Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:42:14.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three Surrey Hillforts: Excavations at Anstiebury, Holmbury, and Hascombe, 1972–1977

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

F. H. Thompson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Excavation of the three Surrey hillforts of Anstiebury, Holmbury, and Hascombe between 1972 and 1977 showed a general similarity of design and function but some variation in detail. Ranging in area from 6 to 10 acres (2·3–4 ha.), they were all related to the use of the sling; two were multivallate but Hascombe was univallate. Occupation was seemingly slight and Anstiebury was possibly uncompleted. The contribution of scientific method to problems of prospecting and dating is discussed. This and the pottery evidence indicate construction within the period 200–50 B.C., most probably 100–50 B.C., and the three sites may have been abandoned simultaneously. At Hascombe a pit- or hearth-filling produced Class I potin coins and the hypothesis is advanced that the hillforts were dismantled as a result of Caesar's landings of 55 and 54 B.C. but it is emphasized that decisive proof is lacking.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , September 1979 , pp. 245 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Cf. O.S. Map of Southern Britain in the Iron Age, 1962; contrast the distribution in Wessex, on the Severn scarp of the Cotswolds, or in the Welsh Marches with the over-all distribution in southeast England.

2 Sussex Arch. Coll. lxxix (1938), 169–94; lxxx (1939). 193–213.Google Scholar

3 Hawkes, C. F. C., ‘The Caburn Pottery and its Implications’, Sussex Arch. Coll. lxxx (1939), 217–62, and especially 230 ff.Google Scholar

4 Arch. Cant. li (1939), 137–81Google Scholar; Ward Perkins's expanded version, covering south-east England, was published in Archaeologia, xc (1944), 127–76.Google Scholar

5 Conveniently summarized in Curwen, E. C., The Archaeology of Sussex (2nd edn., 1954), pp. 233–5.Google Scholar

6 Archaeologia, xc (1944), 144–5 and fig. 6.Google Scholar

7 Ibid.

8 As confirmed by the writer by preliminary investigation in 1978, following pre-war excavation by Jessup, R. F. and Cook, N. C. (Arch. Cant. xlviii (1936), 151–68).Google Scholar

9 Kenyon, K., ‘A survey of the evidence concerning the chronology and origins of Iron Age A in southern and midland Britain’, Institute of Archaeology 8th Annual Report (1952), 50–8.Google Scholar

10 P.P.S. xxviii (1962), 145–55.Google Scholar

11 ‘The Invasion Hypothesis in British Archaeology’, Antiquity, x (1966), 172–89 and esp. 185 ff.Google Scholar

12 Ibid., 297–8.

13 In ‘The ABC of the British Iron Age’, Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain, S. S. Frere (ed.), p. 12 and fig. 4.

14 Archaeologia, xc (1944), 153.Google Scholar

15 In ‘Observations on the Classification of Hillforts in Southern England’, Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain, S. S. Frere (ed.), pp. 63–4.

16 De Bello Gallico, v. 12.

17 The most succinct statement is still Kendrick, T. D. and Hawkes, C. F. C., Archaeology in England and Wales 1914–1931 (1932), pp. 191 ff.Google Scholar

18 In ‘The Origins of Coinage in Britain: a Reappraisal’, Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain, S. S. Frere (ed.), pp. 97–308, and esp. pp. 125–7.

19 ‘The Aylesford-Swarling Culture: the Problem of the Belgae Reconsidered’, in P.P.S. xxxi (1965), 241–367 and esp. 290.Google Scholar

20 In ‘The Origin and Development of Celtic Gold Coinage in Britain’, Actes du Colloque international d'Archéologie Rouen 3-4-5 juillet 1975 (Centenaire de l'abbé Cochet 1975), Rouen 1978, pp. 313–24Google Scholar, and, geographically rather differently orientated, ‘The London Area in the Late Iron Age: an Interpretation of the Earliest Coins’, Collectanea Londiniensia: Studies Presented to Ralph Merrifield, Bird, J.et al. (eds.) (1978), pp. 53–8.Google Scholar

21 Most accessibly, ‘Coinage and Currency of the Belgic Tribes during the Gallic Wars’, Brit. Numis. J. xli (1972), 1–6, and in detail in L'Histoire monetaire de la Gaule Belgique du IIIe au Ier siècle av. J.C., 1973.Google Scholar

22 The reports are conveniently summarized in Curwen, op. cit. (1954), p. 233 n. 2, to which should be added the following post-war excavation reports: Hastings, F. A., ‘Excavation of an Iron Age Farmstead at Hawk's Hill, Leatherhead’, Surrey Arch. Coll. lxii (1965), 1–43Google Scholar; Boyden, J. R., ‘Excavations at Hammer Wood, Iping, 1957,’ Sussex Arch. Coll. xcvi (1958), 149–63Google Scholar; Cunliffe, B.W., ‘The Pre-Roman Iron Age Hillfort at Torberry, Sussex’, in Iron Age Sites in Central Southern England (C.B.A. Research Report No. 16, 1976), pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

23 ‘Excavations at Holmbury Camp, Surrey’, Surrey Arch. Coll. xxxviii (1930), 156–70.Google Scholar

24 ‘Excavations at Hascombe Camp, Godalming’, ibid. xl (1932), 78–96.

25 The MS. records were found in Lowther's house at Ashtead on his death and have been deposited at Guildford Museum.

26 Archaeologia, xc (1944), 149.Google Scholar

27 Dines, H. G. and Edmunds, F. H., The Geology of the Country around Reigate and Dorking (Geological Survey Memoir, 1933), p. 6.Google Scholar

28 Ibid., p. 47.

29 Ibid., pp. 43, 45.

30 Ibid., p. 70.

31 Dimbleby, G. W., The Development of British Heathlands and their Soils (1962), pp. 44–5.Google Scholar

32 For a general discussion of soil conditions in south-east England see Jessup, R. F., South-East England (1970), pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar

33 Sussex Arch. Coll. xcvi (1958), 154 and fig. 2, Cutting 3; I am indebted to Professor B. W. Cunliffe for bringing this possible parallel to my notice.Google Scholar

34 Kindly undertaken by the Birmingham University Department of Geological Sciences.

35 Radiocarbon, 17, no. 3 (1975), 266.Google Scholar

36 Surrey Arch. Coll. lviii (1961), 21–34 and especially fig. 5.Google Scholar

37 I am indebted to Mrs. Joanna Bird for comments on the pottery.

38 P.P.S. xi (1945), 32–8; Group B pottery of figs. 2 and 3.Google Scholar

39 Surrey Arch. Coll. l (1949), 139–41Google Scholar

40 Arch. Journ. ci (1946, for 1944), 50–67, figs. 2–4.Google Scholar

41 Op. cit. in n. 36, fig. 4.

42 Surrey Arch. Coll. lxii (1965), 1–43.Google Scholar

43 Some can be identified in Guildford Museum: a rim with handle in coarse gritted orange ware (from the main ditch fill on the north), and a virtually complete pot in slightly gritty red-brown ware with smoothed surface (Guildford Mus. S.3730—restored). The latter is well illustrated by J. R. Boyden in his Hammer Wood, Iping report (op. cit. in n. 22, pl. II). Though somewhat crude, it is clearly a foot-ring bowl of Wealden type.

44 Radiocarbon, 17, no. 3 (1975), 266.Google Scholar

45 Surrey Arch. Coll. xl (1932), 78–96.Google Scholar

46 Some in Guildford Museum, and the rest was in the possession of Major J. Godman of Park Hatch, the landowner. I am indebted to Mr. Eric Harrison, F.S.A. for letting me take copies of his drawings of both groups.

47 Op. cit. in n. 45, fig. 1.

48 It is interesting to see that Anstiebury and Holmbury also produced post-holes in somewhat comparable positions (figs. 3 and 10).

