The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian

Coate Mound (Round Barrow(s)) — Miscellaneous


In 2006 Oxford Archaeology conducted field survey in the area immediately east of the Coate Mound, and around Days In Farm:

(Further work was conducted by Wessex Archaeology in 2007 essentially confirming the same broad archaeological narrative. However that does not appear to be available online: "Swindon Gateway, Swindon, Wiltshire: Integrated Archaeological Report (Phase 1 and 2), Wessex Archaeology 2007)

It is clear that the "southern lithics scatter" reported by OA has close correspondence to the Coate 'mound'.

This scatter is stated to be of regional significance by OA, and is understood to be Late Mesolithic (7000-4000bc) in date, albeit on limited typological grounds only.

The OA survey of 'Area 4' also found more limited evidence of Neolithic and Bronze age, albeit minimal stray abraded sherds, a couple of leaf arrows and a couple pf barbed/tanged arrows.

However OA and WA both interpret the area nearest the 'Coate Mound' as being indicative of Late Mesolithic activity, with Neolithic and Bronze Age sherds being found further away.

It would be very interesting to see the original sherds from the mound, as well as the flint assemblage. Are the ceramics domestic or funerary? Are they Neolithic? If so might they be part of a transitional Mesolithic-Neolithic assemblage?

The mound was apparently full of flint, including burnt flint - this and the shape is strongly suggestive of a Midden or Burnt Mound, rather than a Barrow.

A example of a comparable type of mound feature was excavated in the Reading Business Park by OA in 1995:

The earliest phases that could be potentially associated with the mound (essentially an accumulated pile of heat effected and shattered flint and small stones) there are Early Neolithic - the usage and build up continues well into the Bronze Age (as shown by C14). The earliest phase of the mound is not dated - the excavators interpreted the build up as essentially a latter prehistoric phenomena (eg early to middle bronze age), albeit it still a feature that accumulated over generations. They, as others do, suggest that the heating of stones is somehow connected to heating water/creating steam - for example, domestic water boiling, 'baths' and 'saunas', related to making fabrics.

If a mound accumulates through smaller scale activity - eg domestic water boiling, it might take a very long time to accumulate. More over, there are now many many examples and lines of evidence that clearly show prehistoric populations did not see midden piles as simply rubbish. The midden is somehow symbolic and representational of the people who made it - a tangible emblem of community and ancestry. Particularly Neolithic, but also some later monuments, knowingly incorporate earlier middens into there design and structure, as demonstrated at many sites now, and suspected at still many more.

At Reading the mound had very few worked flints - and early ceramics in nearby features. At Coate Mound, there appears to have been a much larger number of flints, alongside early ceramics.

Perhaps this mound is the result of a Neolithic midden on top/incorporating material from the immediate area, ie; somewhere which had been an 'Important Place' in the the Late Mesolithic. If so, it is surprising not to find more clear and definitive evidence of a Neolithic settlement very close by; eg with many features and sherds/flints of later Neolithic types (as at Reading) - This is especially so, given that a midden of this potential size must be either the result of 'concentrated industrial activity' or slow build-up over very many generations (or some combination of both).

There is evidence for this found by OA and WA between 2005-2007 - both reports clearly show Late Mesolithic artifacts (almost solely) in the immediate vicinity of the Coate Mound, and no traces of subsurface features at all near this location (in the areas sampled with numerous 30m by 2m trial trenches).

It is strongly suspected among many archaeologists that very early Neolithic and Transitional Mesolithic-Neolithic sites are very rarely marked by subsurface features (eg pits, ditches) and have extremely low presence of ceramics - instead they are more like per-agricultural lithic scatters of the Late Mesolithic

It is becoming ever more apparent that Mesolithic communities could aggregate at some sites in large numbers, and that these sites were repeatedly visited over many hundreds of years. This is clear eg, on the Salisbury Plain, at Thatcham, and many other sites across the UK

eg :

This raises an intriguing question about the Coate Mound/midden - could this be an indication of a very early Transitional Mesolithic-Neolithic community, or even a Late Mesolithic midden ?

This is particularly interesting because the Coate Mound/Late Mesolithic scatter is located near the middle of what might be called the 'Coate Monument Group' (ie- multiple late prehistoric round barrows, 1 extant stone circle and multiple other rows and standing stone features now destroyed, excavated remains of Neolithic-middle bronze age monumental linear- and monumental ring- ditches, and several natural spring sites...[all that is missing is a long barrow or two and a causeway enclosure])

Whether the excavated finds from the Coate Mound will ever be re-examined remains an open question. The significance of the adjacent Late Mesolithic 'important place' is non-the less clear in this wider context, again focus attention on the extant Coate Stone Circle, [ which is only 2 or 3 long-bow shots away across the fields].

