Archaeology and topography Edward BiddulphAn examination of the distribution of archaeologicalfeatures at Kingshill North suggests that to a greatextent the topography of the site determined thelocation of features. Overall, features were locatedacross the gentler-sloping central part of the site,with the flatter and higher area to the north and thesteeper and lower ground to the south remaininglargely unoccupied throughout the prehistoric andRoman periods (see Fig. 5). The Grooved Ware pits(Phase 1) extended in a band that occupied therelatively gentle slope and broadly followed thecontours of the slope. The pits appeared to becontemporaneous in terms of their radiocarbondating, but were not necessarily dug at the sametime. If people were returning the site on a regularbasis, possibly to take part in a midwinter gatheringor ceremony (see Roe, Chapter 3 above, and Mullinbelow), then some years, potentially up to 60 years,may have separated the first and last pits. The firstNeolithic people would have carefully consideredthe topography, but subsequent visitors needed onlyto copy their predecessors, as the work of estab-lishing the best location for the pits had already beendone. Eventually tradition, rather than topographyalone, dictated where new pits were dug.

As Mullin argues below, the location of theBeaker burials (Phase 2) may have been influencedby the presence of the Neolithic pits, and generallythere seems to be a good case for the co-occurrenceof Grooved Ware pits and round barrows in theUpper Thames Valley. At Kingshill North, the co-occurrence reinforced the apparent correlationbetween features and the topography, although it isnotable that round barrow 8454 overlooked thesteeper slope to the south, undoubtedly giving themonument prominence. Beaker burial 1402 waspositioned further north on the gentler slope, butmiddle Bronze Age grave, like the round barrow,was on the break of slope and had the steeper partof the hillside below it.

The distribution of pits assigned to the middleIron Age (Phase 3) is similar to that of the GroovedWare pits in that the pits occupied the southern partof the site, but a number of the features were duginto the steeper ground a few metres to the south ofthe earlier prehistoric pits. Habit and tradition mayhave brought the Iron Age inhabitants to the samearea time after time to dig their pits, although pitswere also situated on the gentler slope to the north.The late Iron Age and Roman settlement (Phase 4)was concentrated in the centre of the excavated areaand occupied the gentle slope. The Iron Age and

Roman farmers were presumably attracted by thebenefits of a south-facing slope brought byincreased sunlight, although the settlement’sproximity to the round barrow, if still a visiblemonument by the late 1st-century BC, may haveprovided a further inducement to settle there.

Neolithic to Bronze Age (Fig. 43) David Mullin

The Late NeolithicSeventeen pits were assigned a late Neolithic date:11 contained Grooved Ware of the Woodlands sub-style and worked flint, a further three containedNeolithic worked flint. All the pits containing eitherGrooved Ware or worked flint also containedanimal bone and ten of these contained charredplant remains or charcoal (see Table 1). A furtherthree pits had similar morphology and occurred inclose proximity to definite late Neolithic pits andwere therefore grouped with them.

The pits occupy a roughly linear zone across thecentre of the site, and they appear to be broadlycontemporary. The radiocarbon dates overlap andall fall within a relatively short period spanning2900 to 2550 cal BC. This is well within the range forGrooved Ware in Britain and contemporary withthe main period of Clacton and Durrington Wallssub-styles (Garwood 1999). The dates conform wellwith those from the Upper Thames Valley, whichappear to relate to a coherent tradition of materialdeposition (Garwood 1999), but are early within thesequence for the Woodlands sub-style. It is a possi-bility that the Woodlands and the Clacton sub-stylesof pottery are actually part of one tradition.Garwood (1999) suggests a degree of chronologicalpatterning, with Clacton tending to be earlier indate than the Woodlands sub-style. The dates fromKingshill North do not support this, however, and itshould be noted that the chronology for the Clactonand Woodlands sub-styles proposed by Garwood isbased only on a total sample of eight dates from sixsites.

The ‘lattice lozenge’ motif on the Grooved Warefrom Kingshill North is exceptionally rare; indeedCleal (1999) goes as far as to suggest that the knownexamples may be the work of a single potter. Thematerial has been recovered from sites in the UpperThames Valley, at Barrow Hills, Radley; Rough-ground Farm, Lechlade and Tolleys Pit, Cassington,and the material from Kingshill North adds to thislimited distribution, extending it out of the ThamesValley and onto the Cotswolds, where GroovedWare is infrequently found. The ‘mesh’ design is

Chapter 7: Discussion

97

Cirencester before Corinium

98

Fig. 43 Phases 1 and 2 – locations of sites mentioned in discussion

also found on other items of material culture, suchas late Neolithic ‘Maesmore’ style maceheads, butalso occurs on Grooved Ware of the Clacton sub-style (Cleal 1999, 4), further strengthening the linksbetween the two styles. This distinctive design hasvariously been described as referring to fishing nets(Garwood 1999) and to basketry (Cleal 1999), but italso bears a striking resemblance to the bark of ashand willow trees (see Fig. 28), which have particularproperties. Ash is an excellent fuel wood, while thewillow can be used for basketry. It may also benoted that willow bark has traditionally been usedfor pain relief, and indeed the active ingredient,salicin, is used in modified form in aspirin (Singhand Ernst 2009, 238). The design of this particularstyle of Grooved Ware may, then, go beyond skeuo-morphism and potentially refer to qualities ofparticular kinds of tree. Specific parts of thelandscape may also be referred to in the use oflimestone containing large amounts of fossil shell inthe fabric of the pottery. While this may occurrelatively locally, in particular to the south ofCirencester, the choice of this material appears tohave been deliberate and not related to mechanicalor technical properties of the rock. Indeed, thismaterial is used in the fabric of Grooved Warevessels in the Upper Thames Valley (Barclay 1999)and Worcestershire (Edwards 2007) where it is notimmediately available locally, and the extensive useof shelly fabrics in Woodlands sub-style GroovedWare also suggests that it carried symbolicmeaning.

The Grooved Ware pit containing the largestamount of material at Kingshill North was 8813,which contained a complete stone axe and thefragment of an axe made of flint, a total of 505worked flints (including 21 flint scrapers), five bonepins, a worked rib fragment and the rounded-end ofa bone spatula. An antler was also recovered fromthe fill, alongside pig, cattle and deer bone, andburnt hazelnuts. While this is a fairly standardrepertoire for Grooved Ware pits, the richness andtreatment of the objects is unusual; although most ofthe items are fragmentary, there is no sign of delib-erate breakage or burning. The pit can best be paral-leled with pit 3196 at Barrow Hills, Radley, whichalso contained large amounts of worked flint, boneawls, animal bone, utilised antler and fragments ofthree Woodlands sub-style Grooved Ware vessels,including one with lattice lozenge decoration(Barclay and Halpin 1999).

The occurrence of spatulae in Grooved Warecontexts at Kingshill North is noteworthy, as theseobjects usually occur in Beaker graves. Fragmentaryspatulae were recovered from two pits (8813 and8064), where they occurred alongside GroovedWare, worked flint, other worked bone and charredplant remains. The nearest site where spatulae werepresent is again Barrow Hills, Radley (Barclay andHalpin 1999), where two spatulae were recovered,although both came from Beaker graves. All theother local examples summarised by Barclay et al.