49 Op. cit. in n. 45, p. 87 and fig. 4.

50 Kindly confirmed by Dr. John Kent, F.S.A. Two fragments show recognizable right-facing bulls and are possibly of Allen's types F or G (Allen, D. F., ‘British potin coins: a review’ in Jesson, M. and Hill, D. (eds.), The Iron Age and its Hill-forts (1971), 127–48), though Dr. Kent doubts whether there is any chronological validity in Allen's classification.Google Scholar

51 Bulleid, A. and Grey, H. St. G., The Glastonbury Lake-village, ii (1917), pp. 562 ff.; the authors refer to finds from other sites, pp. 564–7.Google Scholar

52 Wheeler, R. E. M., Maiden Castle (Res. Report of Soc. of Antiqs. xii, 1943), p. 49 and pl. XXXII B.Google Scholar

53 Sussex Arch. Coll. lxviii (1927), 20Google Scholar

54 Surrey Arch. Coll. xxii (1909), 199 and pl. facing p. 200.Google Scholar

55 Cf. Wheeler, op. cit. in n. 52, pp. 294 ff.

56 Archaeologia Atlantica, i (1975), 133Google Scholar and fig. 2. See also Wilhelmi, K., ‘Zur Funktion und Verbreitung dreieckiger Tongewichte der Eisenzeit’, Germania, lv (1977), 180–4Google Scholar and Taf. 30, for a discussion of function.

57 The Archaeology of Surrey (1931), ch. V, ‘The Early Iron Age’, and ch. VI, ‘Earthworks’.

58 Ibid., p. 106.

59 Ibid., p. 108.

60 Surrey Arch. Coll. xlix (1946), fig. 8 opp. p. 66.Google Scholar

61 Antiq. J. xxii (1942), 123–38Google Scholar and Arch. J. ci (1946 for 1944), 50–67.Google Scholar

62 Surrey Arch. Coll. lxii (1965), 1–43.Google Scholar

63 Ibid. lxviii (1971), 1–30.

64 Ibid. 13, 21.

65 See n. 32.

66 P.S.A.L. ix (1881–1883), 307–9 and 334.Google Scholar

67 Surrey Arch. Coll. lxv (1968), 1–70.Google Scholar

69 O.S. Map of Southern Britain in the Iron Age (1962), pp. 36–41.

69 Wheeler, op. cit. in n. 52, pp. 48–51—‘Wessex Hill-Fort B’ as a ‘Slingstone Culture’.

70 Cunliffe, B. W., Iron Age Communities in Britain (2nd edn., 1978), pp. 45–7.Google Scholar

71 Ibid., fig. 3:6.

72 Avery, M., ‘British La Tène decorated pottery: an outline’, Etudes Celtiques, xiii (1972), 522–51Google Scholar; and Elsdon, S. M., Stamped Iron Age Pottery (British Archaeological Reports, 10, 1975)Google Scholar

73 Cunliffe, op. cit. in n. 70, p. 363, fig. A: 14, 1.

74 See n. 43.

75 See n. 20.

76 Op. cit. in n. 6, 154.

77 Ibid. 153–4.

78 Op. cit. in n. 62, 39.

79 Op. cit. in n. 6, 142–3.

80 Ibid., pl. XXXI.

81 Ibid., figs. 12 and 13.

82 See n. 15.

83 Surrey Arch. Coll. xli (1933), 79–92.Google Scholar

84 Ibid. lxi (1964), 100.

85 Arch. Cant. lxxxv (1970), 29–33.Google Scholar

86 Ibid. xci (1975), 61–85.

87 Sussex Arch. Coll. cvi (1960), 158–205.Google Scholar

88 Ibid, lxxi (1930), 223–36.

89 Cunliffe, B. W., ‘The Origins of Urbanisation in Britain’ in Cunliffe, B. W. and Rowley, R. T. (eds.), Oppida: the Beginnings of Urbanisation in Barbarian Europe (British Archaeological Reports, Supplementary Series, 11, 1975), pp. 135–61, esp. pp. 153, 155.Google Scholar

90 As argued by Clark, op. cit. in n. 11, 186.

91 BG v. 12; the whole passage (12–14) is regarded as an interpolation at a later date than the Commentaries, either by Caesar or by someone else; in any event it is likely for reasons of hindsight to be reliable.

92 See now Hawkes, Christopher, ‘Britain and Julius Caesar’, Proc. Brit. Acad. lxiii (1977), 144 n. 5 and 143 n. 1.Google Scholar

93 Op. cit. in n. 23, 162–3 and pl. II.

94 Dr. David Peacock kindly drew my attention to the custom in the Algarve whereby a quern was formerly regarded as an obligatory dowry for a bride; cf. Wherpel, C. E., The Algarve Province of Portugal (David and Charles, 1974), p. 126.Google Scholar

95 Cunliffe, B., The Regni (1973), pp. 14, 15.Google Scholar

96 There is room for dispute over the precise line, but surely general agreement on a westerly route between the downs and the coast (see now C. F. C. Hawkes, op. cit. in n. 92, Map 10 on p. 163).

97 BG, v. 22.

98 Cunliffe, op. cit. in n. 95, pp. 16, 17.

99 The phenomenon of undefended hillforts in this area has already been commented on by Cunliffe in ‘Some aspects of hill-forts and their cultural environments’, Jesson, M. and Hill, D. (eds.), The Iron Age and its Hill-forts (1971), pp. 67–8.Google Scholar

100 Tite, M. S., ‘The influence of geology on the magnetic susceptibility of soils on archaeological sites’, Archaeometry, 14 (1972), 229–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

101 Clark, A. J., ‘Archaeological prospecting: a progress report’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 2 (1975), 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

102 id., ‘Geophysical surveying in archaeology’, Antiquity, xlix (1975), 298–9.Google Scholar

103 Otleft, R. L., ‘An assessment of laboratory errors in liquid scintillation methods of 14C dating’, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Radiocarbon Dating (Los Angeles: University of California Press—forthcoming).Google Scholar

104 Ward, G. K. and Wilson, S. R., ‘Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique’, Archaeometry, 20 (1978), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

105 Damon, P. E.et al., ‘Dendrochronologic calibration of the carbon-14 time scale’, in Rafter, T. A. and Grant-Taylor, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Radiocarbon Dating (Wellington: Royal Society of New Zealand, 1972), pp. A 29–43.Google Scholar

106 Ralph, E. K.et al., ‘Radiocarbon dates and reality’, MASCA Newsletter (Philadelphia: University Museum), 9 (1973), 1–20.Google Scholar

107 Clark, R. M., ‘A calibration curve for radiocarbon dates’, Antiquity, xlix (1975), 251–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

108 Clark, A. J., ‘Magnetic dating’ in Freke, D. J. (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex Pottery (Sussex Arch. Coll. cxviii forthcoming).Google Scholar

109 Aitken, M. J. and Weaver, G. H., ‘Magnetic dating: some archaeomagnetic measurements in Britain’, Archaeometry, 5 (1962), 4–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aitken, M. J.et al., ‘Magnetic dating: further archaeomagnetic measurements in Britain’, Archaeometry, 6 (1963), 76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aitken, M. J. and Hawley, H. N., ‘Archaeomagnetic measurements in Britain—IV’, Archaeometry, 10 (1967), 129–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

110 de Brisay, K., ‘The excavation of a Red Hill at Peldon, Essex, with notes on some other sites’, Antiq. J. lviii (1978), 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

111 Turner, G. M. and Thompson, R., ‘Behaviour of the earth's magnetic field as recorded in the sediment of Loch Lomond’, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 42 (1979), 412–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

112 Peacock, D. P. S., ‘The heavy mineral analysis of pottery: a preliminary report’, Archaeometry, 10 (1967), 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar