groups ......................................................................................................................9Table 2: Character of the larger pottery assemblages .............................................................................................11Table 3: Catalogue of loomweights ............................................................................................................................14Table 4: Catalogue of struck flint and chert finds ...................................................................................................15Table 5: Burnt flint catalogue ......................................................................................................................................15Table 6: Inventory of burnt bone ..............................................................................................................................16Table 7: Summary of fragmentation of burnt bone, ..............................................................................................16Table 8: Plant macrofossils ..........................................................................................................................................16Table 9: Charcoal ...........................................................................................................................................................17Table 10: Radiocarbon dates .......................................................................................................................................17

Free O

nline

Vers

ion

Figure 1. Location of site in West Sussex and Burgess Hill

A273

A2300

A273

BURGESS HILL

SITE

B211

2N

OH cables

Eastdale Road

��

Man

or Clos

e

Manor Road

TQ32600 32700

32800

19700

19800

19900

��

Brick field

1

2

4 3

65

7

8

13

12

11

9

10

1442

41

15 18

16

17

19

20

22 21

292823

2425

26

34

33

27

30

31

32

35

38

39 36

37

40

100m0

Chichester Worthing

BRIGHTON

��

Crawley

Horsham

HastingsUckfield

Lewes

HeathHaywards

40m

40m30m

30m

30m

20m

40m 60m

��

��

��

vi

Free O

nline

Vers

ion

MIDDLE/LATER BRONZE AGE OCCUPATION AT MANOR ROAD, BURGESS HILL, WEST SUSSEX

By Sean Walliswith contributions by Ceri Falys, Steve Ford, Felicity Howell, Rosalind McKenna and

Frances RaymondSummary

A small excavation was carried out in advance of a housing development on the outskirts of Burgess Hill, following an earlier evaluation which revealed several Bronze Age features. The excavation uncovered an unenclosed occupation site radiocarbon dated to the middle to late Bronze Age and a possible cremation burial pit. While sites of this period are relatively common on the chalk downlands and coastal plain of Sussex, they are extremely rare on the claylands of the Weald. Two features were notable for the large number of clay loomweights they contained.Introduction

Planning permission (10/01898/FUL) granted by Mid Sussex District Council to redevelop 5ha of land to the northeast of Manor Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex (TQ 3280 1970) (Fig. 1) was subject to a condition relating to archaeology. The site’s archaeological potential was confirmed in June 2011 when several Bronze Age features were recorded during a field evaluation comprising 40 trenches. A number of post-medieval field boundaries were also observed during the evaluation, along with evidence of 19th-century clay extraction (Wallis 2011). Although most of the development area was investigated during the field evaluation, the prehistoric features appeared to be concentrated in just one small part of the site. As a result an area around three evaluation trenches containing prehistoric features was stripped. The excavation took place during October and November 2011. The site was located on a hill, approximately 48m above Ordnance Datum, which generally slopes down with undulations towards the south and southwest. The underlying geology consists of Wealden Clay deposits (BGS 1984).

Archaeological background

The site lies within the Weald on clay geology (Weald Clay), which is a region and geological outcrop not noted as being archaeologically rich. The Weald covers much of Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and is bounded by the North and South Downs. Whilst numerous archaeological sites and features from most periods have been found on these chalk uplands, the Weald has long been regarded as a heavily wooded backwater. However, there is evidence of the river valleys of the Weald being exploited during the Mesolithic period (Gardiner 1990; Holgate 2003), and the area is noteworthy for its iron production from the Iron Age into post-medieval times (Hodgkinson 2008). Burgess

Hill itself developed during the mid-19th century, at the northern end of the parishes of Clayton, Keymer and Ditchling, following the construction of the railway from London to Brighton. The town’s early growth centred on a burgeoning brick and tile industry, and subsequently as a commuter town for people working in London (Harris 2005).

A limited amount of Bronze Age activity was recorded during recent excavations in the area (Butler 1998 and 2009; Priestley-Bell 1994), which suggests a low level spread of settlement onto the Weald during this period (Hamilton 2003). The presence of a number of Bronze Age barrows in the Weald, along with environmental evidence from river valleys, adds to the impression of the region being utilised, with farmsteads established in areas of cleared woodland (Gardiner 1990).

Excavation results

An excavation area measuring approximately 0.13 ha was opened around three evaluation trenches containing prehistoric features (Figs 2 and 3). Topsoil and subsoil were removed by machine under constant archaeological supervision, to reveal the surface of the underlying clay geology and any archaeological features present (Pl. 1). A concentration of gullies, pits and postholes were exposed (Appendix 1). All were hand excavated with discrete features half-sectioned as a minimum. All features which yielded reliable dating evidence appear to date from the later Bronze Age. Most undated features are, by association, likely to be of similar date with no other periods represented. Several of the features intercut suggesting more than one phase of activity. Some features were truncated by a series of modern parallel land drains (not illustrated for clarity). Most features were filled with silty clays, generally yellow brown in colour, although fills could vary in colour and contents.

Free O

nline

Vers

ion

Middle/Later Bronze Age Occupation at Manor Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex Wallis

2

Figure 2: Detailed plan of area excavated

0 25m

50/40

50/50

80/60

80/40

90/50

90/40

50/60

2817

3341

100101102

34

40

3635

107 108

39

37109

103 104

117

44

114113

116

110

19 112 (modern)

106

105

111

3114

1338

32

4243

29

49 1848

30

47

32700TQ32675

19850

19875

N

KIA47042 1631-1511 cal BC

KIA47041 1411-1257 cal BC

49.43m aOD

47.49m

47.55m

48.88m

47.67m

47.82m

Free O

nline

Vers

ion

TVAS Occasional Paper 9

3Plate 1: General view of site during initial cleanning, looking west. Scales 2m and 1m

Figure 3: Close up of roundhouse

0 10m

50

28

17

3341

100101

102

34

40

3635

107 108

39

37

109

44

19

111

3114

13

38

32

42

43

29

4918

48

30

47

TQ32700

19875

N

KIA47042 1631-1511 cal BC

��

��

Struck flint

Loomweight

Pottery sherds

21

4

42

314

7

8

1954

2

6

2

28

13

14

11

19

LW

LW

16

2

2

2

8

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


4

Figure 4: Sections

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� �

� � � ��

��

� � � � ��

� ��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

PHASE 1Two gully segments, which each terminated at a posthole formed a slight arc aligned approximately NE/SW (Figs 2, 3 and 4). The southern segment (1000) was approximately 3m long and relatively straight, with steep sides and a rounded base. The gully was just under 0.4m wide and up to 0.15m deep, with a single silty clay fill that contained over two hundred sherds of late Bronze Age pottery, along with several pieces of struck and burnt flint. A radiocarbon date of 1631–1511 cal. BC (KIA 47042) on wood charcoal suggested a middle Bronze Age date for the gully. The amount of pottery recovered and the deposition of some of the sherds suggested that the pottery was deliberately placed along the sides and base of the gully.

About 2m of the northern gully segment (1001) survived. This was up to 0.7m wide and 0.15m deep. It terminated at posthole 101 in the south and was truncated in the north by a later pit (42/45). The gully was filled with silty clay that contained three pottery sherds, significantly less pottery than found in gully 1000.

Posthole 101 was flat bottomed, 0.44m in diameter and 0.3m deep. Its lower fill (155) contained eleven sherds of Bronze Age pottery while its upper charcoal-flecked fill lacked finds but contained a large flint nodule.

The gully segments and intervening posthole may represent the truncated remains of a roundhouse. The gullies are similar to the phase 2 gully (1002), interpreted

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


5

as the remains of a roundhouse, and were capable of supporting house walls. If this is the case, the earlier house occupied a slightly different position than the later building.

Pit 42/45 was sub-circular in plan with a concave profile. It measured 2.2m by 1.7m up to 0.52m deep. Its primary fill, (96/165) was up to 0.16m thick and lacked finds. The upper fill (95/164) contained a fragment of fired clay and six small sherds of pottery. This fill was truncated gully 1002.

PHASE 2

RoundhousePhase 2 occupation is defined by a roundhouse the footprint of which is represented by a gully (1002), postholes (31, 37, 109 and 111), and an elongated pit (13) (Figs 2, 3 and 4). The array of features suggest that two building traditions, namely post-built and ring-gully forms, were combined in this house. Post-built roundhouses are characteristically Bronze Age. Ring-gully structures are typically Iron Age with few examples thought to pre-date this period such as the late Bronze Age site at Eight Acre Farm, Radley, Oxon (Mudd 1995).