For the sake of documentation, my feeling is that it is best/useful to classify the Coate Mound as a possible midden, at least as much as a possible barrow - although as some sites have shown, there can be a continuum between midden/long-barrow...
Either way it is potentially of very early date, and in my opinion less likely, to be Late-Neolithic or Bronze age.

Coate Stone Circle — News


Objections to Moving Footpaths

Ok – I talked I bit more with some of the locals – it appears that a complaint has been filed against the archaeologists for not excavating a whole heap of prehistoric archaeology to a good enough standard> more to follow on that;

However; it seems that no order was ever made to move the footpath !! - despite ground works already having begun, it has only been posted (out opf easy viewing of course) on the footpath crossing the archaeological site.

Objections are sought by July 1st.>
(see below)

Here is a copy of an objection letter I was given > it clearly outlines how the important buried prehistoric monuments and the footpath running right over the top of them are fundamentally connected, and that the footpath should not be moved. If anybody is interested, it might spark a few ideas....


To: Rights of Way Officer, Swindon Borough Council, Service Delivery, 2nd Floor Wat Tyler House, Beckhampton Street, Swindon, SN1 2JH



This letter is to object to the proposed re-routing of the public footpath, crossing the middle of current agricultural land, on a slight rise, in an area known as Commonhead, South Swindon.
Public access across the fields extends beyond living memory, and the area has also been used for public events in the past, such as travelling circuses and the Swindon Mela. Recent archaeological work has also uncovered important prehistoric monuments directly under the footpath currently under discussion.

The footpaths and public rights-of-way are enduring links between history, tradition, and community. Moving this footpath, and changing public access to this field, would destroy the deep connection between landscape and heritage evident at this location, consequently damaging its value for the local Swindon community, and interested parties more widely.

There is good reason to think that the name Commonhead originated due to the land being Medieval Common-Land . Whilst this clearly became incorporated into private farming estates sometime before the modern era, public access and community use has been continuous, most probably as a direct legacy of its former status.

Older locals recall various paths/routes across these fields, in addition to the main footpath under discussion. This would fit relic common-land, especially if old routes converged towards a central 'head' on the common. Additionally the path has been moved several times during the current groundwork, with the historic mile marker and the modern sign posts both indicating slightly different routes. This again suggests that rather than being a single public path, the origins are not so much a defined route, but rather community access to a whole area. This would also be consistent with an origin as Common-Land.

Circuses (and more recently events such as the Mela) have been historically held in this area. The earliest records are unclear, but travelling circuses (and probably Travelling Communities in a wider sense) have used the area within, and beyond, living memory. This is typical on current and former Common-Land, and highlights the value placed on the area by the past and current residents, and also the practices carried out in recent and living memory. It also suggests alternative values and uses for the area.

The archaeology found on the site highlights the special character of this particular route.
The footpath (as currently aligned) crosses directly over a dense cluster of significant prehistoric monuments, which have marked out this particular area as special for at least 5,000 years.

In addition to a probable Bronze Age barrow (e.g.2-1,000 BC) immediately adjacent to the path in the southern field, two larger, and earlier, monuments are also present in the northern field. The first is a pair of large parallel rock-cut ditches, up to 1.7m deep and each over 200m long, enclosing a long narrow strip of land. This pair of ditches has been interpreted as a Cursus, and likely of Neolithic origin (e.g.5,000-3,000BC). It is aligned north-west towards a natural fault and area of ground-water springs, adjacent to the point where the current footpath enters the field. To the south-east, it is aligned towards the dramatic Liddington Hill, upon which are Neolithic flint quarries and other relevant prehistoric archaeology. Monuments of this form are often thought to involve community, spectator, or processional events along and within the space they define.

The ditches them-selves were also the focus of Middle Bronze Age activity, after they had substantially in-filled. This included deposition of a layer of cremated human remains and other funerary related material (e.g. urns, charcoal) as a tertiary deposit in the pre-existing earthworks. This activity is highly focused along a c.30m length of the northernmost ditch, very near its north-west end, at the point were the natural fault and groundwater springs are most evident.
The current footpath crosses directly over this area of obvious significance for our ancient ancestors, with their bodily remains (cremated human bone) still present in the undisturbed ground.

The second ditch of the Cursus to south southern truncates another, older, circular monument. This deep, rock-cut circular ditch was already substantially in-filled at the time it was truncated by the Cursus. This earlier circular monument marks an enclosed space, tomb or shrine, which are rare in this early period. It was deliberately referenced as an existing earthwork perhaps many hundreds of years later, by the paired parallel ditches of the Neolithic Cursus . The modern path (as defined by the historic mile-stone) also passes directly through the middle of this monument (or slightly to the west based on the more recent pavement sign post).