(1999, 235) were recovered from Beaker graves andnone is recorded in the most up-to-date gazetteer ofGrooved Ware associated finds in Britain (Long-worth and Cleal 1999). While it is tempting tosuggest that the spatulae were later additions to thepits, this is unlikely since there was no evidence forrecutting and all were found securely stratified withother late Neolithic material.

While the animal and plant remains in theGrooved Ware pits occurred in relatively modestquantities, an articulated neonatal pig was recov-ered from pit 8455 and the remains of a dog from pit8392. Bird bone was also identified in pit 8930. Themajority of the assemblage was, however,dominated by cattle and pig remains, with a fairlyhigh incidence of deer bone and antler. The plantremains included small amounts of cereal, crabapple and hazelnut shells. The most striking aspectof the animal and plant remains recovered from thepits is the occurrence of both wild and domesticspecies in the same contexts. Again, this is a fairlycommon occurrence and has been explained as theretention of a semi-nomadic lifestyle through intothe later Neolithic, although Thomas (2010, 11) hasrecently drawn attention to the possibility thatGrooved Ware pit assemblages relate to the prepa-ration, presentation and consumption of food. Thisargument may receive support from the presence ofa large number of scrapers within the worked flintassemblage, as well as from the evidence forbutchery at Kingshill North.

The predominance of young pig within theanimal bone assemblage is also suggestive offeasting, pig being commonly found associatedwith Grooved Ware, although this is more commonat sites such as henges, rather than within pits(Mukherjee et al. 2008). The faunal and plantremains point to the continued exploitation of wildresources in the late Neolithic, alongside domesti-cated species.

The special nature of the deposits should not beoverlooked, however, and the material is stronglysuggestive of the bringing together of both wild anddomestic species in the context of conspicuousconsumption, potentially bringing to mind themanagement and control of the landscape to theparticipants. This may have more commonlyoccurred within a monumental context, such aswithin a henge, but recent work at Durrington Walls(M Parker Pearson, pers. comm.) is demonstratingthe presence of pits containing ‘special deposits’ ofGrooved Ware, worked flint and animal bone priorto the construction of such monuments.

The consumption of ‘exotic’ items can also beseen at Kingshill North in the deposition offragments of Cornish axe heads and the highquality and quantity of the bone pins and awlsrecovered from the pits. The worked flint is alsoimported, as it does not occur naturally on thelimestone of the Cotswolds and was probablybrought from the chalk around the Avebury area,although it is not possible to be certain of its precise

Chapter 7

99

origins. The consumption of ‘exotics’ again appearsto relate to the ability of the community which dugthe pits to mobilise a wide range of resources froma variety of locations both local and distant and todispose of them in a highly visible way.

Beaker/Bronze AgeBeaker burials are rare in Gloucestershire and thetwo examples from Kingshill North add significantnew information for this part of Britain. It is worthyof note that, where skeletal remains from Beakerburials have been examined and the sex of theburied body has been determined, only one otherBeaker burial in Gloucestershire has containedfemale remains. This is a common pattern; Clarke(1970) records nearly twice as many men as womenfrom Beaker burials and the Gloucestershireexamples fit into this pattern well. The reasons whymales appear to have been selected over femalesremains unclear, however, but may be related tostatus or social roles in life.

Neither of the individuals buried at KingshillNorth were locals. Both originated from the chalkareas, but one was from the south or east, the otherfrom the south-west (see Lamb and Evans, above).The earliest individual was a female, buried withina pit enclosed by a ring ditch and the Beaker whichaccompanied her was mostly complete andtempered with grog and limestone. This fabric ismore commonly found within Gloucestershire andSomerset and is almost certainly of local manufac-ture. It is tempting to suggest that the womanburied within the ring ditch may have been ‘assim-ilated’ into local society, were it not for the remark-able grave in which she was buried. Although therewere no other grave goods apart from the Beakerand a worked bone object, the body was depositedwithin a deep rectangular grave, above which wasdeposited cattle head and hooves. The most obviousparallel for this practice is the burial from HempKnoll, near Avebury, Wiltshire (Robertson Mackay1980), where an adult male was buried in a woodencoffin within a deep, rectangular pit below a roundbarrow. This burial was accompanied by a Langdalestone bracer and a bone belt ring and a Beaker wasplaced by the body’s feet. An ox skull and hooveshad been placed outside the coffin, but within theburial pit. The coffin was radiocarbon dated to 2190-1620 cal BC and 2860-1640 cal BC, but given that thematerial dated was oak and the large margin oferror in the dates, these are not helpful in assessingthe relative dates of this site and that at KingshillNorth. The Beaker from Hemp Knoll was classifiedby Needham (2005, 192) as belonging to the ‘Short-Necked’ class, which has its origins in or before the23rd century BC, but which appears to overlap withthe S-profile Beakers, of which that from KingshillNorth is an example. The ‘head and hooves’ burialrite occurs across northern Europe and has beennoted in Britain in at least nine long barrows, allwithin Wessex (Robertson Mackay 1980, 147). The

practice has also been found with Beaker burials,notably at Amesbury, Wiltshire, where a crouchedinhumation may have been accompanied by an oxskull and hooves (Ashbee 1978). It is also note-worthy that a cattle skull was recovered from agrave at Barrow Hills, Radley (Barclay and Halpin1999, 122), although this grave was of early BronzeAge date and also contained unshed antler tines.The presence of a head and hooves burial outsideWessex is unusual and it is perhaps significant thatthe person to whom this rite was afforded atKingshill North was non-local and probably camefrom the chalklands of southern England.

The second burial (1404) was very different. Itwas deposited within an apparently unmarked flatgrave and accompanied by a Beaker which hadinclusions of flint and grog, inclusions which aremore common in Beakers from Wiltshire andsouthern England than in those from the Midlandsand South West. As noted above, flint does notoccur naturally on the Cotswold limestone and theinclusion of flint within the fabric of this Beakersuggests either the importation of raw materials orthe use of waste from flint knapping. AlthoughBeakers with flint in their fabrics have been foundelsewhere in Gloucestershire, notably at Rough-ground Farm (Allen et al. 1993) and Cirencester PoloClub (Nichols 2004), these are rare. The presence atKingshill North of a flint-tempered Beaker with anindividual from the chalklands is at the very leastsuggestive of a deliberate referencing of theirgeographical origin in the fabric of the pot. Thisvessel also contained grog-in-grog which is was alsoflint tempered and likely to represent the recyclingof fabric from a flint tempered Beaker. The vesselwas deposited in the grave as worn sherds, againsuggesting that it had had an extended life, perhapsthe fragments which were not deposited going on tobe incorporated as grog in yet another Beaker.

The radiocarbon dates from the site suggest aperiod of at least a hundred years between thedeposition of the Grooved Ware and the Beakerburials, although a period of 400 or more years maybe more likely. It does not appear that the GroovedWare pits were marked by posts, and it is not certainthat they were visible above ground after thisperiod, but the positioning of the Beaker ring ditchbetween two groups of pits may be more than merecoincidence. Cleal (1999) has previously noted theco-occurrence of Grooved Ware pits and roundbarrows, but this has not previously been observedin Gloucestershire, despite a degree of barrowexcavation (Grinsell 1961). The probable reason forthis is that these excavations were undertaken, onthe whole, by antiquarians more interested in thecontents of the barrows than their local environsand setting. The relative lack of Grooved Ware pitsin the county may, then, be more apparent than realand due to the lack of detailed examination of thespaces between round barrows. The co-occurrenceof pits containing Grooved Ware and Beaker potteryhas been noted at other sites in the county such as

Cirencester before Corinium

100

Roughground Farm (Allen et al. 1993) and HorcottPit (Lamdin-Whymark et al. 2009), but the questionof why this pattern is so common – sites previouslyused for one purpose being reused several hundredyears later in a different way, while apparentlyrespecting the original site plan – has not beaddressed. It is tempting to suggest that the activi-ties which took place here in the late Neolithic weresomehow remembered, or that they made an impacton the landscape which was still visible many yearslater, but neither of these interpretations are partic-ularly satisfying.