Gully 1002 was up to 0.13m deep and 0.6m wide, with a single fill of silty clay and 15 sherds of late Bronze Age pottery. Its southern end was forked, suggesting its southern terminus was re-cut and perhaps re-positioned. Alternatively it could be the

result of a rat run located beneath the outer wall of the house (Reynolds 1995). Gully 1002 truncated the upper fill of pit 42/45.

Posthole 111 was up to 0.6m across and 0.2m deep and contained silty clay (171). This fill included abundant burnt flint fragments, probable packing stones. Posthole 37 was slightly smaller and contained no archaeological finds. In contrast posthole 109 contained an exceptional artefact assemblage of some 314 sherds of Bronze Age pottery, representative of just three vessels, and eight complete or partial fired clay loomweights (Pl. 2). The posthole measured about 0.35m in diameter, and was 0.17m deep. Its contents suggest deliberate, and perhaps ritual deposition. A similar artefact assemblage was recovered within pit 110, which was recorded about 28m to the southeast (Fig. 2).

Elongated pit 13 occurs within the wall line of the roundhouse and was 1.75m long, 1.1m wide and 0.2m deep. This feature may represent a gully segment rather than a pit. No finds were recovered from its primary fill (65), but its upper fill (64) yielded 19 sherds of pottery, along with several pieces of struck and burnt flint.

A study of Bronze Age houses in southern England showed that southeast facing entrances are common to these buildings (Bruck 1999), accounting for over 50% of the sample group. It is possible therefore that the gap between pit 13/posthole 31 and gully 1002 marks the location of the house entrance.

Plate 2: Pit or posthole 109 with loomweights, looking southeast. Scales 0.3m and 0.1m

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


6

The roundhouse would have had a diameter of approximately 10m, which is larger than the examples found on downland locations such as Black Patch (Drewett 1982) and Mile Oak Farm (Russell 2002).

Interior pits and postholesA miscellany of pits and postholes occurred, most of which lay within the circuit of the roundhouse represented by gully 1002 and associated features. These could all, or in part, pre-date the roundhouse or relate to earlier occupation, such as that represented by gully 1000/1001. The recovery of the loomweights suggest some of these internal features may have supported a loom. Several postholes (14, 15/108, 16, 35 and 36) contained large amounts of charcoal and three others (15/108, 28 and 178) contained flint packing stones. Posthole 15 also contained an adult human finger bone.

Outlying featuresA number of features were recorded to the south, west and east of the roundhouse, namely eight pits (18, 19, 44, 103, 104, 110, 113/114 and 116), and three possible postholes (105, 106 and 117). Posthole 112 is thought to be modern.

Shallow circular pit (18) was 1.05m in diameter, 0.13m deep and located immediately to the east of the roundhouse. The pit yielded a single struck flint flake. Pit 44 was ovoid in plan, 1.5m across and 0.16m deep,

with a single fill (94) which produced 19 sherds of pottery and a few fragments of struck and burnt flint. Pit 103 was oval in plan, 0.65m across, 0.16m deep and contained 12 sherds of pottery.

None of the other features, apart from pit 110, contained artefacts but all were usually charcoal-rich. Although recorded as two separate features, it is possible that 113 and 114 represent a single shallow pit, truncated by a modern field drain.

Pits 110 and 116 were located towards the southern end of the excavation area and furthest from the roundhouse. Both were fully excavated. Pit 110 was oval in shape, and originally measured at least 2m by 1.2m. It was up to 0.36m deep with a stepped profile (Fig. 4 and Pl. 3). It was truncated by a slightly smaller but deeper pit (116), and the entire area had been disturbed by tree roots. Pottery was recovered from two cleaning layers (173 and 174) removed to expose the pits in plan. Feature 115 (172) (not illustrated) was originally thought to be a separate pit, but was subsequently interpreted as a tree root or animal burrow filled with material from either 110 or 116 and lacked datable finds.

Pit 110 was probably originally dug at the same time as a cremation was carried out nearby, as the pit contained possible pyre debris. A fragment of ironstone was intentionally embedded into the base

Plate 3: Pit 110 during excavation, looking north east. Scales 0.5m and 0.1m

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


7

of the pit. This fragment measured 0.19m by 0.1m, and was covered with dozens of weathered fossil shells. The possible remnants of a cremation pyre, including a small amount of burnt bone (very tiny fragments of possible human and non-human animal bone), were then deposited within the pit, along with numerous clay loomweights and 341 sherds of pottery. The deposition of many of the finds, particularly the loomweights, suggested the finds were deliberately placed rather than casually deposited. The charcoal-rich layer which contained these finds (178) was up to 0.16m thick, and also produced finds of burnt and struck flint. At least 17 loomweights were identified, and the presence of numerous fragments of burnt clay within the fill suggests that there may have been more. A radiocarbon date of 1411–1257 cal. BC (KIA 47041) was obtained on wood charcoal from fill 178. A prior date on the same sample returned a date of 1495–1388 cal. BC. Other pottery sherds, struck flint, burnt flint and fired clay fragments were found within the pit’s upper fill (177), but in smaller numbers, and there was no indication of deliberate placement. It seems likely that a cremation took place somewhere nearby, and that a small amount of pyre debris, (including small pieces of burnt bone) was placed in the pit.

Pit 116, which partially truncated pit 110, was sub-circular in plan, about 1.5m in diameter, and up to 0.68m deep. Four separate pit fills were identified (175, 176, 179 and 180), all of which contained sherds of late Bronze Age pottery. Fragments of fired clay were also recovered from some of the fills, along with pieces of burnt and struck flint. Fill 176 contained small fragments of burnt animal bone. Given pit 116 truncated pit 110, it may be that the finds recovered from pit 116 represent material redeposited from the earlier pit. Alternatively, they may represent a separate and unrelated pit-fill event.

Finds

THE LATER BRONZE AGE POTTERY BY FRANCES RAYMOND

The assemblage consists of 1133 sherds (8682g) of transitional to early post-Deverel-Rimbury Plain Ware characteristic of the period between approximately 1150 and 950 cal. BC. The stylistic repertoire is dominated by convex jars and includes a couple of vessels with middle Bronze Age attributes. This contributes to the evidence of the range of types in contemporary use provided by a relatively small number of early single phase Sussex assemblages. The Wealden setting further singles the group out as a significant find in a region where most late Bronze Age ceramics are known from sites on the coastal plain or the South Downs (Seager

Thomas 2008, table 5). The pottery was recorded by context following the guidelines of the Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (PCRG 1997) with full details available in the archive.

FormTen of the identifiable vessels comprising more than half of the assemblage are convex jars (Fig. 5: P1, P2, P5 to P7, P15 and P16). One has a row of partial pre-firing piercings, which have penetrated the outer half of its walls (Fig. 5: P1). This is from the same posthole (109) as a second convex jar with a row of full pre-firing perforations in a similar position. A larger version of the same type with broadly spaced piercings came from pit 110 (Fig. 5: P5), where it was associated with fragments from at least 18 additional vessels (including Fig. 5: P3 to P13) including three other convex jars (Fig. 5: P6 and P7). Two further examples are from an intercutting pit (116) with an additional two from gully 1000 (Fig. 5: P15 and P16), which also produced sherds from an estimated 15 other vessels (including Fig. 5: P14 to P18).

The convex jars from pits 110 and 116 were found alongside sherds with Deverel-Rimbury attributes comprising an applied horizontal cordon and an oval lug or boss (Fig. 5: P3 and P4). Other types from pit 110 include a vessel with a flaring rim and mending holes indicative of an ancient repair (Fig. 5: P8), a straight-sided jar (Fig. 5: P9) and a burnished bipartite bowl (Fig. 5: P13). The association between a fine bowl of the same form (Fig. 5: P14) and convex jars (Fig. 5: P15 and P16) is repeated in the assemblage from gully 1000 (cut 40, fill 93), which also includes a sherd with regularly spaced shallow tooled lines on its interior that may have been created with a comb (Fig. 5: P18). Evidence of form is otherwise confined to rim sherds from tripartite vessels with relatively short upright necks from pit 33 (Fig. 5: P20) and pit 16; and to several simple and splayed jar bases (Fig. 5: P10-P12, P17 and P19).