The creation of enduring 'Places' replete with ancestral significance through incorporation and referencing of older monuments newer ones, is a phenomena well documented in British archaeological reports and academic articles. This is the context in which past communities constructed values of place and history. The wider landscape of this particular area, extending westwards to Coate Stone Circle and eastwards to Liddington Hill, is just such a context. This is a connected landscape, full of remains of ancestors and traditions, even for Neolithic and Bronze Age communities.

Of note is the significance of this wider area to people during the Mesolithic period(e.g. before 8,000 years ago), and perhaps into the Upper Palaeolithic period (up to 30,000 years ago). This is evidenced by the regionally significant assemblage of flint-work and stone-tools, extending from this area westwards to Coate Stone Circle, and further beyond the modern reservoir. The presence of these mobile populations might relate to particular landscapes, resources or other features in the area. Habitation consisted of repeated visitations over a very long period, rather than permanent settlement in the locality. Indeed if Coate Stone Circle were indeed a natural rather than man-made feature (as suggested by some) it would have been more exposed and prominent in the early Holocene than it is today, perhaps attracting attention as a distinct landscape feature.

All this taken together outlines how the prehistoric monuments were created in relation to each other, a wider landscape, and a conception of deep history. It is clear that the ephemeral remains and degraded monuments of previous generations were valued because of their self-evident antiquity.
Similarly today, the local community have shown increasing interest in these monuments now they have been re-discovered.

In terms of the academic disciplines of Landscape History and Archaeology, there is a frequent link between areas containing prehistoric monument groups and later areas of medieval common-land. There is evidence to suggest a similar situation may have pertained here, with ploughing and horticulture only within recent centuries, or perhaps just the modern era. Never-the-less community use has been continuous, including travelling circuses and events such as the Mella,. This past is manifest today in the routes and footpaths through the middle of what otherwise appears to be simply agricultural land.

The current footpath crosses the remains of these monuments for a good reason – that is because the area has retained its significance as a 'special' place for many generations. The footpath is the current manifestation, and its physical presence directly over the remains of several in-filled prehistoric monuments is an aspect valued by the community and creates strong identity for this particular landscape. This connection can not be re-created at another location – the proximity and physicality of the various monuments is maintained by the current path which crosses and re-links the hidden archaeological remains. This is similar to how the monuments from different periods were created in reference to each other originally. Knowledge about the immediate local past can play a similar role in strengthening a communities sense of itself and the landscape they live within.

Moving this path would lose all of these connections with those physical remains, which are a manifestation of traditions linked across thousands of years. The sense of landscape as seen by those ancient builders and communities would also be lost. Knowledge in the physical presence of these remains gives special value to this landscape, and creates a place out of terrain for the community.

The values of these ''ancestral' places can only be maintained through continuity. In this case, it should be through the continuity of the footpath that is routed across the high-ground of 'Common-head' and directly through the centre of the important multi-period prehistoric monuments buried there.

A specific location of importance – that has endured for thousands of years, marked by large monuments, and then probably for centuries as common-land, and which is now reflected by the public footpath - should not be lost.

Therefore this footpath should remain where it is.

June 2014

Excavations near Coate/ Commonhead, 2014

I travelled past Coate the other day;

As part of the Development of the huge tract of land to the imediatley to the east of the stone circle, it seems that a range of prehistoric archaeology has been discovered.

A local who had talked with the commercial archaeolgoists told me that finds included a concentration of very early hunter-gatherer stone tools, neolithic ceremonial ditches (hendge/enclosure?, cursus), bronze age cremations, and barrows.

Sounded very interesting, but worryingly it seems that there have been concerns raised about the standards of the work carried out - non of the site is to be preserved apparently, and other local archaeolgoists have critiscised the investigations carried out (by a company bassed in Scotland?!).

There is a public footpath through the site, and although it is not easy to see much, it certainly looks half finished ...

I have come across this kind of thing before - it is a real shame that our Planning System can allow important sites to be destroyed with only the most minimal scrutiny of the standards of work carried out by archaeological contractors.

It also seems the county archaeologist who has not pulled up the contractors on standards and signed off the work, was previously employed in the private sector, and managed the intial survey work for teh coate/common head development.....
.....the plot thickens.

It might see what else i can find out - i thought some people here might find this site of interest. I am also annoyed that minimal standards of work seem to have been followed...
GnK hasn't added a profile

My TMA Content: