stonehenge - English Heritage

047-120 section 2.qxd 6/21/05 4:19 PM Page 77
It is important to note that in all these areas there are
hints of settlement sites provided by antiquarian finds and
early rescue excavations but it is really only since the mid
1980s that firm indications of the nature of these sites have
really come to light as a result of evaluation and recording
work at development sites. In all cases it seems that the
areas available for investigation were peripheral to the main
occupation zones; there is thus considerable potential at all
these sites for further exploration and research. It is also
worth noting that northwards, within the SPTA, what appear
to be rather different kinds of settlement involving compact
villages, linear villages, and extensive evidence of cultivation
have been revealed by detailed ground survey and the study
of aerial photographs (McOmish et al. 2002, 88–106).
Whether similar arrangements were also present on the
downlands Stonehenge Landscape east and west of the villabased
settlements along the Avon Valley remains to be seen.
Romano-British pottery and coins have been recovered
at a number of barrow and other prehistoric sites within the
Stonehenge Landscape (see for example Cunnington 1929;
Newall 1931, 432; Ashbee 1980; Hunter-Mann 1999). Even
though the finds are unstratified, the evidence supports
fairly extensive Romano-British occupation/activity within
the Stonehenge Landscape. Stonehenge itself was clearly
visited during the Roman period as a fairly substantial
collection of finds suggests: 20 coins ranging in date from
AD 41–50 through to AD 330–395; pottery (1857 sherds
found in twentieth-century excavations); and personal
ornaments, brooches, pins, toilet equipment, and possibly
some graffiti (Cleal et al. 1995, 431–5 and 491). Whether
these visits were made out of curiosity or because of some
residual significance attaching to the site is not known.
Ritual and ceremonial activity of Roman date seems to be
poorly represented in the Stonehenge Landscape, although
perhaps it is just difficult to see. No conventional temples or
major shrines have yet been found, which is rather odd
given the prehistoric significance of the area. At
Woodhenge, however, the Cunningtons’ excavations of
1926–8 revealed the remains of infant burials in the upper
ditch fills associated with Romano-British pottery and there
is a possibility that the infant buried in the centrally placed
grave at the site is also of this date (Cunnington 1929, 60).
In addition to the burials noted in association with
settlement sites, Roman graves have also been recorded at
four other sites, including a cemetery at Boscombe Down,
Idmiston, excavated in 1995 but not yet published; an
inhumation at Ratfyn (Grinsell 1957, 29); and a cremation
southeast of Milston Farmhouse, Figheldean.
Some of the fieldsystems in the Stonehenge Landscape
undoubtedly originated in the early first millennium AD
while many earlier ones continued in use or were reused.
The Fargo Road settlement noted above is located on the
periphery of a major fieldsystem and lynchets were
recognized in the excavation areas (Wainwright 1971).
A detailed landscape characterization focusing on the
morphology of linear features and field patterns could
perhaps further elucidate the connections between
settlements and associated agricultural features.
The only substantial Roman road identified within the
Stonehenge Landscape is the Old Sarum to Mildenhall road
which is likely to be a Romanized trackway. The trackway
passes just east of Amesbury running in a northnortheasterly
direction, through Boscombe Down Camp and
Bulford Camp, although its precise route on the ground has
never been checked (Margary 1973, 99–100). Other
routeways include the Harrow Way (Ordnance Survey Map
of Roman Britain) and the Old Sarum to Mendip Hills road
which passes just south of the Stonehenge Landscape
(Margary 1973, 101–3).
Overall, the density of known Romano-British sites, their
fairly regular spacing, and the range of available stray finds
and snippets from antiquarian reports suggest that much if
not all the Stonehenge Landscape was significantly more
intensively used in the early first millennium AD than many
recent commentaries would suggest, and with abundant
scope for further research.
SAXON AND EARLY MEDIEVAL
(AD 450–1100)
Archaeological evidence relating to the period from about AD
450 through to the Norman Conquest and even a little
beyond is widely regarded as being notoriously difficult to
find, and hazardous to interpret. This problem is exacerbated
by the general desire to integrate purely archaeological
evidence with tradition, myth, and written historical sources.
There is a general perception that within the Stonehenge
Landscape there is very little evidence relating to the later
first millennium AD; this is not, however, entirely so. For
while there is certainly rather less than for some phases of
prehistory, there are clear indications that the six centuries
following AD 450 are strongly represented and provide much
potential for research (and see Cunnington 1933a; Bonney
1973; Cunliffe 1973f; Hinton 1977; and Eagles 1994 and 2001
for regional background studies). Map M shows the
distribution of recorded Saxon and early medieval sites and
finds within the Stonehenge Landscape.
Eagles (2001) has argued that Germanic migrations into
Wiltshire took place within the framework of the former
Romano-British civitates, with the Avon Valley seeing an
Anglo-Saxon presence relatively early, accompanied by the
development of new cultural identities and social order
among local communities. The River Avon itself was
undoubtedly a significant route into Wessex from the south
coast, and recent finds around Breamore south of Salisbury
have led to suggestions that the river below Charford was
Illustration 55
Romano-British settlement
on Winterbourne Stoke
Down depicted by Colt
Hoare. [From Colt Hoare
1812, plan opp. 170.]
77