Construction traits and surface treatmentThere is little clear evidence of construction methods apart from a flint tempered sherd with a coil break. Some of the vessels in similar fabrics are heavily finger moulded, while those from most of the ware groups have walls of uneven thickness. A grog tempered base from pit 110 (fabric FG/1) has common burnt flint (up to 3mm) on its exterior, as does a base with dense patches of adhering fine flint of a contrasting grade to its coarse tempering (fabric F/1; gully 1002). The bases of two other coarse flint tempered vessels from pit 110 have very common sub-circular impressions, suggesting that they had been placed on organic or calcareous material to dry (fabrics F/1 and F/3).

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


8

Ninety-one percent of the sherds with evidence of surviving surface treatment have been crudely finished (639 sherds). Their exteriors have either been partly smoothed with varying degrees of success and/or are vertically finger smeared. Sherds treated in this manner are predominantly made from coarse (403 sherds; including Fig. 5: P1 to P6 and P20) and medium grade wares (213 sherds; including Fig. 5: P9 to P11 and P15 to 19) with those in fine fabrics being in the minority (23 sherds).

The small group with evenly smoothed surfaces (6%, 45 sherds) are mainly in medium grade wares (41

sherds; including P7) with only occasional sherds made from coarse (two sherds) or fine fabrics (two sherds). Burnishing is confined to vessel exteriors (3%, 26 sherds) and is largely on fragments from the two fine ware bowls (23 sherds; Fig. 5: P13 and P14). It was also applied to three coarse flint tempered wall fragments from a single vessel, but there is no evidence of its form.

Fabric and firingNinety-nine percent of the sherds are identifiable to one of 17 fabrics, which belong to six ware groups (all

Figure 5: Pottery: see text for details.

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


9

FabricCalcareous (?limestone)

Calcareous & organic Flint Grog Quartz sand No. of sherds Weight

Coarse Calcareous Ware (Ware Group 1)V/1 M 0.2-5 - R up to 1 - - 8 25g

Coarse Ware with Calcareous and Organic Inclusions (Ware Group 2)V/2 - VC 0.2 to 5 - - - 1 2g

Fine Ware with Calcareous Inclusions and Flint (Ware Group 3)FV/2 S 0.1-2 - S 0.1-2 - - 10 21g

Medium Grade Ware with Calcareous Inclusions and Flint (Ware Group 3)FV/1 M 0.1-3 - S 0.2-4 - - 6 8g

Coarse Ware with Limestone and Flint (Ware Group 3)CF/1 S 0.2-6 - S 0.2-7 - - 11 472g

Fine Flint Tempered Ware (Ware Group 4)F/4 R up to 8 - S-M 0.2-2 - Indet. silt-sized 29 102g

Medium Grade Flint Tempered Wares (Ware Group 4)F/2 - - S-M 0.2-4 - Indet. silt-sized 51 139gF/6 - - VC 0.2-4 - - 21 352gF/7 - - C 0.2-3 - - 37 208gFS/1 - - VC 0.2-4 - M up to 0.125 16 96g

Sub-Total 125 795g Coarse Flint Tempered Ware (Ware Group 4)

F/3 - - C-VC 0.2-5 - - 421 3452g Very Coarse Flint Tempered Wares (Ware Group 4)

F/1 R up to 8 - S-M 0.2-8 - Indet. silt-sized 150 631g

F/5 - - C O 0.2-8 - - 4 93g

Sub-Total 154 724g

Medium Grade Flint and Grog Tempered Wares (Ware Group 5)

FG/2 - - M 0.2-3 M 0.2-2 - 81 690g

FGS/1 - - M 0.2-4 M 0.2-4 A <0.06-0.125 5 242g

Sub-Total 86 932g Medium Grade Grog Tempered Wares (Ware Group 6)

FG/1 - - S up to 7 VC 0.2-4 - 184 1958g

G/1 - - R up to 2 VC 0.2-4 - 33 139g

Sub-Total 217 2097g

Indeterminate Wares

- - - - - - 65 52g TOTAL 1133 8682g

Table 1: Fabric and ware groups - (R: rare, S: sparse, M: moderate, C: common, VC: very common, Indet: indeterminate; numbers are size in mm)

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


10

percentages in this section by weight; Table 1, 1068 sherds, weighing 8630g). The exploitation of different clay deposits are indicated by limestone in some of the fabrics and by the occurrence of silt sized to very fine quartz sand in others. All of the inclusions could have been obtained from the surrounding area or the Downs, some 7km to the south.

Fourteen of the fabrics are soft and only three, comprising one with calcareous inclusions and two with flint tempering are hard (F/6, FS/1 and V/1). The inclusions in the majority are evenly distributed throughout the clay paste, but are markedly clustered in two of the very coarse and one of the medium-grade flint tempered fabrics suggesting that they were poorly mixed (F/1, F/2 and F/5). As is typical of low temperature firing, the interiors and/or the cores of the majority of sherds are unoxidised. The surface colour is highly varied with a preference towards various shades of red, reddish yellow, reddish grey, pink, reddish brown and brown. Approximately one third of the flint tempered wares and a quarter of the group incorporating grog have exteriors which are partly or completely of an unoxidised dark to light grey.

The assemblage is dominated by flint tempered wares (ware group 4, 59%, 729 sherds, weighing 5073g), with grog tempered fabrics or those containing a combination of flint and grog comprising a smaller but significant group (ware groups 5 and 6, 35%, 303 sherds, weighing 3029g.). Wares with calcareous inclusions (probably limestone), sometimes combined with organic material or flint, are in the minority (6%, 36 sherds, weighing 528g).

Much of the flint tempered pottery is in a coarse fabric (F/3), which overlaps in character with two of the medium grade wares (F/6 and FS/1). Together these form part of a continuum, all incorporating high frequencies of burnt flint, which comprise 77% of ware group 4. An additional 6% of the flint tempered sherds are made from fabrics with comparable frequencies of slightly finer or very coarse burnt flint (F/5 and F/7). The fabrics were used for four of the convex jars, the two vessels with Deverel-Rimbury attributes and a single tripartite vessel (Fig. 5: P1 to P6 and P20). Sherds in fabrics with sparse to moderate quantities of added burnt flint of various grades are in the minority (F/1, F/2 and F/4, 17%). The very coarse ware was used for a convex jar and a short-necked tripartite vessel, the fine ware was selected for one of the bowls (Fig. 5: P14) and there is no evidence of the types made from the medium grade ware.

The various fabrics incorporating grog are all of a medium grade (ware groups 5 and 6). Those with similar quantities of flint and grog were used for a

convex jar (Fig. 5: P15) and a vessel with a splayed base, while both convex and straight sided jars were made from the predominantly grog tempered wares (Fig. 5: P7 to P12 and P16 to P19).

The shapes of the voids in the minority vesicular wares (ware groups 1 to 3) are characteristic of limestone or chalk. Limestone is the most probable as it occurs locally within Wealden deposits and is certainly present in one of the fabrics (CF/1). The fine ware was selected for one of the bipartite bowls (FV/2; Fig. 5: P13), but there is otherwise no evidence of vessel style.

DepositionThe ceramics are derived from 19 archaeological features, a tree cast and two general horizons most of which produced single sherds or small and fragmented assemblages in variable condition. All of the pottery from 14 of the features is flint tempered (ware group 4, from features 3, 13, 14, 16, 27, 33 to 35, 38, 42, 44 and 109; gully 1001, 41 and 100; and gully 1002, 47 and 48), while contrasting grog and flint and grog tempered wares are from postholes 101 and 103 (ware groups 5 and 6). These and purely flint tempered wares (ware groups 4 to 6) are combined in three of the larger assemblages from pits 110 and 116 and gully 1000 (39 and 40)

Five of the features and one of the layers each yielded less than 10g of pottery (features 3, 14, 27, 34 and 38; and cleaning layer 173), while an additional nine features incorporated between 20–85g (cuts 13, 16, 33, 35, 42, 44 and 101; gully 1001, cuts 41 and 100; and gully 1002, cuts 47 and 48). Slightly larger assemblages of between 11 and 18 sherds (weighing 115–166g) are from posthole 103, the subsoil (51) and cleaning layer (174).

By contrast, posthole 109, pits 110 and 116, and gully 1000 produced relatively substantial quantities of pottery (Table 2). The character of the assemblages is consistent with secondary deposition possibly from middens. All include fresh sherds alongside others in variable condition and are composed of incomplete vessel fragments. Ten of the sherds from the gully have charred internal residue.