Needham (2005) suggests that the Beakerphenomenon in Britain started around 2500 cal BC.Only seven radiocarbon dates for Beaker contextsare known from sites other than Kingshill North inGloucestershire, all but one from sites in the UpperThames Valley (Table 41). The one date from theCotswolds from a henge at Condicote (Saville 1983)is from mature wood and should be regarded asunreliable. The other dates are from samples fromshort-lived species or human bone in direct associa-tion with Beakers. Although the dates for theBeakers from Trinity Farm (Mudd et al. 1999) andRoughground Farm (Allen et al. 1993) fall relativelyearly within the Beaker sequence, the remainingdates are late and overlap with the period of use ofFood Vessels and Collared Urns elsewhere inBritain. The dates from Kingshill North fall betweenthese earlier and later dates. The Beaker fromShorncote (Hearne and Heaton 1994) was placed byNeedham (2005) in his ‘Weak Carinated Beaker’class, which spans the period 2200 to 1900 cal BC,although, again, this particular vessel seems to bevery late in the sequence. The later dated Beakerfrom the Memorial Hall, Lechlade (Thomas andHolbrook 1998) falls into Needham’s ‘Long NeckedBeaker’ classification, which occurs early in theBeaker sequence, but is also associated with latedates, between 3520 and 3360 BP. The earlier datedBeaker from Memorial Hall is classed as an ‘S-profile Beaker’. Needham (2005, 200) suggested thatthis Beaker may have been old when placed in theburial. This draws attention to one of the majorproblems with Beaker chronology and the generalfailure of dating schemes to confirm models ofBeaker development based on stylistic traits. As

Ann Woodward (2002) has pointed out, Beakersmay have circulated as heirlooms before finallybeing deposited, leading to a confusion of late datesfor stylistically early Beakers.

As can be seen in Table 41, the dates fromKingshill North and from Gloucestershire ingeneral are not particularly early, those fromKingshill North falling within the ‘Fission Horizon’between the ‘pioneer’ use of Beakers and their morewidespread acceptance (Needham 2005). The dateof the Beaker within the ring ditch is identical to thedate from a ‘mass grave’ containing seven individ-uals and Beaker pottery from Boscombe Down,Wiltshire. Some of the individuals in the grave werenot local to Wiltshire and probably originated in thewest of Britain (Needham 2005; Evans et al. 2006).The Beakers from Boscombe Down are verydifferent to those from Kingshill North, however,and have more in common with European All OverCord Beakers. The date from the flat grave atKingshill North is identical to that from a burial atRadley, Oxfordshire, which was accompanied by atall, mid-carinated Beaker (Needham 2005, 187) andto a series of Beaker burials from Scotland,including skeleton 1 at Thurston Mains, EastLothian and cist 1 at Broomend of Critchie(Needham 2005).

The isotopes from the individuals buried atKingshill North indicate that they were not local,and probably originated from chalkland regions ofEngland. As such they fit within an emergingpicture of population mobility in the later Neolithic,with an individual from continental Europe foundin the Stonehenge environs and good evidence nowavailable for the movement of individuals at aregional and national level (Jay et al. forthcoming).Needham (2007) has suggested that mobility waspart of the Beaker way of life and that after initialmovement of small groups from the Continent, thebudding-off of groups who then moved into newareas was responsible for the widespread uptake ofBeakers and the collapse of the Grooved Ware‘culture’ in the 22nd century BC. Kingshill Northfinds fit within this pattern of the movement ofindividuals over relatively short distances into anarea already known to Grooved Ware using groups.These sorts of connections were already present in

Chapter 7

101

Table 41: Radiocarbon dates from contexts associated with Beakers in Gloucestershire

Site Radiocarbon date Calibrated date Material dated

Trinity Farm 3876 + 57BP 2490 to 2150 cal BC hazelnut shellsTrinity Farm 3836 + 58BP 2470 to 2140 cal BC hazelnut shellsRoughground Farm 3710 + 100BP 2460 to 1880 cal BC boneCondicote Henge 3720 + 80BP 2430 to 1890 cal BC mature woodKingshill North skeleton 8656 3830 ± 29BP 2351 to 2198 cal BC human boneKingshill North skeleton 1403 3718 ± 29BP 2201 to 2031 cal BC human boneLechlade Memorial Hall 3530 + 50BP 2020 to 1740 cal BC human boneShorncote 3480 + 60 BP 1950 to 1640 cal BC human boneLechlade Memorial Hall 3460 + 50BP 1920 to 1630 cal BC human bone

the late Neolithic and are clear from the exchangebetween the Cotswolds and regions beyond, as seenin the presence of flint and Cornish axe heads in theGrooved Ware pits. Indeed, although Beaker burialpractices appear to represent a ‘clean break’ fromthe practices of the later part of the Neolithic, whenformal burial was relatively rare, depositscontinued to be made in pits and these are, in fact,more common and include more Beaker vesselsthan burials, especially in the western part of Britain(see Lewis and Mullin forthcoming). Two examplesclose to Cirencester illustrate the point. AtCirencester Polo Club, to the north of Cirencester atDaglingworth, a single pit contained sherds ofBeaker, representing a minimum of eight vessels,alongside animal bone, including cattle andpossible wild boar (Nichols 2004). At Trinity Farm,Bagendon (Mudd et al. 1999), a total of three pitscontained 164 sherds of Beaker pottery, from at least14 vessels, alongside worked flint, hazelnut shellsand burnt stone. The contents of the pits, and thetreatment of this material, often deliberately brokenand burnt, has much in common with the materialfrom pits containing Grooved Ware. Alex Gibson(2007) has argued that the change in burial practicesseen in the Beaker period has its origins in the laterNeolithic and is not such a clean break as has previ-ously been thought. When the evidence from pits isconsidered, the division between Grooved Wareand Beaker practices is even less clear-cut.

Middle Bronze AgeThe single feature of middle Bronze Age date fromthe site was burial 1905. Such inhumations are rare,with few other recorded examples dating to thisperiod. The usual rite in the middle Bronze Age iscremation, usually with a Deverel-Rimbury vessel,or local variant. Examples of this rite have beenrecorded in Gloucestershire at Bevans Quarry,Temple Guiting (O’Neil 1967) and also at ShorncoteQuarry (Barclay and Glass 1995), but is generallyrarer in the west of Britain than in the south andeast. A middle Bronze Age inhumation is knownfrom Cotswold Community (Powell et al. 2010, 41-42), where an adult female buried in a rectangulargrave was radiocarbon dated to 1510 to 1400 cal BC(95%; SUERC-18831), contemporary with the dateof 1502 to 1415 cal BC (95%; OxA-20188) fromKingshill North. The burials were in differentpositions, however: that from Kingshill North beingon its back with its legs crossed, and the burial fromCotswold Community being tightly crouched on itsright side. Other burials placed on their backs areknown from Appleford Sidings, Oxfordshire (Boothand Simmonds 2009), where a young woman wasburied in a roughly oval grave pit in a tightlycrouched position, on her back with arms foldedacross her stomach, and knees drawn up to herchest. Although the burial was not scientificallydated, a middle Bronze Age globular urn had beenplaced at the left side of her body. At Mount Farm

near Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire (Lambrick2010), the latest burial on the site was the inhuma-tion of a young woman dated to 1680-1220 cal BC,while at Watkins Farm, Oxfordshire (Allen 1990), abody was placed in an extended position at thebottom of a ramped well which contained woodradiocarbon dated to 1400-1250 cal BC (HAR-8253).

The burial from Kingshill North was also accom-panied by a joint of meat. At the Beeches, immedi-ately to the south of the site (Young 2001), an animalburial was found in a pit inside an enclosure, theburial was dated to 1400 to 1120 cal BC (NZA-12281)and further animal bone from this area was dated to1510 to 1310 cal BC (NZA-12282). Significantly, apiece of human skull, associated with fragments ofGlobular Urn, also gave a middle Bronze Age dateof 1400 to 1130 cal BC (NZA-12280). All these datesoverlap with that from Kingshill North and possiblyindicate that the main focus of middle Bronze Ageactivity was in this area, where, incidentally, therewas little evidence for earlier occupation.

Within the wider area, there is evidence formiddle Bronze Age occupation at RoughgroundFarm (Allen et al. 1993) and Horcott Pit (Lamdin-Whymark et al. 2009), where Middle Bronze Agepottery appears to be associated with domesticactivity. Deverel Rimbury pottery was also presentat Cotswold Community (Powell et al. 2010), wherea relatively large assemblage was recovered from aseries of pits and a waterhole. These sites appear torepresent the first ‘organised’ agricultural settle-ments and belong to the period when the first fieldsystems and land divisions emerge (Yates 2007).However, Gloucestershire lies at the edge of thedistribution of field systems: they are focused in theUpper Thames Valley and there is a paucity ofevidence from the Cotswolds. Quite why this is thecase is open to question, but may represent a differ-ence in land use – the high Cotswold being used forsummer pasture, while the valleys were exploitedfor arable and seasonal grazing.

Iron Age to Roman (Fig. 44) Edward Biddulph

The middle Iron Age activity There was a gap of at least 1000 years after themiddle Bronze Age burial (1905) was interred. Theabsence of early Iron Age activity at Kingshill Northis unsurprising, as evidence for early Iron Age settle-ment around Cirencester is sparse. Residual earlyIron Age pottery was recovered from a section acrossthe Lynches trackway, a route of Roman origin thatextended alongside the River Churn from Ciren-cester. The pottery from the section, located about 4km north-west of Kingshill North, pointed to asettlement in the vicinity, though no features weredetected (Mudd 1999, 517). At the Beeches, about500 m south of Kingshill North, excavation revealedan enclosure ditch, whose filling was dated bypottery to the early Iron Age. Its width and depth ledthe excavator to speculate on a possible defensive

Cirencester before Corinium

102

Chapter 7

103

Fig. 44 Phases 3 and 4 – locations of sites mentioned in discussion

function, though without further evidence, thematter remained unresolved. Postholes nearbysuggested the presence of associated structures,although the features were undated (Young 2001,38). Further afield, extensive settlement evidencebroadly dated to the late Bronze/early Iron Age wasrecorded at the Cotswold Community site, 5 kmsouth of Kingshill North. Excavations uncovereddispersed areas of unenclosed settlement set withina pastoral and agricultural landscape (Powell et al.2010, 71, fig. 2.31). Further east, at RoughgroundFarm, Lechlade, a roundhouse, pits and boundaryditches were assigned to the early Iron Age (Allen etal. 1993, 36-40).

The next phase of activity at Kingshill Northbegan in the middle Iron Age (Phase 3). The phaseis characterised by pits dug across the southern partof the site. The frequency, form and distribution ofthe pits appear to be a curious repetition of the lateNeolithic phase, but the pits can be placed in theIron Age with certainty. Radiocarbon dates thefilling of two pits between the 4th and 3rd centuriesBC (for example, 394-209 cal BC – 95%; NZA-33476),and all pits contained pottery that dated to themiddle Iron Age, or was at least consistent with thatperiod. Additionally, the range of animal bonesrecovered from the Iron Age pits, with its emphasison sheep or goat, was different from the cattle andpig profile of the Neolithic assemblage. As forfunction, the profiles of the pits – generally vertical-sided, flat-based and, in some cases, undercut – areconsistent with Iron Age features typically identi-fied as storage pits, with grain being the likelyprimary content (cf. Bersu 1940; Reynolds 1979;Whittle 1984, 128-37; Lambrick 2009, 274-77). Arelatively rich sample of charred plant remainsrecovered from the bottom fill of pit 9083 may repre-sent the remains of the final use of the pit forstorage, in this case the storage of fodder (see WSmith, above), although the assemblage alsocontained elements that suggested secondarydeposition of crop-processing waste. The shallowerpits, such as 8143 and 8138, are less easily identifiedas storage pits. Some of these may originally havebeen deeper, being located at the top of the hillsideand therefore more prone to truncation than thosefurther down the slope, although shallow pits werefound there too. These pits may alternatively beviewed as water-storage pits (cf. Parry 1998, 45).Where shallow pits were cut into or lined with clay,Parry (1998, 45) also suggests a possible role inpottery production, potentially serving as clay-puddling tanks.

Other middle Iron Age sites in the region weresimilarly characterised by groups of storage pits. Agroup of 19 pits set within two principal enclosures,were recorded at Birdlip, Cowley, some 20 km north-west of Cirencester. The pits there were largely cylin-drical, with barrel-shaped pits also represented.Overall the pits were deeper and narrower thanthose at Kingshill North, measuring on average 1.3m across and 0.93 m deep, although there was

overlap in the ranges (Parry 1998, 39). A middle IronAge date was ascribed to most of them, but potterysuggested that some pits were filled or dug as late asthe 1st-century AD (Parry 1998, 44). A mass of pits,dated to the middle Iron Age and associated withpostholes, was excavated at Guiting Power, locatedon the higher hills of the Cotswolds some 25 kmnorth of Cirencester. The pits there, however, weregenerally shallower than those at Kingshill Northand Birdlip, with the range extending to 0.6 m indepth, and a water-storage function, rather thangrain storage, was preferred (Saville 1979, 127, 136).Two pits, one of middle to late Iron Age in date, theother dating to the 1st century AD, were uncoveredin excavations at Vineyards Farm, Charlton Kings(Rawes 1991). At Bishop’s Cleeve, seven pits, associ-ated with roundhouses and spreads of occupationsoil, were recorded. These measured on average 1.6m in diameter and 0.8 m deep (Lovell et al. 2007, 99).Thirteen middle Iron Age pits, along with soil-marks, were excavated at Gilder’s Paddock, anothersite in Bishop’s Cleeve. The pits formed two clusters;the pits in one group were cylindrical, measuring upto 1.48 m wide and 0.57 m deep (Parry 1999, 93),while those in the second group were shallower andwider – up to 1.64 m in diameter and 0.35 m deep(Parry 1999, 96). The difference, recalling the separa-tion of shallow and deep pits at Kingshill North,may have been one of function. An investigation at asite at Kemble, c 5 km south-west of Cirencester,produced five steep-sided pits with an averagediameter of 1.1 m and depth of 0.6 m (King et al.1996, 19). Closer still to Kingshill North, investiga-tion of an area at Burford Road South just a fewhundred metres east of the site revealed four pitsbroadly dated to the later prehistoric period (Muddet al. 1999a, 72). Two of the pits were relatively largeat over 4 m wide, but shallow at up to 0.3 m deep,and they are unlikely to have functioned as grain-storage pits. Material characteristic of ‘burnt mound’deposits were recovered from them (Mudd et al.1999a, 74), and the pits, like those at Kingshill North,appear to have been peripheral to, even isolatedfrom, roundhouses and the focus of habitation.Where more extensive remains of middle Iron Agesettlement are known, the evidence points toenclosed nucleated settlements with associated fieldsystems (Moore 2006, 85). A number of such siteshave been recorded in the Cotswolds and the UpperThames Valley. The enclosed settlement at Birdlipcomprised a roughly square enclosure thatsurrounded a ten-metre wide ring-gully. This enclo-sure was connected by ditches to a boundary ditchthat was semi-circular in plan and enclosed the pitsalluded to above (Parry 1998, fig. 3). An enclosurewith associated pits was seen at Highgate House,close to Birdlip and c 13 km north of Cirencester(Mudd and Lupton 1999, 59-64), while a segmentedditch system was recorded at St Augustine’s FarmSouth, 2 km south of Kingshill North (Mudd andMuir 1999, 35-8). A hexagonal enclosure uncoveredat Preston, a short distance north of St Augustine’s

Cirencester before Corinium

104

Farm South, contained pits and ditches and thecurving gully segments of roundhouses (Mudd andMortimer 1999, fig. 3.9). A cluster of roundhousesattached to an enclosure was recorded at CotswoldCommunity (Powell et al. 2010, 74-82), and similarevidence – roundhouses and associated pits andditches – was uncovered at Thornhill Farm, Fairford(Jennings et al. 2004, 21-30).

Once the middle Iron Age pits at Kingshill Northwere abandoned, they were available for furtherdeposition. Much of the material recovered from thepits, typically pottery and animal bone, is likely toderive from domestic waste, with the level offragmentation suggesting that the finds had under-gone episodes of disturbance and weathering, forexample from exposure on a midden or throughploughing, before final deposition. There was,however, evidence of deliberate, structured depositsin the form of the skeletons of a crow or rook anddog in pit 8851. The skeletons were deposited alongwith limestone rubble and stony soil into an essen-tially empty pit – there had been a degree of erosionat the side of the pit before deposition. The deposittherefore represents an event enacted after the pithad served its primary storage function. An antlercomb, retrieved from pit 8114, is also of interest.Though a single item, the deposit may be of thesame tradition that induced the middle Iron Ageinhabitants of Bishop’s Cleeve to place a group ofweaving equipment – an antler comb, up to threeantler needles, a triangular loomweight and aspindle whorl – into a storage pit (Lovell 2007, 99).

Chronological overview of the late Iron Age andRoman settlementThe archaeology assigned to phases 4a to 4c essen-tially falls into a single period, the late Iron Age.Potentially this spans the 1st century BC to first halfof the 1st century AD, although the pottery andradiocarbon determinations from features in thisperiod lean towards the later part of this range.There is virtually nothing among the pottery andother datable artefacts to separate the remains intosub-phases. Division was possible, however, onstratigraphic and spatial grounds. Ditch 8563,which partially enclosed a group of postholes thatformed the outline of a roughly rectangularbuilding some 10 m long by 5 m wide, was attrib-uted to Phase 4a. A radiocarbon date (90 cal BC-calAD 64 – 95%; NZA-33149) obtained from charredgrain from the ditch, along with pottery includinggrog-tempered pedestal vessels and high-shoul-dered necked jars, suggests that the ditch was filledat the end of the 1st century BC or the early 1stcentury AD. A burial (1104) was interred within thefill of the enclosure ditch probably during the firsthalf of the 1st century; the skeleton gave a radio-carbon date of 41 cal BC to 75 cal AD (95%; OxA-20187). Though the ditch had been filled, the burialsuggests that it remained visible, perhaps as a slightdip or area of taller vegetation.

Pottery collected from features assigned to Phase4b was identical in form and fabric to that fromphase 4a features – but in stratigraphical termsrepresents a development of the landscape. Ditch8918 cut the termini of the infilled ditch, 8563, andextended through the structure, now abandoned,that 8563 enclosed. Ditch 8918 was not designed toenclose. It defines a boundary, but its shape, in planresembling the shape of an archer’s composite bow,may also have facilitated the herding of livestock orallowed temporary enclosures to be erected.Postholes cut into the fill of ditch 8563 may havebeen positioned with reference to ditch 8918,creating a small enclosure or palisade. Like 8563,ditch 8918 was associated with a structure;postholes at its northern end loosely defined aroundhouse that overlay the northern part of 8563.The dating of a burial (8723) inserted into thenorthern terminus of ditch 8918 is problematic. Thatit post-dated the ditch is certain. A radiocarbondetermination obtained from the skeleton, however,provided a date of 181 to 41 cal BC (95%; OxA-20185), potentially making it earlier than the Phase4a features. This is a matter not easily resolved. Wecould suggest that the skeleton of an individualalive in the first half of the 1st century BC or earlierwas re-buried at the end of the 1st century BC orearly 1st century AD, or that the dating of theskeleton and phases 4a and 4b all coincide in thenarrowest of chronological overlaps, but bothsuggestions have the signs of special pleading. Theradiocarbon date could, of course, be at fault,although there was no obvious means of contami-nation.

Ditch 8918 was in turn replaced by ditch 8413,which was substantially larger in width and length(Phase 4c). Ditch 8413 formed a significantboundary, and its semi-circular form in plan,enhanced further by recuts and extensions. Apossible roundhouse was erected close to thesouthern terminus of 8413, while two slots (9028and 9076/8) may mark the position of a rectangularstructure. Internal sub-division is suggested by tworows of postholes; one extends ENE-WSE immedi-ately south of the roundhouse, while another, orien-tated NNW-SSE, was located nearer the northernend of the ditch. A narrower boundary ditch (8255)extended along the southern edge of the excavationarea. The pottery recovered from ditch 8413included Severn Valley ware and Savernake ware,suggesting that the ditch received material after themid-1st century AD. The other features assigned tothis phase – ditch 8255, the structures, postholes,and extensions and recuts to 8413 – in contrastlacked the post-conquest wares, comprising insteadwares of late Iron Age type, suggesting that deposi-tion was confined to the first half of the 1st centuryAD. If these were indeed associated with ditch 8413,as seems reasonable on spatial grounds, then ditch8413 may well have been dug during the finaldecades of the late Iron Age but continued toreceive material into the Roman period.

Chapter 7

105

In Phase 4d, ditch 8413 was extended at itsnorthern end, and two short gullies or ditchesdefined a small enclosure extending from thesouthern end of the ditch. An intercutting sequenceof probable quarry pits, and other, larger, pits weredug within the area enclosed by 8413 to extract clayand limestone. Pottery retrieved from a number ofthese features usually comprised late Iron Agewares – typically limestone-tempered and grog-tempered pottery – associated with Roman-periodmaterial, such as grey wares, Savernake ware andSevern Valley ware. How far into the second half ofthe 1st century such assemblages can be pushed is amatter of debate. Comparison with the earliest(military) phase of Roman Cirencester is potentiallymisleading, since the pottery supply to the fort wasshaped by the specific requirements of the soldiers,which depended to a larger extent than neigh-bouring settlements on regional and continentalsources (cf. Cooper 1998, 327; for discussion, seeBiddulph, late Iron Age and Roman pottery,Chapter 4, above). However, on the basis of assem-blages from nearby sites, for instance Ditches(Moore 2009, 114), a date for deposition within thethird quarter of the 1st century is not unreasonable.

The site saw very little activity from the late 1stcentury onwards (phases 4e and 4f). A cremationgrave (8227), radiocarbon dated to cal AD 86-247(95%; NZA-33144), was inserted into the fill of ditch8918. A ditch (8203) in the southern part of the site,containing late Roman pottery and a coin ofConstantine, was filled during the 4th century.Pottery of 2nd-century date, including CentralGaulish samian, was also recovered, though this islikely to have been incorporated as residual occur-rences in later deposits through agricultural activity.The site remained available for farming intomodern times.

Production and economyThe evidence of land snails indicates that thelandscape around the settlement was largely open(see Champness, Chapter 6, above). The grasslandenvironment, though with some provision forwoodland and arable land, provided pasture andharvested fodder for livestock. The animal boneevidence and the composition of the plant assem-blage are also consistent with an economy basedpredominantly on livestock (see Strid andNicholson, Chapter 6, above). Sheep (or goat) madethe largest contribution to the assemblage recoveredfrom middle Iron Age pits. Cattle were also repre-sented in this phase, but were less important thansheep, and remained so throughout the Iron Ageand early Roman period, except in Phase 4a/b,when the species briefly made a larger contributionto the animal bone assemblage than sheep.

This predominance of sheep is typical of ‘native’British settlements, rather than those with a Romancharacter, which are weighted more towards pigsand cattle (King 1991, 17). The open countryside,

albeit with tree cover to the north of the site, isunlikely to have suited pigs, which were appropri-ately kept in small numbers. The dominance of pigbones in the Neolithic phase is notable, given thatthe environment was similarly open and dry,although, as noted by D Mullin above, this is likelyto reflect a specialised feasting function associatedwith the Neolithic pits, rather than being represen-tative of subsistence farming strategies. The lateIron Age and Roman landscape was good forhorses. None of the horse bones from the site wasfound to have had evidence of butchery, and sowere kept for uses other than food.

Data relating to age point to a trend for oldersheep and younger cattle, suggesting that sheepwere kept mainly for wool, but also meat, whilecattle were reared for meat. Sheep and cattle alsoprovided milk for human consumption. There wasless importance placed on the use of cattle fortraction, hinting that the communities living at thesite were mainly pastoral.

Nevertheless, arable farming was practised (seeSmith, Chapter 6, above), and the molluscanevidence, at least in the later Roman period, hasidentified fields set aside from crops to the south ofthe settlement (see Champness, Chapter 6, above).Wheat and barley were identified in middle and lateIron Age samples, and the recovery of a near-complete upper rotary quern from pit 8806 points tothe processing of grain presumably grown locally ata subsistence level. The deposition of the quernitself was no doubt a special act for the late Iron Ageinhabitants, resonating with the symbolism of foodproduction and, ultimately, survival (Moore 2006,123). But while cereals were grown, they were notthe main crops. The abundance of wild species andgrasses in the environmental samples raises theintriguing possibility that grasses, including bromeand rye grass and species such as wild oat, weredeliberately cultivated to provide animal fodder. Tothis list we may add the barley, which is well-known as an animal feed.

The evidence paints a picture of a pastorallandscape, with fields populated mainly by sheep,but also cattle and horses, with areas set aside forgrassland and hay meadows and for crops to alesser extent. The description of 16th-centuryCirencester by the Tudor antiquary, John Leland,provides an interesting footnote. In observing thatthe stony fields around the town were more suitablefor barley than wheat, and that there was not a greatsupply of wood (Chandler 1998, 190), Leland couldequally have been describing the land aroundKingshill North in the 1st century AD.

There was little evidence for other forms ofeconomic activity. Hammerscale, the residue of ironsmithing, and tiny spheres produced by high-temperature welding indicate that there was a smallamount of ironworking on the site. A significantproportion of the material was recovered as intru-sive occurrences in Neolithic pits and the ring-ditchof Beaker burial 8454, but otherwise was collected

Cirencester before Corinium

106

from features that dated almost exclusively to Phase4c. However, the find-spots – within ditches 8413and 8255 – give little focus to the location of theactivity. Most of the pottery, particularly thecalcareous and grog-tempered wares, would havebeen made locally, but there were no wasters orother forms of production waste to indicatemanufacture on or close to the site.

Settlement and landscapeTaken together, the late Iron Age evidence repre-sents successive phases of a farmstead set within anenclosure or field system. While the area encom-passed by the ditches expanded with each phase,only one principal structure per phase, its positionshifting with each development, was identified. Therectangular building of Phase 4a stands in obviouscontrast to the roundhouses that replaced it, and, ifoccupied as a domestic structure, is unusual in theregion. Six-poster rectangular structures are reason-ably common, but these are likely to have served asstorage buildings (Lambrick 2009, 271-2). Given thelarger size of the Phase 4a building, this interpreta-tion can be discounted. Rectangular structures ofpossible domestic function and late Iron Age dateare known on sites along the Thames, but areconfined to the lower and middle Thames Valley(Lambrick 2009, 151). While a structural function isfavoured here, the possibility that the postholesrepresent parallel fence lines might also be consid-ered. This seems especially pertinent given the five-metre gap at the west end of the structure and slightnarrowing of the building’s width towards the eastend. If the west end were open, then we couldenvisage some sort of pen for livestock, holdingsheep, perhaps, during wool clipping. If so, wherethe inhabitants of the Phase 4a settlement lived isnot known, although the circular spread of occupa-tion soil (8844) below the roundhouse of Phase 4bhints at earlier buildings existing on that site.

In broad terms, the site resembles other farmingsettlements in the region, although notably theclosest parallels belong to the earlier Iron Age. A midto late Iron Age settlement at Cotswold Communityconsisted of a large rectilinear enclosure – internallysparse in terms of features – and a small unenclosedarea of domestic activity outside, comprising tworoundhouses (Powell et al. 2010, fig. 3.5). Enclosuresdating to the mid 1st century AD were recorded atMiddle Duntisbourne (Mudd and Lupton 1999, fig.3.34) and Duntisbourne Grove (Mudd and Lawrence1999, fig. 3.41). None was associated with structures,but like Kingshill North was open on one or twosides and sparsely occupied within. The curvingplan of the ditches at Kingshill North is obviouslydifferent from the rectangular enclosures of theDuntisbournes, but their function may have beensimilar. Parts of the middle to late Iron Age settle-ment complex at Mount Farm, Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, particularly a curvingenclosure ditch with possible roundhouses along its

length at the north-eastern end of the site, provide abetter match for Kingshill North (Lambrick 2010, fig.43b). The curving boundary ditch at Birdlip, poten-tially of middle Iron Age date (Parry 1998, fig. 3),recalls the form of ditch 8413 at Kingshill North.Another useful parallel was the early to middle IronAge settlement at Groundwell Farm, Blunsdon StAndrew near Swindon, Wiltshire, which compriseda curvilinear enclosure which surrounded succes-sive phases of a roundhouse. The excavatorsuggested that the farmstead was occupied by asingle household (Gingell 1981, 73), an interpreta-tion which might reasonably be applied to KingshillNorth. Excavation at Groundwell Farm also uncov-ered parallel pairs or triplets of slots, usually withpostholes inside, that represented structures up to 5m square (Gingell 1981, 49). These are likely to beequivalent to the four-poster structures commonlyrecorded in the Thames Valley and typically inter-preted as raised granaries or fodder storage(Lambrick 2009, 271; Powell et al. 2010, 72). ThePhase 4c parallel slots at Kingshill North (9028 and9076/8) lack the postholes, but can be viewed insimilar terms. It is clear, therefore, that the late IronAge settlement at Kingshill North is redolent ofearlier Iron Age settlements, and takes thechronology of the settlement type into the 1st-century AD and beyond the Roman invasion of AD43.

It is worth noting the sets of cropmarks that aerialphotography has recorded to the south of KingshillNorth (Fig. 1). Some of these have been investi-gated. The excavation by the Avon ArchaeologicalUnit at the Beeches (Young 2001) has already beentouched upon. An earlier excavation at the Beechesuncovered an enclosure and pits probably relatingto a farmstead. Dating evidence was limited, butpointed to an Iron Age date (Reece 1990, 9-19).Cropmarks to the south-east of the town atKingshill uncovered shallow ditches that wereattributed to the 1st, and possibly the 2nd, centuryAD (Reece 1990, 39-40). How all these relate to eachother and Kingshill North – it is possible, forexample, that the cropmarks represent a sequenceof settlement and relocation from the Bronze Age tothe Roman period – cannot be addressed at present,and much of the investigation of the cropmarks isstill to do. However, it is safe to assume that quiteextensive areas of prehistoric and Roman landdivision, enclosures and settlement lay across theeastern side of Cirencester.

Funerary practiceWhat links the three burials belonging to Phase 4 isthe fact that all were interred within ditches. LateIron Age infant burial 1104 was deposited in ditch8563. Inhumation 8724, though radiocarbon datedto the middle or late Iron Age, was placed in lateIron Age ditch 8918. This ditch also took early ormid Roman cremation burial 8227. The rites varied,but the type of burial location was unchanged for at

Chapter 7

107

least 100 years. While this is unsurprising in thecontext of the Iron Age – boundary locations arewell known among archaeologically visible formsof burial – the continuity evident at Kingshill North,the use of boundaries extending well into theRoman period, adds to the perceived significance ofditches as landscape markers and liminal spacesseparating the living and the dead (Moore 2006, 70).

This role of separating the realms seems particu-larly relevant at Kingshill North. Ditch 8563 notonly formed an enclosure, but also surrounded andprotected a home. A roundhouse was built next toditch 8918. Here, then, the dead inhabited the samespace as the living. Such treatment cannot havebeen accorded to all individuals, since the burialsrecorded here are unlikely to have represented theentire population of the farmstead, even if accom-modating a single household. We might tentativelysuggest that individuals 1104 and 8724 weredeemed to be special. Potentially this presents away of explaining the discrepant middle Iron Agedate of 8724. If belonging to a socially high-rankingindividual in life – a community leader, perhaps –the skeleton may have been re-buried to mark, say,the relocation of the farmstead. This does notexplain the nature of the bones, which had a level ofarticulation consistent with a single episode ofburial, but other mortuary rites before reburial –careful curation of the remains or a form of mummi-fication – might be considered. However, the meansby which preservation could have been achieved atthe site cannot yet be suggested, returning us to thesimpler explanation that the radiocarbon date wasinaccurate. The association between infant burial1104 and the structure enclosed by ditch 8563 mightalso identify the infant as special, and EleanorScott’s discussion of the role of neonate and infantburials, which, she argues, serves to link life anddeath, the earthly world and domain of the godsand ancestors (Scott 1999), has its merits.Nevertheless, there is generally little to separate thetreatment of children and adults in death in theUpper Thames Valley, as can be seen at KingshillNorth, and that given infant burials in settlementswas quite usual (Lambrick 2009, 321). The meaningsimposed on both the adult and child burials neednot be so different either.

Grave 8227 maintained the tradition of boundaryburial into the Roman period. The choice oflocation, at a time when the settlement had beenabandoned and formal cemeteries were establishedaround Corinium – for example to the south of thetown along Ermin Street immediately beyondSilchester Gate (Holbrook 1994, 83) – is curious. Butif, as Moore (2006, 70) argues, boundary burialsexpressed the relationship between the land and itsinhabitants, for instance defining territory andestablishing or renewing ancestral tenure, thenburial within ditch 8918 during a period of socialand political upheaval and uncertainty is plausible.The former inhabitants of Kingshill North hadmoved into the town, but the land remained theirs,

at least in spirit if not the law. However, other inter-pretations are possible. The burial of the individual,otherwise unconnected with the Iron Age activity atthe site, may have been a propitiatory act in primefarmland. What is less likely, though, is that theindividual was a criminal or outcast, as his isolatedposition might suggest. The accompanying gravegoods indicate that great care was taken with thecremation and the interment, and suggest that, likeinhumation 8724, the individual was special,possibly a leader or otherwise of some socialstanding. The most obvious expression of thatstatus is the deposition of over 1000 small nailswithin the grave. These belonged to a light struc-ture, probably a litter or bier, which was used tocarry the individual to the pyre. The structure wasprobably plain – there was no evidence for the sortof decorated and upholstered biers recorded, forexample, in the Roman cemetery at Brougham,Cumbria (Cool 2004, 439-40) – but it brings aformality to the mortuary rite and, with its destruc-tion on the pyre, implies relatively high expenditureby the estate of the deceased or through the contri-butions of the mourners. We can imagine thefuneral procession or pompa winding its way fromthe town through Verulamium Gate and alongFosse Way before turning into the farmland exposedat Kingshill North.

If the body was cremated at the site, then there isno evidence for it. The grass or turves burnt as fuelin the pyre could have come from the meadowlandaround the site, but were not diagnostic of the sitespecifically. A shoe or pair of shoes was placed withthe deceased on the pyre. Shoes were commonlydeposited in graves (Philpott 1991, 168) and tend tobe interpreted as an item necessary for the journeyto the afterlife. The explanation is not altogethersatisfactory when we consider the variation in thepractice, for example the burial of one shoe or morethan two in a single grave, and instead we mightprefer to view the selection of shoes as a product ofbehaviours inherited from earlier generations orsociety more generally. The deceased in grave 8227was accompanied by shoes because other individ-uals before him were accompanied with shoes; thereneed be no recourse to original meaning.Nevertheless, the shoes conform to standard Romanpractice, and the deceased, carried on a litter,cremated, and wearing shoes, was for all appear-ances a Roman. But the location of the grave wasIron Age, and provides evidence for the survival ofBritish burial traditions beyond the Romanconquest.

Status, function and identityThe farmstead at Kingshill North was established atthe time that the enclosure at Ditches, some 8 kmnorth of the site, was first occupied (Trow et al. 2009,45). This enclosure appeared to represent the earliestactivity of an extended ‘oppidum’ that wasaugmented in the mid 1st century by the earthworks

Cirencester before Corinium

108

at nearby Bagendon (Fig. 44). The oppidum was asprawling complex that can be likened toCamulodunum (Colchester) and Verulamium (StAlbans), whose earthworks define territory coveringmany square kilometres (Trow et al. 2009, 73). Theterritory of the Ditches/Bagendon complex encom-passed settlements and farmsteads, among themDuntisbourne Grove and Middle Duntisbourne.This was the land of the Dobunni, and theDitches/Bagendon complex served as a tribal centre.The distribution of Dobunnic coinage, some of itminted in the oppidum (Trow et al. 2009, 72), allowsKingshill North to be placed firmly within the tribalterritory, which extended across Gloucestershire andWarwickshire, reaching areas south of the Thames,along the Avon Valley and west of the Severn (Jonesand Mattingly 1990, 50; map 3.10).

Despite its proximity to the tribal centre,Kingshill North does not seem to have benefitedmaterially. While the settlement may have suppliedwool, meat, milk, fodder and, to a lesser extent,cereals, to neighbouring settlements, its catchmentwas limited, probably little more than a few kilome-tres around the site. It may have included anoccupation site pre-dating the Leaholme fort, asrepresented by a stake circle (Wacher and McWhirr1982, 28), but is unlikely to have included Ditches orBagendon. Those sites saw to their own needs(Rielly 2009, 205-6). The absence of high-statusgoods, such as Gallo-Belgic finewares, which theinhabitants of Kingshill North might have receivedin exchange for agricultural produce, is telling. Bycontrast the Duntisbournes had similar ceramicassemblages to the site at the Ditches and benefitedfrom closer contact or trade with the elite centre (seeFigs 35 and 36). The Roman fort established duringthe third quarter of the 1st century (Darvill andHolbrook 1994, 53) was potentially another marketfor the farmers of Kingshill North. There is somesupport for this in the animal bone assemblage. It isevident from ageing data that wool productionbecame more important after AD 43 (Phase 4d), andthe relatively paucity of adult cattle (albeit based ona small sample) in the Phase 4c/4d assemblagehints at the trade of live animals (see Strid andNicholson, above). Another potential product wasthe hay grown in the fields, which would have beena useful source of fodder for the horses stabled inthe fort. But even the extent of this trade must havebeen limited. A measure of this is again provided bythe pottery. The composition of the ceramic assem-blage dating to the mid to late 1st century lacked thesorts of pottery, such as flagons, platters andimported finewares, attributed to the military levels(Cooper 1998, 325). If the farmers of Kingshill Northwere supplying the fort, then one might expectthem to have received such goods in exchange oruse the opportunity of the trade to acquire somechoice pieces. This does not necessarily bring us toa deliberate rejection of, or resistance to, Romanculture on the part of Kingshill’s inhabitants, simplythat the farmers’ cultural environment was not

susceptible to influence from the fort. Limited socialcontact and the ten years or so that the fort wasoccupied (Darvill and Holbrook 1994, 53) may nothave been enough to create appreciable changes inthe Iron Age lifestyles among the population ofKingshill North. However, we cannot dismiss thepossibility that the site was abandoned when theFosse Way was laid out and before the fort wasestablished in c AD 55. This may explain theabsence of a trackway to link Kingshill North withthe Roman road.

If not by c AD 50/55, Kingshill North wascertainly abandoned as a place of domestic occupa-tion by c AD 75, the time when the fort was vacatedand the civilian town of Corinium Dobunnorumestablished. The absence of occupation at the sitefrom that time onwards indicates that the area wasrural, and probably for the most part it providedpasture and arable land. There was some activity; afield ditch (8203) was cut in the 4th century, and thepresence of highly fragmented and chronologicallymixed animal bone and pottery is a product ofagricultural activity such as manuring andploughing. It is not clear whether this work wasmanaged from Corinium or, say, a villa estate thathad incorporated the land at Kingshill North,although the burial of cremated human remains inditch 8913, as suggested above, could be cited asevidence that the inhabitants of Kingshill North ortheir descendants retained a degree of ownershipover the site. Occupation immediately beyond theeastern side of the town did not cease altogether.Excavation of cropmarks on the Cirencester ring-road to the south-east of the town revealed an enclo-sure, possibly a farmstead dating to the 1st and 2ndcentury (see Fig. 1; Reece 1990, 39-40). What connec-tion this had with the rectangular building andassociated farm estate uncovered during excava-tions at Kingshill South by Oxford Archaeology in2009-10 remains to be seen, but it is becoming clearthat the extra-mural area continued to support arural, if relatively high-ranking, population.

Building memoriesIt is worth considering the settlement’s relationshipwith Beaker burial and ring-ditch 8454, which mayhave been visible to the late Iron Age inhabitants asa round barrow. If the barrow, whose location, asMullin suggests (above), was determined by the lateNeolithic pits, in turn served to locate the late IronAge settlement, then the buried individuals mayhave been absorbed into the ancestry of the late IronAge inhabitants and used to confer legal and spiri-tual ownership of the land. As discussed above, thelater boundary burials may have maintained thoserights. With the burial of cremation 8227, the inhab-itants of Corinium who worked the land renewed ahistory that extended back almost 2500 years.

Potentially a connection exists between the lateIron Age settlement and the Tar Barrows, situatedapproximately 400 m to the west. The barrows may

Chapter 7

109

have reflected on the inhabitants of Kingshill North,strengthening their legitimacy as occupiers of theland. Unfortunately, the dating of the barrows isinconclusive, although it seems likely that thebarrows were erected in the late Iron Age or earlyRoman period. One of the barrows has a conicalprofile more typical of Roman, rather than prehis-toric date, and Roman coins, stonework and a ‘pre-Roman cinerary pot’ have been recorded duringvarious openings of the barrows from the 18thcentury onwards (Holbrook 1994, 83; 2008c, 308).Reece (2003, 280) notes that Corinium, sited on aflood-prone gravel island surrounded by a marshyarea, avoided, surely deliberately, the better groundoccupied by the barrows, and suggests that thebarrows marked an area of deep significance for theDobunni, akin to the religious and high-statusburial complexes of Stanway and Folly Lane in the

Catuvellaunian centres of Camulodumum andVerulamium respectively (Crummy et al. 2007;Niblett 1999; Creighton 2006). Further support forReece’s view is provided by cropmarks immedi-ately adjacent to the barrows that take the form of arectangular enclosure containing a masonry struc-ture, and two conjoined enclosures that bring tomind the burial enclosures at Stanway (see Fig. 1;Holbrook 2008c, 310-11). This brings us back to thepaucity of early Roman fine wares and otherrelatively high-status objects at Kingshill North. Justas the inhabitants derived no material benefit frommilitary occupation in early Cirencester, theygained nothing from the special place on theirdoorstep. This suggests, as with the fort, that thesettlement had been abandoned, and the Fosse Waylaid out, before the Tar Barrow Hill site developedas an elite funerary or religious complex.

Cirencester before Corinium

110