|
Posted by postman
5th February 2012ce
|
Details of site on Pastscape
A Neolithic cursus at Dorchester on Thames, largely known as cropmarks and partly excavated in 1947-52 and 1981. The cursus ditches were first recorded as cropmarks in 1927 (Crawford 1927) and again in the 1930s before being tentatively included in the first discussions of "cursus" monuments in the late 1930s and 1940s. Much of its course has been destroyed by gravel quarrying and the construction of the Dorchester bypass. Excavations between 1947 and 1952 focused on the northern part of the cursus and in particular on the monuments beside and within it (see Atkinson et al 1951; Whittle et al 1992), while work in 1981 in advance of the Dorchester bypass included some work at the southeastern end (see Whittle et al 1981). The significance of the cursus and the broad sequence of monument construction and use have been discussed on numerous occasions, most notably by Bradley and Chambers (1988), Whitle et al (1992) and Loveday (1999) while the dating of the cursus itself is considered by Barclay and Bayliss (1999). Whittle et al described the complex as displaying "arguably the greatest diversity of monuments and the longest sequence of development of all the Upper Thames complexes. More widely it can be compared with concentrations of monuments in Wessex". Note that Atkinson numbered the monuments examined in 1947-1952 with Roman numerals (the cursus is Site III) while those excavated in 1981 were asigned numbers 1 to 4. The only potential confusion arises in dealing with site I and site 1. The cursus comprised two broadly parallel ditches circa 60 metres apart, running for at least 1600 metres in a more-or-less northwest-southeast direction. The cursus and its associated complex of monuments (see associated records) run across the neck of a strip of land defined by a bend in the River Thames and a tributary, the Thame. No northwest terminal has been identified, although Atkinson has noted some indistinct cropmarks (in Whittle et al 1992, p159) which might at least account for the alignment of the cursus. At the southeast end, there appears to have been no formal terminal. Instead, the cursus incorporated an earlier D-Shaped enclosure ("Site 1" - SU 59 SE 163) although Loveday (1999) has argued that this enclosure did not actually exist. The cursus at this end appears to taper slightly. It is presumed that the southern ditch abuts the enclosure ditch, while the northern cursus ditch appears to run parallel with and to the north of the enclosure ditch. Although cropmarks continue to the southeast on both sides of the Thame, there is nothing that could be regarded as a continuation of the cursus. Whittle et al did note the presence of a concentration of flint surviving as a surface scatter in the area between the southeastern end of the cursus and the Thame. Several interruptions of varying lengths are visible along both ditches of the cursus. The cursus also changes direction slightly along its course. The north ditch changes alignment once and the south ditch twice, although these changes in direction do not coincide. Bradley and Chambers (1988) suggested that the monuments preceding the cursus where aligned on the minor moonrise around the time of midsummer sunset, while the northwestern segment of the cursus represented a shift in alignment towards midsummer sunset itself, and suggested that this might be representative of a general shift in beliefs focused on the moon to a greater concern with the sun. The problems with this interpretation are the fact that they noted only one change in alignment of the cursus overall, while it is also clear that half of the cursus actually retained the alignment of the earlier monuments. In addition to Site 1, the cursus is also pre-dated by the long enclosure known as SIte VIII (SU 59 NE 4). Bradley and Chambers suggested that some other monuments may also pre-date it, though Whittle et al suggest otherwise on the basis of dating evidence. The southern cursus actually cuts across the "Site VIII" enclosure, the cursus ditch passing through the enclosure's southeast entrance causeway (at which point the cursus ditch is also interrupted by a causeway). The best dating evidence for the cursus comes from this area. A polished flint axe came from the primary fill, a lozenge shaped flint arrowhead came from the bottom of the secondary silting, and sherds of both Ebbsfleet Ware and Beaker were reported from the upper fills. An antler from the primary fill has been dated to 3380-2920 BC (calibrated), though whether this genuinely dates the cursus construction is open to debate. However, dating evidence recovered from earlier and later monuments in the complex supports a broad 2nd half of the 4th millennium BC date, in line with cursus monuments generally. Excavations of the cursus ditch have generally been narrow cuttings or small stretches of ditch, although a reasonable length within Site VIII was examined. Surviving section drawings show the southern cursus ditch to have been cut up to 2.4m wide and 1.2m deep into the gravel. The surviving sections show a symmetrical silting pattern, although Atkinson refered to evidence for the presence of an internal bank. The ditches appear to have silted up naturally. Whittle et al suggested that certain aspects of the cursus layout - for example the open ends, the changes in alignment, the gaps along the ditches - hinted at episodic construction, perhaps in several stages. Atkinson noted an artifical interruption in the southern ditch caused by deliberate backfilling of the ditch. While this might support the idea of episodic activity, the location of this artificial causeway is not located. In contrast, Loveday argues that the cursus should be regarded "as the product of a single act" (5b, 8-12)
The Cursus West ditch passes through the probable Long Barrow at "Site VIII" (SU 571955) and is secondary to it. A quantity of Ebbsfleet or Peterborough pottery was found in the middle filling of the Cursus ditch at this point. (1)
The East ditch of the Cursus was later than the enclosure and earlier than the "droveway" at "SiteIX" (SU 570958), which yielded Abingdon Neo. pottery. (2)
Two causeways across W. ditch, one natural and one artificial, found near "Sites V & VI" but no dating material, during 1947. (3)
The Cursus, as shewn on A.P.s. extends from SU 5690 9585 to SU 5781 9509 with a possible extension to SU 5815 9481. (4)
Information as in T.I. A polished flint axe and a a leaf-shaped arrowhead were found in the primary silting of the ditch, and pottery of Ebbsfleet type in the upper silting. (5)
Excavations in advance of the Dorchester by pass examined the south-eastern terminal. A flint arrowhead was the only datable artefact found. A central entrance was found at the terminus. (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE TEXT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society Oxoniensia [RJC Atkinson. Archaeological Notes] 13, 1948 Page(s)66
(2) Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society Oxoniensia [RJC Atkinson. Archaeological Notes] 13, 1948 Page(s)67
(3) Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society Oxoniensia [Archaeological Notes] 11-12, 1947 Page(s)164
(4) Field Investigators Comments F1 DT 01-AUG-51
(4a) Aerial photograph - O.G.S.Crawford's Air Photos.
(5) Field Investigators Comments F2 FAH 18-SEP-52
(5b) by R J C Atkinson, C M Piggott and N K Sandars 1951 Excavations at Dorchester, Oxon: first report. Sites I, II, IV, V and VI, with a chapter on henge monuments Page(s)60-3
(6) edited by Andrew Pike 1992 South Midlands Archaeology [Newsletter of the CBA South Midlands Group 9] Council for British Archaeology Group 9: South Midlands archaeology newsletterno 1 (1971) - 12, 1982 Page(s)144-5
(7) RCHME/EH Aerial Photographers Comment Fiona Small/12-MAY-1994/RCHME: Thames Valley NMP
(8) Oxford journal of archaeology Bradley R, Chambers R. A New Study of the Cursus Complex at Dorchester on Thammes. 7, 1988 Page(s)271-89
(9) Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society - Whittle A et al. Excavations in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Complex at Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, 1947-1952 and 1981. 58, 1992 Page(s)143-201
(10) A Barclay, J Harding (eds) 1999 Pathways and Ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland Barclay A, Bayliss A. Cursus monuments and the radiocarbon problem. Page(s)11-30
(11) A Barclay, J Harding (eds) 1999 Pathways and Ceremonies: the cursus monuments of Britain and Ireland Loveday, R. Dorchester-on-Thames - ritual complex or ritual landscape? Page(s)49-63
(12) Antiquity Publications Limited Antiquity - Crawford, OGS. Air-Photographs near Dorchester, Oxon 1, 1927 Page(s)469-474
|
Posted by Chance 5th February 2012ce |
Col. A. L. Fox — On the Threatened Destruction of the British Earthworks near Dorchester, Oxfordshire.
Special Meeting, June 21st, 1870.
[Held in the Theatre of the Royal United Service Institution, Whitehall Yard, by the permission of the Council of the Institution.] Professor Huxley, LL.D., F.R.S., President, in the Chair.
The following paper was read by the author;—
XXXVII. On the threatened destruction of the British Earthworks near Dorchester, Oxfordshire. By Col. A. Lane Fox, Hon. Sec. Ethn. Soc.
Although the subject is not in any way connected with the paper that is to be read this evening (Mr. Forbes’s paper on the Aymaras), yet, knowing the interest which is taken by this Society in the preservation of our prehistoric antiquities, I venture to think that a few words in reference to the Dykes at Dorchester in Oxfordshire may not be without interest to the Meeting, owing to the report which has appeared in the papers since our last meeting, relative to the threatened destruction of these works by the owner of the property on which they stand. The ancient fortifications of this place consist of two distinct works—one on the south and the other on the north bank of the Thames. The former (on the south side) occupies the more eastern of two conspicuous hills, each of which is topped by a clump of trees, known as the Wittenham Clumps. This work is about a quarter of a mile to the south of the river-bank, and three miles to the north-east of Didcot Station on the Great Western Railway. The entrenchment, like that of most British camps, follows the outline of the hill, running round it in the most suitable position for defence. It commands an extensive view of the country for miles round; but the interior of the camp is itself commanded within 150 yards by the adjoining hill to the north-west. It is of an irregular oval form, about 400 paces across from S.E. to N.W. The defences consist of a ditch, about five paces wide at the outer in consequence of the natural slope of the hill. The inner rampart, if it ever existed, has been destroyed by cultivation; but it is not improbable, from the great command which the inner side of the ditch has over the opposite side, that the defence may originally have been confined to an escarpment surmounted by a stockade or some other defensive obstacle on that side. This mode of defence appears not infrequently to have been adopted by the ancient Britons in cases where the ground itself afforded the necessary command of the exterior. There is an entrance on the north-west salient angle which is swept by a knoll on the inner side of the ditch. Another entrance on the north-west leads in the direction of the ancient ford on the Isis. All these are characteristics of a British earthwork. The interior of the camp is terraced on the north side; but these terraces are evidently the result of cultivation in modern times. I found no sufficient evidence of the fabrication of flints in this work; but I picked up in the interior a fragment of a polished celt and a sea-shore quartzite pebble rubbed to an edge at one end. Pebbles similarly rubbed at one end are not uncommon amongst the relics of the prehistoric age. I exhibit a precisely similar implement which I found amongst the debris of a barrow on the Yorkshire Wolds.
Passing over the Thames, to the north side, we come to the Dykes, the threatened destruction of which is reported in the newspapers. They consist of a nearly straight line of entrenchments, about 900 yards in length, and composed of double banks and ditches, which cuts off a promontory formed by the bend of the river, and encloses an area of about three-quarters of a mile in length by a quarter of a mile in breadth. The principal ditch, about 57 feet in width, is situated between the two banks. There is a smaller ditch on the outer or north side. The outer or northern bank appears to have been the highest, which is probably to he accounted for by its being placed between the two ditches, and having received the materials excavated from both. This was well shown in the section of a fresh cutting made through the bank, in which the lines of the successive deposits could be traced. This section also showed that the banks are covered with a thickness of from 8 to 12 inches of vegetable soil, entirely devoid of stones or pebbles of any kind, and which must, in all probability, have accumulated from the decay of the grass on the banks. The length of time necessary for the formation of so great a thickness of vegetable soil must have been considerable. There are at present three openings through the dykes. About 200 yards of the right flank of the dyke is thrown back in the direction of the junction of the Thame stream with the Isis. From this point the river assumes the name of the Thames River. On carefully searching the ground which had been excavated from the banks on the left flank, and the cultivated ground in the interior of the camp, I found abundant evidence of the fabrication of flint implements [a number of cores, flakes, and chips from this spot were exhibited to the Society}; but I did not succeed in finding any flint tool, with the exception of one fragment of a well-chipped spear-head. I also found on the dykes several pieces of pottery of undoubtedly British production, and a fragment of wheel-made pottery of later date.
In the year 1836 an oval bronze shield, 14 by 13 inches in diameter, was discovered in the bed of the Isis, about 150 yards to the rear of the left flank of the dyke, beneath an accumulation of recent drift. {A drawing of this shield was exhibited, of the actual size.]The original is in the British Museum, and is described in vol. xxxviii. of the ^Archseologia'.
Mr. Clutterbuck, the rector of Long Wittenham, and the writer of an article on this place in the 'Archoeologia’ is of opinion, from the position of this discovery, that the river still runs in its original course, and no doubt this is the case to a considerable extent; but there is, I think, evidence that the river has slightly altered its course since the dykes were erected. From the curve which the river makes at this point it might naturally be expected that it would leave the dykes on the north, and work its way southward; but it was no doubt checked by the higher ground on the south. The sketch plan exhibited to the Meeting shows, however, that the flanks of the dyke do not reach the present bank of the river, and that a space of thirty paces intervenes on the left flank, while on the right the dyke stops seventy paces short of the Thame stream. It is improbable that the defenders should have neglected to secure their flanks by causing them to abut upon the banks of the river as they existed at the time of its construction. The position of the portion of the dyke which is thrown back on the right flank also shows the Thame stream must have extended more to the westward, probably up to the line now marked by a small ditch. From the nearest point of this original line the dyke is drawn straight across to the Isis; but the meadow-ground below Dorchester, on the right bank of the Thame stream, must have been covered with water, though probably shallow and fordable; and it was in order to command this ground that an epaulement was thrown back on the right flank; but the abrupt termination of the work at seventy paces distance from the present stream shows that deep water must have existed to the westward of the present stream.
I found no trace of Roman tiles or pottery, nor can I learn that any thing Roman has been discovered on the site of the camp, though no doubt Dorchester itself was at one time a Roman station. This circumstance, coupled with the discovery of a bronze shield and the evidence of flint cores and debris (all of which must have been imported, as this is not a flint-producing district), appears to me conclusive in determining the fortifications to be of British construction. Viewing the position of the two works, and the position of the ancient ford between them, it may safely be assumed that they were connected in the defence of this locality, and were the work of the same people.
The ancient Britons never constructed their camps upon low ground. Sinodun Hill was no doubt the principal stronghold; and the Dorchester dykes on the low ground to the north of the river were thrown up to cover the passage of the river at the ford, and secure a communication with the left bank. About 200 yards of the left flank of the Dorchester dykes have now been levelled, or rather reduced for cultivation; a portion of this, however, was done by the former owner. I called upon Mr. Latham, the present owner, by whom the work of demolition is now being continued. After some conversation I elicited from him a promise that the levelling should be discontinued for the present; but I could obtain no assurance that it would not be continued at some future time. This is much to be regretted, as the ramparts are now in a good state of preservation. Traces of the work, however, will still be seen in those parts which have been lowered for cultivation.
The Journal of the Ethnological Society 1870, Page 412 to 415
|
Posted by Chance 5th February 2012ce |
 
|
Posted by GLADMAN
5th February 2012ce
|
      
|
Posted by GLADMAN
5th February 2012ce
|
|
Posted by GLADMAN
5th February 2012ce
|
|
Posted by GLADMAN
5th February 2012ce
|
|
Posted by GLADMAN
5th February 2012ce
|

|
Posted by GLADMAN
5th February 2012ce
|
  
|
Posted by GLADMAN
5th February 2012ce
|
This is truly miscellaneous, stones that no longer exist. But just to the east of Bitton Barrow, in between two fields called Mickle Mead and Holm Mead there are several stones following a line just above the River Avon.
So to record them for posterity the grid refs for Oldmap Uk are 367552,168907.
Well they maybe stones from a stone circle given their site near the river (and the fact that Stanton Drew is not too far away), this part of the world has a lot of Roman history as well, situated under North Stoke, in the hills above with its large 'spout' of water by its church and of course the church in Bitton also supposedly a 'heathen' temple..
The present site of the stones (which must have been moved in the 19th C probably for the road) is I believe a sewage plant!
|
Posted by moss 5th February 2012ce |

|
Posted by GLADMAN
5th February 2012ce
|
|
Posted by GLADMAN
5th February 2012ce
|
|
Posted by GLADMAN
5th February 2012ce
|
|
Posted by GLADMAN
5th February 2012ce
|
       
|
Posted by Moth
5th February 2012ce
|
|
Posted by Meic
4th February 2012ce
|
|
Posted by Meic
4th February 2012ce
|
|
Posted by Meic
4th February 2012ce
|
|
Posted by Meic
4th February 2012ce
|

|
Posted by Meic
4th February 2012ce
|
|