The assemblages incorporate a range of overlapping forms, and in three cases include sherds from upwards of 12 vessels (pits 110 and 116, gully 1000). The fabric signature of the two intercutting pits is similar. Ware group 4 is dominant in both and mostly consists of sherds with common to very common flint, with those tempered with sparse to moderate quantities being in the minority (pit 110: 15%, 75 sherds, weighing 298g; and pit 116: 17%, 17 sherds, weighing 78g). The flint is very coarse in all of the pottery with lesser quantities of tempering from pit 110 (F/1) and is of

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


11

the same or medium grade in the sherds from pit 116 (F/1 and F/2).

The pottery from gully 1000 is made from a similar range of fabrics, but the proportions are different. There are significantly higher frequencies of flint and grog and grog tempered wares and a lower percentage of flinty fabrics. In contrast to the pit assemblages, 64% of the ware group 4 sherds have sparse to moderate flint tempering (57 sherds, 178g). Most are in a very coarse (F/1: 32 sherds, 100g) or fine ware (F/4: 23 sherds, 70g) with only two fragments (6g) in a medium grade fabric.

The composition of the ceramics from posthole 109 is again different. The sherds are derived from only three vessels made from the same coarse ware tempered with common to very common burnt flint (F/3).

It is unclear whether the contrasts are due to chronological change, selective deposition or other factors. The occurrence of the principal ware groups (ware groups 4 to 6) in the same horizons demonstrates that they were in contemporary use. But in the absence

of a stratigraphic relationship between gully 1000 with the large ceramic assemblage and gully 1002, it is uncertain whether the proportional differences represent a temporal shift towards the preferential production of particular wares.

There is only scant evidence of the potential selection of specific vessel parts for deposition and even here the patterns may be fortuitous. There is a notable preponderance of larger base fragments from pit 110, which include one complete example (not illustrated) and between 20 and 37% of five others (including P10 and P12). Sherds comprising approximately 54% of the rim of one of the convex jars are present in the posthole (109). Otherwise only two jars from pit 110 and gully 1000 are represented by as much as between 20 and 25% their rims (Fig. 5: P2, P9 and P16).

Affinities and chronologyAlthough late Bronze Age pottery from the Sussex coastal plain and downs is well represented, there are few comparative Wealden assemblages. The closest

Ware group Forms EVE No. of sherds % Weight %Posthole 1094 Convex jars (P1 and P2) 3 314 100 1804g 100Pit 1101 No evidence 1 4 1.1 15g 0.43 Bipartite bowl (P13); simple jar base 3 27 7.7 501g 134 Embossed vessel (P4); convex jars (P5 & P6);

simple jar bases9 173 49.2 1932g 50.2

5 No evidence 1 4 1.1 222g 5.86 Convex jars (P7); straight-sided jar (P9); repaired

vessel (P8); simple bases (P11 & P12); splayed base (P10)

5 90 25.6 1134g 29.5

Indet. No evidence - 54 15.3 41g 1.1TOTALS 19 352 100 3845g 100Pit 1161 No evidence 1 4 5.1 10g 1.44 Vessel with applied cordon (P3); convex jars 7 48 61.5 446g 60.55 No evidence 2 3 3.9 64g 8.76 ?Convex jar (not illustrated) 2 18 23.1 210g 28.5Indet. No evidence - 5 6.4 7g 0.9TOTALS 12 78 100 737g 100Gully 1000, guts 39 and 404 Bipartite bowl (P14); simple jar bases 11 76 33.8 307g 22.35 Convex jar (P15) 1 58 25.8 457g 33.26 Convex jar (P16); simple base (P17); ?combed

sherd (P18)4 91 40.4 613g 44.5

TOTALS 16 225 100 1377g 100

Table 2: Character of the larger assemblages

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


12

is the smaller ceramic group from America Wood, Ashington, which also includes straight-sided, convex and round shouldered jars (Hamilton 1994, figs 8.12, 8.13, 8.15, 9.16, 9.18 and 9.19). As at Burgess Hill, the various inclusions within the wares point to the potential exploitation of sources of clay and temper from the Weald and the Chalk (Hamilton 1994, 44 and 46). Evidence of the movement of material from the Weald has been noted on a few of the Sussex sites, indicating that occasional contacts had been established between these contrasting topographic zones by the middle Bronze Age (Hamilton 2003, 77). The continued use of resources from the two areas into the late Bronze Age is not surprising at either Ashington or Burgess Hill, which are some 5–7km from the South Downs, well within the defined procurement range for local ceramic production (Arnold 1985, 33). In this respect, the pattern of manufacture is consistent with the earliest of the Sussex late Bronze Age assemblages. Present evidence seems to indicate that the movement of pottery over a greater distance was a later phenomenon, which may have emerged with Developed Plain Ware and became most prominent after approximately 800 cal. BC in the Decorated repertoire of the earliest Iron Age (Seager Thomas 2008, 41).

Although not identical, the dominant Burgess Hill wares tempered with flint or grog (ware groups 4 to 6) overlap in character with those from America Wood (Hamilton 1994, 44, fabrics F1 and G1). These were part of a wider technological tradition typified by the pottery from sites closer to the coast. The coarser and densely flint tempered fabrics (ware group 4) have middle Bronze Age origins and are prominent in the earliest late Bronze Age Plain Ware assemblages from Sussex as exemplified by Knapp Farm (Hamilton 1997, 80, fabrics F1 and F2), and the unpublished groups from Beddingham, Climping, Durrington and Lavant (Seager Thomas 2008, 41). Fabrics of this type continued to be used for Developed Plain Ware, as at Yapton (Hamilton 1987, 57–8, fabric 2) and into the Decorated horizon on sites like North Bersted (Raymond 2012), although by this stage they were in the minority and were accompanied by a broad spectrum of contrasting wares.

Predominantly grog tempered pottery is confined to the two Wealden sites at America Wood (Hamilton 1994, 44, fabric G1) and Burgess Hill (Ware Group 6). Flint and grog tempered ceramics have a wider distribution (ware group 5), being represented in some of the West Sussex coastal plain assemblages, including the Plain Ware from Knapp Farm (Hamilton 1997, 80, fabric F3) and Ford (Hamilton 2004, 25 to 26, fabrics 2, 3b, 4 and 10) and the Developed Plain Ware from Yapton (Hamilton 1987, 56 to 58, fabrics 1 and 4).

However, most are rather different from the Wealden fabrics in that they only incorporate occasional to sparse grog. One of the coarser wares from Yapton (Hamilton 1987, 56, fabric 1) is the sole example with similar proportions of grog tempering to the Burgess Hill fabrics. Such similarities and contrasts support a pattern of local production drawing on a shared knowledge of regional potting traditions.

Other technological attributes are typical of late Bronze Age ceramics from sites across the south. The dense flint and organic or calcareous material on vessel bases, vertical finger-smearing and splayed bases first appeared during the middle Bronze Age (Morris 2004, 67–8; Hamilton 2002, 48, 2004, 36; Every and Mepham 2006, 27) and became far more prominent in the late Bronze Age (Hamilton 2002, 52). Combed finishes (Fig. 8: P18) have similar middle Bronze Age antecedents (Hamilton 1997, 83), were applied occasionally to Plain Ware vessels as at Knapp Farm (Hamilton 1997) and to Decorated Horizon jars, like those from North Bersted (Raymond 2012, P26) and Patcham-Fawcett (Seager Thomas 2008, fig. 10.5). Coil built convex and shouldered jars are common in Plain Ware groups (Seager Thomas 2008, 40), while the forming method was still used occasionally during the currency of Developed Plain Ware, as at Selsey West Beach (Seager Thomas 1998, 15) and is in evidence elsewhere in the Weald at Ashington (Hamilton 1994, 45).

As with the fabrics it is the proportional emphasis on particular forms rather than their presence or absence which is chronologically sensitive. Straight-sided jars occur within Plain and Developed Plain Ware groups from Heathy Brow (Hamilton 1994, 45; Hamilton 1982), Bishopstone (Hamilton 1977, figs 41.8 and 41.11 to 13) and Mile Oak (Hamilton 2002, 50, fig. 2.33.51). Convex jars were produced throughout the late Bronze Age in Sussex occurring, for example, amongst the Plain Ware from Kingston Buci (Curwen and Hawkes 1931, fig. 3), Rustington (Hamilton 1990, 8, fig. 6.4), Knapp Farm (Hamilton 1997, 80–1, fig. 8.2), Ford (Hamilton 2004, figs 12.18 and 13.27), Beddingham and Fore Down (Seager Thomas 2008, fig. 8.7, 8.9 and 11.1); within the Developed Plain Ware groups from Highdown (Wilson 1940, figs. 2.f, 3.p and q) and Yapton (Hamilton 1987, figs 4.2 and 4.5); and alongside Decorated Wares at Chanctonbury (Hamilton 2001, 96–7; fig. 11.25). The pierced examples from the posthole and pit here are unusual (Fig. 5: P1, P2 and P5), although perforated vessels of other types occur occasionally in both middle and late Bronze Age assemblages (Raymond 2012; Every and Mepham 2006, 29 and fig. 16.19). The perforations may have been intended to secure lids or in the case of the partially pierced jar (Fig. 5: P1), could have been decorative.

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


13

Convex jars appear to have been associated with a wide range of other types from a relatively early phase. This is exemplified by the large assemblage from Ford, which is associated with radiocarbon dates of 1120/1100 to 820 cal. BC and has been attributed to the ninth century cal. BC on typological grounds (Hamilton 2004, 38). The restricted range of forms and the emphasis on convex and straight-sided jars within the Burgess Hill repertoire is more typical of the few transitional and early post Deverel-Rimbury ceramic groups from sites within and outside Sussex. Such vessels were the only identifiable forms at Westhampnett (Every and Mepham 2006, 29–30) and are prominent in the Thames Valley assemblages from Reading (Morris 2004, 66–7 and 78–80, types R11, R12 and R16) and Pingewood (Bradley 1985, figs 7–9) and in the earliest phase at Eldon’s Seat in Dorset (Cunliffe and Phillipson 1968, figs 10–13). Convex jars are common in the lowest part of the stratigraphy at Potterne in Wiltshire, where they pre-date the 10th to 11th centuries cal. BC (Gingell and Morris 2000, 166).

The presence of bipartite bowls in two of the Burgess Hill key groups (Fig. 5: P13 and P14) is also consistent with a phase closer to the beginning of the late Bronze Age. The early introduction of the type is indicated by the occasional examples that occur alongside convex and straight-sided jars in at least one of the Thames Valley transitional assemblages (Morris 2004, 66, type R3, figure 4.9.18). Although the form is a rare component of the earliest post Deverel-Rimbury Sussex repertoire (Seager Thomas 2008, 40), there is at least one similar bowl amongst the Plain Ware from Kingston Buci (Curwen and Hawkes 1931, fig. 22).

It has been suggested that the straight-sided jar may have been a transitional form that developed from middle Bronze Age bucket urns (Morris 2004, 67; 78–9). In Sussex small vessels with broadly comparable

profiles were part of the domestic Deverel-Rimbury repertoire (Seager Thomas 2008, 30) and were deposited in funerary contexts, as in the cemetery at Itford Hill (Ellison 1972, fig. 8.6 and 9.9). Embossed convex jars were in common use during the middle Bronze Age particularly to the east of the Adur (Ellison 1978, type 2; Hamilton 2002, 47), as at Black Patch (Ellison 1982, figs 30 and 31) and Itford Hill (Ellison 1972, 110, figs 8.8, 9.14, 9.17, 9.18 and 9.20; Burstow and Holleyman 1957, figs 21.K, 23.B, 23.F, 23.H and 23.J), where there is a late radiocarbon date of 1292–1018 cal. BC (Hamilton 2003, 83). Although the profile persisted into the late Bronze Age, the lugs were no longer added and in this respect the lug from the largest of the pit assemblages is a significant find (Fig. 5: P4). Its association with late Bronze Age vessels in pit 110 is supportive of occupation originating at a time when middle Bronze Age types were still in circulation or were being phased out.

LOOMWEIGHTS AND FIRED CLAY BY FELICITY HOWELLTwenty-five loomweights were retrieved from posthole 109 and pit 110. In addition 283 fragments of fired clay (1.24kg) were recovered during the excavation that probably derive from other loomweights based on similarities in fabric and form.

The loomweights are constructed in an oxidised clayey fabric with occasional sub-angular flint and ironstone inclusions. The exception is loomweight 8, which has a sandier consistency (Table 3). The loomweights can be divided into two distinct forms. The typical, ovoid, late Bronze Age type (type 1) (Drewett 1982), and a larger more cylindrical variety (type 2) (Fig. 6). A large proportion of the loomweights from pit 109 are charred to one side, most likely a result of firing during construction. Charring to the weights in pit 110 is more sporadic and could be the result of

Figure 6: Loomweights

0 500mm

12Free

Onli

ne V

ersion


14

burning within the cremation pyre or relate to use and/or abandonment of the roundhouse.

Eight complete (or reconstructable) examples were discovered in posthole 109. Six fall into the type 1 category, and range from 312 to 427g. The remaining two loomweights follow the type 2 form and range in weight from 908 to 1056g. All eight appear to have been deliberately placed in the posthole within a large pottery vessel, along with the remains of two more vessels.

Pit 110 (178) contained a total of seventeen complete (or reconstructable) specimens. Sixteen of these are type 1, ranging in weight from 242g to 419g. One example of type 2 exists in four fragments

weighing 815g. Once again it appears that these items were intentionally placed within the pit (Pl. 3). A further thirty fragments (552g) were recovered from this context but cannot be reconstructed into any complete example. Four other probable loomweights fragments (77g) were found in the upper fill (177) of the same pit. A later pit (116), that truncated pit 110, produced a total of four fragments of fired clay from its upper two fills (175 and 176). These may be residual finds originating from pit 110. One fragment of fired clay (14g) was recovered from pit 45 however, it cannot be ascertained with any certainty whether this derived from a loomweight.

Cat. no. Cut Fill Weight Type, fabric and colour Charring1 109 168 420g Type 1. Clay with small flint inclusions. Light orange-grey Light to one side2 109 168 305g Type 1. Clay with small flint inclusions. Light orange-grey Light to one side3 109 168 327g Type 1. Clay with small flint inclusions. Light orange-grey Light to one side4 109 168 316g Type 1. Clay with small flint inclusions. Light orange-grey Light to one side5 109 168 355g Type 1. Clay with small-medium flint inclusions. Light orange-grey Light to one side6 109 168 338g Type 1. Clay with small flint and charcoal inclusions. Light orange-grey Light all over7 109 168 907g Type 2. Clay with small flint and charcoal inclusions. Light orange-grey None8 109 168 1055g Type 2. Sandy clay with small flint and Fe stone inclusions. Light

orange-greyLight charring in areas

9 110 178 269g Type 1. Clay with small flint and charcoal inclusions. Light orange-grey Heavy to one side10 110 178 280g Type 1. Clay with small flint and charcoal inclusions. Light orange-grey Light to one end11 110 178 311g Type 1, Clay with small flint and charcoal inclusions, Light orange-grey Moderate to one side12 110 178 266g Type 1. Clay with small flint and Fe stone inclusions. Light orange-grey Moderate to one side13 110 178 234g Type 1. Clay with small flint and Fe stone inclusions. Light orange-grey None14 110 178 262g Type 1. Clay with small flint and charcoal inclusions. Light orange-grey None15 110 178 405g Type 1. Clay with small flint and charcoal inclusions. Light orange-grey Heavy to one side and

end16 110 178 263g Type 1. Clay with small flint, charcoal and Fe stone inclusions. Light

orange-greyHeavy to one side and end

17 110 178 262g Type 1. Clay with small flint and charcoal inclusions. Light orange-grey None18 110 178 268g Type 1. Clay with small flint inclusions. Light orange-grey Light to one side19 110 178 336g Type 1. Clay with small flint and charcoal inclusions. Light orange-grey Moderate to one side20 110 178 302g Type 1. Clay with small flint, charcoal and Fe stone inclusions. Light

orange-greyNone

21 110 178 416g Type 1. Clay with small flint, charcoal and Fe stone inclusions. Light orange-grey

Moderate to one side

22 110 178 228g Type 1. Clay with small flint, charcoal and Fe stone inclusions. Light orange-grey

None

23 110 178 274g Type 1. Clay with small flint and charcoal inclusions. Light orange-grey Light to one end24 110 178 382g Type 1. Clay with small flint and charcoal inclusions. Light orange-grey Moderate to one side25 110 178 807g Type 2. Clay with small-medium flint and charcoal inclusions. Light

orange greyNone

Table 3: Catalogue of loomweights

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


15

Table 4: Catalogue of struck flint and chert finds

Cut Deposit TypeTrench 10 50 (topsoil) Broken flakeTrench 38 51 (subsoil) Broken flakeTrench 42 51 (subsoil) Broken flakeTest pit E 50 (topsoil) Intact flakeTrench 14, cut 13 64 3 intact flakes (one cherty); core fragment; end scraperTrench 41, cut 18 70 Intact flake110 177 (sample 29) Intact flake (burnt)110 177 Intact flake; 3 broken flakes (1 burnt)110 178 2 Intact flakes; 7 broken flakes (1 pounded?, 3 burnt); core116 180 Intact flake116 175 Core44 94 2 spalls51 Intact flake; 2 broken flakes33 86 Broken flake

39 (gully 1000) 92 2 broken flakes (1 burnt)40 (gully 1000) 93 Intact flake; core

STRUCK FLINT AND CHERT BY STEVE FORDA small collection comprising 37 struck lithics were recovered from the evaluation and excavation phases of the site (Table 4). The collection comprised 30 flakes, 2 spalls (pieces less than 20 by 20mm), an end scraper, 3 cores and a core fragment. Most of the pieces are made from uniform black flint with thick unweathered cortex not from a direct chalk source but available locally. The exceptions to this comprise: a flake of coarse green/grey chert and the scraper made from light brown flint with large fine cherty inclusions from pit 13, a flake on brown flint from pit 33, and from pit 110 two flakes, one on uniform grey flint and the other on grey/brown flint. Six flakes are burnt but otherwise the pieces are in good condition as is typical for the clay matrix in which they were found.

The technology is all broad flake using hard hammer technique. Whilst the pieces are made by

a knapper competent in working flint, there is no sophistication in the technique used.

None of the pieces are chronologically distinctive in their own right and for the four unstratified pieces only a broad Neolithic or Bronze Age date can be suggested. The remainder are all from cut features and are entirely in context with the Bronze Age date for these deposits.

BURNT FLINT BY SEAN WALLISAlmost 5kg of burnt flint fragments was retrieved from fourteen separate contexts (Table 5). Posthole 111 (171) produced the largest collection, with 26 fragments, weighing 2.3kg, recovered. These had probably been used as packing stones. The second largest assemblage came from pit 110, which yielded 492g of burnt flint fragments from its lower fill (178) and 810g from its upper fill (177).

Cut Deposit Quantity Weight Cut Deposit Quantity Weight13 65 14 130g 44 94 1 6g15 108 3 19g 107 99 4 431g16 68 1 10g 110 177 12 1105g17 69 1 3g 110 178 22 502g19 71 3 115g 111 171 26 2317g33 86 8 111g 116 175 5 72g34 87 14 165g 116 176 6 61g39 (gully 1000) 92 2 31g 116 179 4 64g40 (gully 1000) 93 7 41g 116 180 1 12g

Table 5: Catalogue of burnt flint

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


16

HUMAN, ANIMAL AND BURNT BONE BY CERI FALYSA human intermediate manal phalanx (finger bone, weighing 1g) of an adult individual (fully fused epiphyses) was recovered from posthole 15 (67). A complete and unburnt radius of an unidentified small mammal was present in context 110 (178).

A very small amount of burnt bone was recovered from three separate contexts within the investigated area. A total of 35g of bone were present for analysis (Table 6). The preservation of the remains was poor, with a high degree of fragmentation in all contexts. The maximum fragment size was 19mm. All pieces were white in colour, indicating the bone was subjected to sufficient time, temperature and oxygen supply to completely oxidise the organic compounds of the bone.

Context 178 contained 31g of burnt bone that was possibly human in origin (Table 7). Confident determination of human versus non-human was hindered by the high degree of fragmentation. The majority of pieces were small (<5mm in size), making identification impossible. The only identifiable elements were small portions of the distal surface of phalanges, which exhibit similar morphologies to other animals and can be difficult to distinguish. Two contexts (176 and 177) were found to contain non-human remains. The small fragment size inhibited species identification.

No further information could be derived from these poorly preserved burnt remains.

CHARRED PLANT REMAINS BY ROSALIND MCKENNASoil samples from sealed contexts were recovered for plant macrofossil analysis. Details of the methodologies and identification keys employed are available in the site archive. Flots were sieved into convenient fractions for sorting and identification of charcoal fragments with identifiable material only present within the 4 and 2mm fractions. A random selection of ideally 100 fragments of charcoal of varying sizes was made, which were then identified. Where samples did not contain 100 identifiable fragments, all fragments were studied and recorded.

Twenty-six samples were processed with plant macrofossils present in thirteen samples and charred plant macrofossils in four (Table 8). The preservation of the charred remains was poor. One seed was identified as an indeterminate cereal grain based on its overall size and morphological characteristics, as were several fragments of hazelnut shell. Several unidentified nut seeds were also present. Plant macrofossils, likely modern contaminants, occurred in nine samples, perhaps indicating disturbance of the archaeological features. Nothing of interpretative value can be gained from the plant remains.

Cut Deposit No. frags Weight Max. frag. size Colour Comments110 177 5 3g - - Unidentifiable110 178 - 31g 21mm white Human (possible)116 176 8 1g 11mm white Unidentifiable

Table 6: Inventory of burnt bone

Cut Deposit Sample 10mm 5mm <5mm Total weight110 178 24 7g 22.6% 10g 32.2% 14g 45.2% 31g

Table 7: Summary of fragmentation of burnt bone, possibly human, fill 178, pit 110

Sample 17 19 22 24Feature 39 37 115 110Context 92 162 172 178Feature type Gully Posthole Pit PitIdentified plant macrofossilsHazel (Corylus avellana) nut shell - - - 8Dock (Rumex spp.) 1 - - -Indeterminate cereal 1 - - -Indeterminate nuts - 8 1 -

Table 8: Plant macrofossils. Taxonomy and nomenclature after Stace (1997)

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


17

Sample 5 6 7 9 14 15 16Feature 13 14 15 17 31 32 35Context 64 66 67 69 84 85 88Feature type Pit Posthole Posthole Pit Posthole Posthole PostholeNo. of frags 1 30+ 1 100+ 5 8 18Max. size (mm) 16 5 6 26 8 17 19

Wood species identified No. No. No. No. No. No. No.Hazel (Corylus avellana) - - - - - - -Willow/poplar (Salix/Populus) - 2 - - - - -Oak (Quercus sp.) 1 9 1 32 3 5 6Indeterminate - 19 - 68 2 3 12

Sample 17 19 21 24Feature 39 37 109 110Context 92 162 168 178Feature type Gully 1000 Posthole Posthole PitNo. of frags. 20 200+ 50+ 200+Max. size (mm) 26 22 21

Wood species identified No. No. No. No.Hazel (Corylus avellana) - 3 - 1Willow/poplar (Salix/Populus) - 8 - 1Oak (Quercus sp.) 3 89 14 23Indeterminate 17 - 36 75

Table 9: Charcoal. Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Schweingruber (1978)

Charcoal fragments were present in all 26 samples, but preservation was poor. Identifiable remains were present in small numbers in 11 samples (Table 9). Oak was the most numerous of the identified charcoal fragments, with a small amount of willow/poplar and a lesser amount of hazel. Oak is a particularly useful fire fuel while willow/poplar make ideal kindling; hazel is also a good fuel wood. It is possible that these species were the preferred fuel woods obtained from a local environment containing a broader choice of species. Bark was present on some of the charcoal fragments suggesting that the material was firewood rather than structural timber that burnt down. The compositions

of the samples are all very similar, and the types of deposits they originate from are all either pit, posthole, or gully features. It is probable therefore that these small assemblages of charcoal remains reflect the build-up of domestic waste.

RADIOCARBON DATINGTwo radiocarbon determinations were obtained from University of Kiel (Table 10). The results were calibrated using Intcal 09.14c (Reimer et al. 2009) and are presented at 2-sigma (95.4% confidence). One date was repeated by the lab.

Lab. code Material and context Years BP �� KIA 47041 (Wood charcoal, pit 110 (178) 3151±27 1495–1388 cal. BC (95.4%))

Wood charcoal, pit 110 (178) 3052±32 1411–1257 cal. BC (92.5%)1234–1217 cal. BC (2.9%)

KIA 47042 Wood charcoal, gully 1000(fill 92, slot 39) 3299±23 1631–1511 cal. BC (95.4%)

Table 10: Radiocarbon dates

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


18

Discussion

The discovery of a middle and middle–late Bronze Age settlement and an associated possible burial deposit at Burgess Hill is significant due to its location on the Weald, and adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests that this region was more widely utilised in prehistoric times than previously thought. Earlier studies had largely focussed on the chalk uplands to the north and south of the area, which are known to be archaeologically rich for most periods. It subsequently became apparent that there was similar occupation taking place on the Sussex Coastal Plain (Hamilton 2003). However, it is only in the last twenty years or so that any such evidence has been identified on the Weald. Whilst a certain number of recent excavations, such as those at Gatwick Airport (Wells 2005) and Ashington (Priestley-Bell 1994), have begun to sketch a picture of the Weald during the late Bronze Age, radiocarbon dates, environmental data, and extensive work on the region’s 1st and 2nd millennium BC pottery have helped to fill in some of the detail towards the end of the Bronze Age.

Bronze Age activity has been recorded to the south-west of Burgess Hill, with two burnt mounds excavated at Hammonds Hill Farm (Butler 2009), and several features possibly dating from this period investigated at Maltings Farm (Butler 1998). Dating is however based on a limited amount of pottery recovered during each excavation. Fieldwork at America Wood, Ashington, about 20km west of the present site, uncovered a late Bronze Age occupation site including a series of postholes that may represent an oval enclosure (Priestley-Bell 1994). Further evidence of late Bronze Age settlement was found on the northern edge of the Weald at Gatwick Airport, approximately 22km north of the present site. A curvilinear gully and several pits and postholes were recorded within an enclosure gully, along with a large boundary ditch. However, it is possible that this farmstead, situated on the floor of the Mole valley is not directly comparable to true Weald sites such as here at Burgess Hill (Wells 2005).

The remains at Manor Road essentially consist of a middle–late Bronze Age roundhouse, built over earlier occupation radiocarbon dated to the middle Bronze Age. The Manor Road roundhouse is not directly radiocarbon dated but it is assumed, based on the similarity of the pottery assemblages retrieved at each location, that the it is broadly contemporary with pit 110 to the south which produced a date towards the end of the middle Bronze Age. This radiocarbon chronology is slightly earlier than the conventional dating suggested by the pottery. The coincidence of the siting of the roundhouse and earlier deposits suggests continuity of site usage across these two periods.

Regrettably the poorly preserved faunal assemblage reveals nothing about the animal husbandry component of the settlement but sheep rearing and wool production might be inferred from the large number of loomweights recovered. This may also have been the case at a middle Bronze Age settlement at Black Patch, Sussex (Drewett 1982) where one hut contained a large number of in-situ loomweights on the floor of the building and another from a posthole close to the hut entrance.

Sieving to recover charred plant remains, with the exception of wood charcoal, was largely unproductive. A single unidentified cereal grain was recovered along with some hazel nut shells and other nut fragments. This is clearly not enough data to examine plant husbandry on the site, but at the least the charred remains suggest cereal production and/or consumption, and perhaps the collection and consumption of wild food resources. The absence of significant quantities of charred grains and/or other seeds suggests the excavated pits were not used for food storage or disposal.

Pit 110 appeared to contain a ritual or ceremonial deposit with the remains of a possible cremation pyre, grave goods of pottery and loomweights and a possible symbolic deposit of embedded ironstone. Cremation was a normal burial rite in the middle Bronze Age, but the presence of loomweights within a possible burial pit is unusual. Although some loomweights were partly charred, this relates to their original firing and it is unlikely the objects were included in the original pyre and were deposited independently of such debris. The combination of deposits within the pit, and the deliberate placement of the ceramic assemblage, suggests this pit represents more than a simple waste pit. Rather it appears to have contained a token burial accompanied by unusual grave goods.

Acknowlegements

The project was commissioned by Mr Dominic Jarman and funded by J S Bloor Homes Ltd. The fieldwork was managed and supervised by the author, to a specification approved by Mr John Mills, Senior Archaeologist with West Sussex County Council, and was monitored by him. The archive, including finds, is currently held by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd (TVAS) and will be deposited with Burgess Hill Museum in due course. The site code is MRBH 10/93. The fieldwork team included Kyle Beaverstock, Daniel Bray, Aiji Castle, Tim Dawson, James Earley, Matt Gittins, Felicity Howell and Susan Porter. Steve Preston and Nóra Bermingham prepared the text for publication and Roy Entwistle drew the pottery. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available at http://www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


19

References

Arnold, D E, 1985, Ceramic theory and cultural practice, Cambridge

Biejerinck, W, 1976, Zadenatlas der Nederlandsche Flora: Ten Behoeve van de Botanie, Palaeontology, Bodemcultuur en Warenkennis, Amsterdam

Bradley, R, 1985, ‘ Prehistoric pottery, ’ in J Johnston, Excavations at Pingewood, Berkshire Archaeological J 72 (for 1983–5), 26–31

Brück, J, 1999, ‘Houses, lifecycles and deposition on Middle Bronze Age settlements in Southern England’, Proc Prehist Soc 65, 1–22

Burstow, G P, and Holleyman, G, A, 1957, ‘Late Bronze Age settlement on Itford Hill, Sussex’, Proc Prehist Soc 23, 167–212

Butler, C, 1998, ‘Early Bronze Age and later activity at Maltings Farm, Burgess Hill, West Sussex,’ Sussex Archaeol Collect 136, 193–7

Butler, C, 2009, ‘Prehistoric burnt flint mounds and later activity at Hammonds Mill Farm, Burgess Hill, West Sussex’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 147, 7–18

Cunliffe, B and Phillipson, D, 1968, ‘Excavations at Eldon’s Seat, Encombe, Dorset’, Proc Prehist Soc 34, 191–237

Curwen, E and Hawkes C, 1931, ‘Prehistoric remains from Kingston Buci’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 72, 185–217

Drewett, P, 1982, ‘Later Bronze Age downland economy and excavations at Black Patch, East Sussex’, Proc Prehist Soc 48, 321–400

Ellison, A, 1972, ‘The Bronze Age pottery’, in W Holden, ‘A Bronze Age cemetery-barrow on Itford Hill, Beddingham, Sussex’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 110, 104–13

Ellison, A, 1978, ‘The Bronze Age of Sussex’, in P L Drewett (ed), Archaeology in Sussex to AD1500, CBA Res Rep 29, London, 30–7

Ellison, A, 1982, ‘Middle Bronze Age pottery’, in P L Drewett, ‘Late Bronze Age downland economy and excavations at Black Patch, East Sussex’, Proc Prehist Soc 48, 361–8

Every, R and Mepham, L, 2006, ‘Pottery’, in A M Chadwick, ‘Bronze Age burials and settlement and an Anglo-Saxon settlement at Claypit Lane, Westhampnett, West Sussex’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 144, 24–31

Gardiner, M, 1990, ‘The Archaeology of the Weald – A survey and a review’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 128, 33–54

Gingell, C J and Morris, E, 2000, ‘Form series’, in A J Lawson, Potterne 1982-5: Animal Husbandry in Later Prehistoric Wiltshire, Wessex Archaeol Rep 17, 149–66

Hamilton, S, 1977, ‘The Iron Age pottery, in M Bell,

Excavations at Bishopstone’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 115, 83–118

Hamilton, S, 1982, ‘The Iron Age pottery’, in P Drewett, The Archaeology of Bullock Down, Eastbourne, East Sussex: The development of a landscape, Sussex Archaeol Soc Monogr 1, 81-8

Hamilton, S, 1987, ‘Late Bronze Age pottery’, in D Rudling, ‘The Excavation of a Late Bronze Age site at Yapton, West Sussex, 1984’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 125, 53–63

Hamilton, S, 1990, ‘Bronze Age pottery’, in D R Rudling, ‘Archaeological finds at Rustington, West Sussex, 1986-88’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 128, 8–10

Hamilton, S, 1994, ‘Bronze Age pottery, in G Priestley-Bell, Archaeological excavations at America Wood, Ashington, West Sussex’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 132, 42–6

Hamilton, S, 1997, ‘East Sussex later Bronze Age pottery traditions: the assemblage from Varley Halls’, in I Greig, ‘Excavation of a Bronze Age settlement at Varley Halls, Coldean Lane, Brighton, East Sussex’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 135, 31–42

Hamilton, S, 2001, ‘A review of the early 1st-millennium BC pottery from Chanctonbury Ring: a contribution to the study of Sussex hillforts of the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age transition’, in D Rudling, ‘Chanctonbury Ring revisited: the excavations of 1988-91’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 139, 89–100

Hamilton, S, 2002, ‘The Mile Oak pottery assemblage: its stratigraphic context, forms, fabrics, chronology and regional significance’, in D Rudling (ed), Downland Settlement and Land-Use: The Archaeology of the Brighton Bypass, 36–53

Hamilton, S, 2003, ‘Sussex not Wessex: A regional perspective on southern Britain c. 1200–200 BC’, in D Rudling (ed), The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000, King’s Lynn, 69–88

Hamilton, S, 2004, ‘Early first millennium pottery of the West Sussex Coastal Plain’, in C Place, Excavations at Ford Airfield, Yapton, West Sussex, 1999, King’s Lynn, 18–38

Harris, R, 2005, ‘Burgess Hill Historic Character Assessment Report’, Sussex Extensive Urban Survey

Hather, J G, 2000, The Identification of Northern European Woods; a guide for archaeologists and conservators, London

Hodgkinson, J, 2008, The Wealden Iron Industry, StroudHolgate, R, 2003, ‘Late glacial and post-glacial hunter-

gatherers in Sussex’, in D Rudling (ed), The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000, King’s Lynn, 29–38

Jacomet, S, 2006, Identification of Cereal Remains from Archaeological Sites, Basel

Jones, G, nd, ‘Teaching Notes for Archaeobotany’, unpubl

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


20

Morris, E, 2004, ‘Later Prehistoric Pottery’, in A Brossler, R Early and C Allen, Green Park (Reading Business Park) Phase 2 Excavations 1995: Neolithic and Bronze Age Sites, Oxford Archaeology Thames Valley Landscapes Monogr 19, Oxford, 58–91

Mudd, A, 1995, ‘The excavation of a late Bronze Age/early Iron Age site at Eight Acre Field, Radley’, Oxoniensia, 55, 21–66

PCRG, 1997, The Study of later Prehistoric Pottery: General Policies and Guidelines for Analysis and Publication (rev edn), Prehist Ceram Res Grp, Occas Paps 1 and 2, revised, Oxford

Priestley-Bell, G, 1994, ‘Archaeological excavations at America Wood, Ashington, West Sussex’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 132, 33–51

Raymond, F, 2012, ‘Earlier prehistoric pottery’, in A Taylor, ‘An Early Neolithic pit, Bronze Age occupation, Iron Age occupation and fields and Roman landscape features at Cippenham, Slough, Berkshire’, in S Preston (ed), Settlement and Landscape archaeology in the Middle Thames Valley: Slough and Environs, TVAS Monogr 14, Reading, 27–31

Reimer, P J, Baillie, M G L, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, J W, Blackwell, P G, Bronk Ramsey, C, Buck, C E, Burr, G S, Edwards, R L, Friedrich, M, Grootes, P M, Guilderson, T P, Hajdas, I, Heaton, T J, Hogg, A G, Hughen, K A, Kaiser, K F, Kromer, B, McCormac, F G, Manning, S W, Reimer, R W, Richards, D A, Southon, J R, Talamo, S, Turney, C S M, van der Plicht, J and Weyhenmeyer, C E, 2009, ‘IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP’, Radiocarbon, 51(4), 1111–50

Reynolds, P J, 1995, ‘Rural life and farming’, in M J Green (ed), The Celtic World, London, 176–212

Russell, M, 2000, ‘Excavations at Mile Oak Farm’, in D Rudling (ed), Downland Settlement and Landuse: the archaeology of the Brighton bypass, London, 5–81

Schweingruber, F H, 1978, Microscopic Wood Anatomy, Birmensdorf

Seager Thomas, M, 2008, ‘From potsherds to people: Sussex prehistoric pottery, collared urns to post Deverel-Rimbury’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 146, 19–51

Stace, C, 1997, New Flora of the British Isles, CambridgeWells, N A, 2005, ‘Excavation of a Late Bronze Age

enclosure site at Gatwick Airport, 2001’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 143, 47–69

Wallis, S, 2011, ‘Land off Manor Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex; an archaeological evaluation’, Thames Valley Archaeological Services unpubl rep 10/93b, Reading

Wilson, A E, 1940, ‘Report on the excavations on Highdown Hill, Sussex, 1939’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 81, 173–204

Zohary, D and Hopf, M, 2000, Domestication of Plants in the Old World, Oxford

http://www.plantatlas.eu/za.php (An online digital plant atlas)

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


21

Cut Fill(s) Group no. Type Date Dating evidence13 64, 65 Pit Late Bronze Age Pottery, flint and burnt flint14 66 Posthole Late Bronze Age Pottery

15/108 67/150 Posthole Late Bronze Age Flint and burnt flint16 68 Pit Late Bronze Age Pottery17 69 Posthole Late Bronze Age Burnt flint18 70 Pit Late Bronze Age Flint19 71 Pit Late Bronze Age Burnt flint

26/38 77/91 Posthole Late Bronze Age Pottery27/39 78/92 1000 Gully Late Bronze Age Pottery, flint and burnt flint

29 82 1002 Gully Late Bronze Age30 83 1002 Gully Late Bronze Age31 84 Posthole Undated32 85 Posthole Undated33 86 Pit Late Bronze Age Pottery, flint and burnt flint34 87 Pit Late Bronze Age Pottery and burnt flint35 88 Posthole Late Bronze Age Pottery36 89 Posthole Undated40 93 1000 Gully Late Bronze Age Pottery, flint and burnt flint41 163 1001 Gully Late Bronze Age Pottery

42/45 95, 96, 164, 165 Pit Late Bronze Age Pottery43 166 1002 Gully Late Bronze Age44 94 Pit Late Bronze Age Pottery, flint and burnt flint46 97 1002 Gully Late Bronze Age47 98 1002 Gully Late Bronze Age Pottery48 151 1002 Gully Late Bronze Age Pottery49 152 1002 Gully Late Bronze Age100 153 1001 Gully Late Bronze Age Pottery101 154, 155 Posthole Late Bronze Age Pottery102 156 1000 Gully Late Bronze Age103 157 Pit Late Bronze Age Pottery104 158 Pit Undated105 159 Posthole Undated106 160, 161 Posthole Undated107 99 Posthole Late Bronze Age Pottery and burnt flint109 168 Posthole/Pit Late Bronze Age Pottery and loomweights110 177, 178 Pit Late Bronze Age Pottery, loomweights and flint111 171 Posthole Late Bronze Age Burnt flint112 167 Posthole Undated113 169 Pit Undated114 170 Pit Undated115 172 Tree/Burrow116 175, 176, 179,

180Pit Late Bronze Age Pottery, flint and burnt flint

117 181 Posthole Undated

APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Catalogue of excavated features

Free O

nline

Vers

ion


22

Free O

nline

Vers

ion

ISBN978-1-911228-02-8

MIDDLE/LATER BRONZE AGE OCCUPATION AT MANOR ROAD, BURGESS HILL, WEST

SUSSEX

by Sean Wallis

A small excavation was carried out in advance of a housing development on the outskirts of Burgess Hill. This followed an earlier evaluation, which revealed several Bronze Age features. The excavation uncovered an unenclosed occupation site of middle to late Bronze Age date centred on a roundhouse seemingly constructed of a combination of both postholes and an annular gully. Some time depth to the use of the site was reflected by two radiocarbon dates of 1631-1511 cal BC and 1411-1257 cal BC. A few hazel nut shell fragments and a solitary cereal grain recovered from sieved samples provide a very brief glimpse of the subsistence economy showing that both wild and cultivated plants were exploited. Two features were notable for the large number of clay loomweights they contained, from which wool production and therefore sheep-rearing can be inferred. One of these pits also contained a probably ritual deliberate deposit including cremated bone.

While sites of this period are relatively common on the chalk downlands and coastal plain of Sussex, they are extremely rare on the claylands of the Weald.

TV

AS O

P9

Mid

dle/

Later B

ronze A

ge Occu

pation

at Man

or Road

, Bu

rgess Hill, W

est Sussex

Sean Wallis

Free O

nline

Vers

ion

Version Online · 2020. 10. 26. · BURGESS HILL, WEST SUSSEX by Sean Wallis Thames Valley...

Documents

Transcript of Version Online · 2020. 10. 26. · BURGESS HILL, WEST SUSSEX by Sean Wallis Thames Valley...