Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society

http://journals.cambridge.org/PPR

Additional services for Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

An Investigation of Ancient Cultivation Remains at Hengistbury Head

Site 6, Christchurch, Dorset.

Helen Lewis and Julie Gardiner

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society / Volume 68 / January 2002, pp 83 - 102

DOI: 10.1017/S0079497X00001456, Published online: 18 February 2014

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0079497X00001456

How to cite this article:

Helen Lewis and Julie Gardiner (2002). An Investigation of Ancient Cultivation Remains at Hengistbury Head Site 6,
Christchurch, Dorset. . Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 68, pp 83-102 doi:10.1017/S0079497X00001456

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/PPR, IP address: 150.216.68.200 on 30 Jun 2015

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 68, 2002, pp. 83-102

An Investigation of Ancient Cultivation Remains at

Hengistbury Head Site 6, Christchurch, Dorset

By HELEN LEWIS 1
With a contribution byJULIE GARDINER

Excavations at Hengistbury Head Site 6 (Dragonfly Ponds) in 1984-5 uncovered a rare sequence of cultivation
features, with pre-Late Iron Age to Romano-British period spade marks and an associated cultivation soil
underlying proposed Romano-British furrows and another cultivation soil (Chadburn & Gardiner 1985;
Chadburn 1987). Keyhole excavations for soil micromorphological study of these features and soils were
conducted in 1997 as part of a larger project on identifying and characterising prehistoric cultivation from soil
indicators in the field and in thin section (Lewis 1998). Profile inversion indicators identified within the
implement marks suggest that the spade-mark horizon may show 'double-digging', and that the furrows were
probably created by post-Roman mouldboard ploughing. Excavation and soil micromorphology results are
presented here, and the importance of the remains at Hengistbury Head to the study of ancient agricultural
land use is discussed in terms of methodological issues.

This paper describes research which is part of a larger
project aimed at assessing the potential for using soil
micromorphology to identify and characterise ancient
tilled fields (Lewis 1998), and follows on from work
carried out by Gebhardt (1990; 1992; 1995; 1996).
The project also addresses the survival potential of
soil-disturbance patterns created by ancient imple-
ments, through the comparison of archaeological
materials, such as those from Hengistbury Head Site
6, Dorset, with the results of experiments designed to
characterise those disturbance patterns.
Hengistbury Head Site 6 "(Fig. 1) offered the
opportunity to collect a unique series of archae-
ological samples from well preserved tilled soils, for
comparison to experimental samples. During the
course of excavations in 1984 (by Amanda Chadburn
and Julie Gardiner), a rare sequence of
cultural features was found. A horizon of spade marks
was identified cutting into natural sand, overlain by
an associated cultivation soil, cut by a horizon of
furrows with their own overlying associated
'Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge,
Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ
Received: March 2001; Accepted: May 2002
cultivation soil. The spade marks post-dated Neolithic
and Early Bronze Age features and pre-dated a Late
Iron Age or early Romano-British ditch. The overlying
furrows cut into the fill of the same ditch. The
sequence was buried under 0.10-0.30 m of modern
topsoil (Chadburn 1987, 128 and pers. comm.).
This site is important for ancient tillage-indicator
characterisation from soil evidence. Well-preserved
spade marks are rare and there is little opportunity to
study this type of disturbance pattern. Also, the
occurrence of spade marks and furrows with
associated cultivation soils in a stratigraphic sequence
is extremely rare. Useful comparisons can be made
between the microscopic features created by the two
technologies, as change in the soil over time (and not
space) is the main limiting factor.
Furthermore, Hengistbury Head Site 6 is the
earliest known example in southern England where a
case can be made for spade tillage (Iron Age or earlier)
(Chadburn & Gardiner 1985; Chadburn 1987).
Although there are earlier spade marks identified in
England (Bronze Age, for instance at Gwithian,
Cornwall; Thomas 1970), these and most other spade
marks are found in ditches or at the edges of fields,
demonstrating the use of spades for digging, including
localised clearance (Thomas 1970; Lerche 1977;

83
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
Figl.
Location of Hengistbury Head
Evans 1970), but not necessarily for cultivation. The
dating of cultivation using specific implement types is
important in the interpretation of past technological
and social change. For instance, tilling with spades
and hoes is linked to low-impact farming, female
labour, low land tenure, and mobile societies, and
supposedly pre-dates traction implement use. The
latter is associated with more intensive farming, male
labour, higher land tenure, and sedentism (after
Boserup 1965; Goody 1976). This theory of a
progressive technological evolution has been
suggested to apply to northern European, including
British, prehistory (eg, Sherratt 1987; Evans 1970;
Barrett 1994; Thomas 1996; Whittle 1997). In
southern England, however, a case can be made for
ard cultivation pre-dating spade and hoe cultivation,
based on site-specific evidence (such as ard marks
under Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments; Ashbee
et al. 1979; Evans 1971; 1972; Bonney 1978).
Knowledge of implements and agricultural practices,
and how they relate to past social organisation, needs
to be addressed through site-specific research in a
landscape archaeology framework.
To explore such models, ancient farming activities
need to be identified and understood in the landscape,
and it is in this regard that approaches using soil
84
evidence can engage with landscape theory (Lewis
1998). The application of soil micromorphology to
landscape archaeology is a developing field, however,
and this paper will focus mainly on the methodology
of characterising ancient cultivation through soil
indicators, and how Hengistbury Head Site 6 has
helped to expand our understanding of this part of
archaeological practice.
Hengistbury Head has seen previous palaeo-
environmental study, including micromorphological
work (Collcutt 1992; Macphail 1992a; Scaife 1992).
Although not focused on the Site 6 cultivation marks,
this research provides important background
information. In particular, soil and vegetation studies
of profiles on Warren Hill and the Eastern Depression
sites show a sequence of Post-glacial brown sand and
argillic brown earth formation on the Head, with
progressive leaching (although with imperfect
drainage) and acidification (leading to podzolisation)
associated with Neolithic/Bronze Age oak woodland
regeneration. Woodland clearance in the later Bronze
Age/Early Iron Age is linked to the creation of Calluna
heath and continuing podzolisation. The present-day
soils are gley- and humo-ferric podzols, with a blown
sand component (Macphail 1992a; Scaife 1992).
THE 1997 EXCAVATIONS AT HENGISTBURY HEAD SITE 6:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Two areas which were likely to pick up the lines of
tillage marks seen in 1984 (Chadburn 1987, 132)
were identified, and two 1 x 1 m test-pits were
excavated (Figs 2 & 3; see Cunliffe 1987a, 5 & 12 for
exact location of previously excavated areas). The
profile is that of a podzol overlying grey and yellow
sands, with characteristics similar to those described
by Macphail (1992a, 45, 47-8) from the grey podzol
of the bank and buried soil at the Eastern Depression
part of Hengistbury Head, with some mottling and
iron-staining. All archaeological features encountered
were hand-excavated, photographed, and plans and
sections drawn at 1:10. The excavated soil was wet-
and dry-sieved for finds before backfilling the site.
Both test-pits intersected the two horizons of tillage
marks found in 1984. The sequence was the same as
that described by Chadburn (1987), and is
summarised with general context and feature
descriptions in Table 1. All finds were collected and
recorded by feature/layer; these are briefly listed in
 4. H. Lewis. ANCIENT CULTIVATION REMAINS, HENGISTBURY HEAD, DORSET

Table 1. Gardiner (1987, 25) describes the Nursery

Garden area as a dense zone of flint artefact
distribution. As expected, flint artefacts were found in
Test-pit 1
the test-pits, at all levels in the soil horizons and the
features (Table 7). The pattern of vertical distribution
noted by Chadburn (1987, 134), with an increased
number of flints at the base of the lower cultivation
Previous excavation
after Chadburn & Gardiner 1985, 317) soil, was hinted at, with a slightly greater amount
found in that location in the test-pits, but the greatest
number of flints in the profile as a whole came from
the upper cultivation soil. Flint artefacts were also
found in the fills of some of the spade marks (Features
21 & 23). The struck flints fit well with previous finds
on the site, but are mainly undiagnostic, with the
exception of some pieces that may date to the
Mesolithic period (Appendix). Artefacts from many
periods were found together, attesting to the degree of
disturbance seen on the site. Late artefacts (clay pipe
fragments) were found in both the upper and lower
cultivation soils, and small pottery fragments from the
upper cultivation soil have been identified as being
(Middle-Late) Iron Age in date (J.D. Hill, pers.
comm.). Both the flints and pottery are quite abraded.
Regarding other finds, one fragment of a possible slate
bracelet was found, but remains to be positively
identified, and two small fragments of sandstone were
found with grooves on their surfaces. Whether or not
these last are cultural is still undecided (Appendix).
In general, the nature of the remains revealed by
excavation confirms much of what was reported
previously. All horizons appear to be have seen both
colluvial and aeolian additions. Boundaries were
somewhat mixed, but relatively clearly defined by
colour, texture, and the presence of cultivation mark
horizons (Table 1). The upper cultivation soil was
located at 0.30-0.40 m depth in the test-pits, and was
very disturbed by biological activity. The horizon of
furrows followed, at 0.40-0.75 m depth, cutting into
the lower cultivation soil. There were some traces of
possible traction tillage under this horizon, that is,
within the lower cultivation soil (see below). The
lower cultivation soil was highly disturbed by
burrows and roots, and had a thickness of 0.15-0.20
m before the spade mark horizon (0.05-0.30 m thick)
was encountered. The spade marks all cut into the
lowermost sandy loam, although some had cut
Test-pit 2 through this into the underlying sand subsoil.
Fig 2. Targeted samples for soil micromorphological
Test-pits 1 & 2 and the previous excavation, at the spade analysis were taken from each test-pit (Table 2, Figs 4
mark level & 5), with intact soil blocks up to 200 x 50 x 50 cm

85
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
Test-pit 1
Previous excavation, at the plough mark level (after Chadburn 1987,132)
Fig 3.
Test pits 1 & 2 and the previous excavation, at the plough
mark level
in size being removed. The samples were prepared
following the method of Guillore (1985) and Murphy
(1986) at the McBurney Geoarchaeology Laboratory,
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge.
The thin sections were described in plane polarised
(PPL), cross polarised (XPL), and reflected (RL) light,
at various magnifications, following the guidelines of
Bullock etal. (1985) and Fitzpatrick (1993). Summary
descriptions are presented below (full descriptions
may be found in Lewis 1998). The thin sections and
resin-impregnated blocks are stored at the McBurney
Laboratory.
RESULTS OF THE STUDY OF CULTIVATION SOILS AND
IMPLEMENT MARKS
The spade marks
The 1984 excavation produced evidence of a horizon
of about 200 spade marks, arranged in 'neat rows on
level ground' (Fig. 2) (Chadburn & Gardiner 1985,
316; Chadburn 1987, 128). They were described as
representing only the very bottom of the original
features, cutting c. 50 mm into natural sand, and as
being mainly triangular, 100-150 mm long, with U- or
V-shaped profiles. The cuts were occasionally
asymmetrical in shape, with the deepest cut (100 mm)
at the short side of the triangle (ibid., 128, 134). This
last characteristic suggested that the marks were dug
from this side (usually the south-west), producing a
long triangular mark sloping up to the north-east, and
possibly that a more narrow and/or pointed spade was
used, perhaps one similar to the double-paddle or
other spades described by Lerche (1977). Double-
paddle spades found in Denmark dating to the Iron
Age are thought to be comparable to ethno-
graphically-known digging spades, and to have been
used for construction, for instance of field boundaries
(ibid.).
The pattern of many closely-spaced spade marks,
arranged in regular rows across an area suggests that
these marks were the remains of spade tillage 'of an
area of cultivation, either to aerate the soil, or to
prepare it to take seed' (Chadburn 1987, 134). The
direction of digging of the individual features, and
their organisation into parallel rows suggests that the
cultivated plot was dug from the south-west to the
north-east, at right angles to the lie of the land (ibid.).
In total, 21 spade marks were excavated in the
1997 project. The marks were arranged in rows, on a
roughly similar alignment to those found in 1984
(Figs 2 & 6). The marks were variable in size and
shape, but were generally U- or V-shaped in profile.
 TABLE 1: FIELD PROFILE SUMMARY FROM HENGISTBURY HEADSITE 6

Horizon A - topsoil bApl - upper cultivation soil cultivation furrows bAp2 - lower cultivation soil spade marks B - sandy loam C - sand
t
Context Nos. [722/1016] [723] [2000-2013] [728] None given [745] [917/724] >
Q
Depth (in) 0-0.30 0.30-0.45 0.45-0.50 to 0.45-0.70 0.65-0.70 to 0.65-0.90 0.70-0.85 to 0.70-1.0 0.80-1.05 to 0.80-1.25 1.05+to 1.25+

Description Highly disturbed Dark yellow-redish brown Fill materials akin Mottled yellow-reddish Filled with dark grey- Light reddish- Yellow sand n
by burrows and sandy loam - very fine sand with to [723] & [728]. brown silty loam, very brown sandy loam, brown sandy (as in
roots, covered topsoil mixture No associated disturbed. darker and with fewer loam with Chadburn
with dense ridges seen. (Chadburn 1987: highly red mottles than the rooting 1987), but
vegetation (as in (Chadburn 1987:uniform disturbed by burrows and lower cultivation soil with grey sand
Chadburn 1987) friable sandy loam, dark brown, (Chadburn 1987: roots, yellow-brown silty Several included lumps/ (Chadburn 1987: in places
z
partly blown sand, 0.45m thick, thin lines of darker loam, 0.10-0.30m thick, patches/lenses of yellow sandy loam)
The equivalent layer [1017] in sandy loam) usually 0.20m. The equivalent sand. See description
the 1985 trench was 0.60m layer in 1985 [1020] was a in main text.
thick, greyish brown, with flecks brown-orange sandy loam (Chadburn 1987: filled
of grey clay.) with flecks of grey clay, with friable brown/grey
compacted and well-sorted.) loam)

Features Furrows at base None seen 1-6 28 Possible furrows near top 7-27, 29-32 None seen None seen
ENGISTBUI

3
Finds Flints Flints, clay pipe fragment Flints Flints, burnt flint (TP 2). Flints (TP1) None None
HE.

Flints (TP 1)
p
Samples None taken 1/1,2/1,2/2 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/2 1/2, 1/3, 2/2, 2/3, 2/5 1/4, 2/5 1/4, 2/5 None taken O
o
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Because it was possible to excavate them from the top Northward-facing

(being forewarned of their presence), it could be seen
that they were larger than previously described,
ranging in size from c. 100 x 100 mm to 150 x 300
mm in area, and 50-150 mm in depth. The most
common shape was a rounded-off rectangle, with
several being more triangular, and one or two being
ovoid. Most of the marks excavated had their deepest
and most sharply cut sides on the north or west.
The marks found in the test-pits regularly appeared
to be cut from the northern side, and the resulting cuts
(scooped out towards the south) suggest that the blade
of at least one tool involved may have been quite
narrow. The occasional very wide marks seen (up to
300 mm wide) could represent more than one action
(two features side-by-side, but undistinguished in the
field). Although Iron Age to Roman period spades [724|
with very wide blades have been found in Britain, for
instance at Silchester, Hampshire (174 mm wide) and
Wookey Hole, Somerset (230 mm wide; Rees 1979,
321), none of the marks seen at Site 6 showed Fig 5.
disturbance patterns that would distinctly suggest the Section of test-pit 2, showing profile 2 sample locations
use of such implements.
The spade mark horizon uncovered at Site 6
represents a single spade-digging episode. No marks were cut from higher or lower stratigraphically, and
no marks obviously cut or were cut by others that
were not adjacent to them within the horizon.
Cultivation marks seen as single-event horizons (ie,
marks that are obviously related to one event, in that
Northward-facing
they are spatially and stratigraphically positioned so
as to be part of one context) are said to represent
either a single or a final tillage episode, or initial
ground-breaking activity, possibly followed by
different and/or less intrusive (cultivation) practices
(Fowler & Evans 1967).
Most of the spade marks uncovered in the test-pits
cut into the underlying sandy loam, not the natural
sand as seen by Chadburn (1987). Several marks,
however, also hit the underlying sand, and some of
these contained patches or lenses of sand in their
upper fills. This material was apparently brought up
on the tip of the implement, and its presence marks
profile inversion, often expected to be associated with
spade digging. In Feature 17 a patch of subsoil sand
was located in the western point of the elongated
mark. This, along with the straight, sharper edge on
the east of the feature, suggests this mark was dug
from east to west.
Fig 4. The inclusion of these patches of sand, originally
Section of test-pit 1, showing profile 1 sample locations from the base of the cuts, in the upper fills of the
 4. H. Lewis, ANCIENT CULTIVATION REMAINS, HENGISTBURY HEAD, DORSET

TABLE 2: MICROMORPHOLOCY SAMPLES FROM HENGISTBURY HEAD SITE 6

Sample number Context

Profile 1, test-pit 1
1/1 [723] - Feature 5 fill
1/2 Feature 5 fill and cut - [723/728] - [728]
1/3 Feature 28 fill and cut - [723/728] - [728]
1/4 [728] - Feature 17 fill and cut - [728]

Profile 2, test-pit 2
2/1 [723]
2/2 [723] - [728]
2/3 [723] - Feature 6 fill and cut - [728]
2/4 [723] - Feature 6 fill
2/5 Spade mark (unrecorded in field) fill and cut - [745]

marks, suggests that the fill in the marks is the soil in nature than the surrounding contexts. This was
originally located on the spot; that is, soil was not apparent both in the field, and micromorphologically
being deposited elsewhere, which could also explain through stronger staining with amorphous organic
the lack of ridges. 'Double-digging' is one potential matter, and in the stronger expression of intergrain
interpretation, with an upper topsoil matrix being microaggregate structure related to the activity of soil
turned into each spade mark, while a second fauna.
possibility is loosening in preparation for further
tilling or planting (in order to aerate the soil, or break
up a pan or root-mat). In addition, the standard fill of
the spade marks was substantially different in
comparison both to the overlying lower cultivation
soil and to the underlying loam, the latter presumably
being the parent fill material. The fills of the marks
appeared in the field to be slightly more organic in
character, the surrounding soil horizons being
relatively leached of organic matter and enhanced
with translocated iron. The relatively enhanced
organic nature of the feature fills suggests that organic
material may have become differentially incorporated
into each spade mark (by comparison with the
surrounding soil). This could also fit a 'double-
digging' pattern of disturbance.
Two spade marks were sampled for soil
micromorphological analysis - Feature 17 from test-
pit 1, and one seen in section only (no feature number
given) in test-pit 2. The micromorphological
characteristics of these features are summarised in
Table 3. No relic indicators of additional spade marks
unidentified in the field were found in thin section,
supporting the idea that this is a single-event horizon,
with no previous or subsequent spade digging.
Although no chemical analyses were conducted
regarding organic matter content, visual observation Fig 6.
confirmed the fills of the spade marks as more organic Spade marks in test-pit 1

89
 TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF THE MICROMORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SPADE MARKS FROM HENGISTBURY HEAD SITE 6 (% are based on visual estimates of area)

Zone Thickness Microstructure Porosity c:f ratio Organic components Groundmass Pedofeatures

F17 surface/ n/a n/a A set of horizontally-orientated n/a n/a n/a n/a
upper cut planar voids and channels

F17 fill 90-120mm Single grain & 30-35%: packing pores, planar 55:45 <10%: fine Gefuric and chitonic At 50mm depth,
intergrain voids near lower cut, some amorphous fragments, organic stained, light- slighty dusty clay
microaggregate channels/cracks. A pedal crack rarely coarser with medium brown (PPL), infills. General
(and see —>) immediately internal to the cellular structure dark brown-isotopic (XPL), organic staining
lower cut. very light yellow (RL)
X
tn
F17 lower cut n/a n/a Planar void (500-2000um wide) n/a n/a n/a At 115 mm depth -
and line or rounded voids, linear zones with a
producing a U-shaped void line horizontal alignment tn
marking cut. Planar voids and close porphyric,
cracks into fill and underlying c:f 20:80 - dusty clay/silt 5
material.
"ORIC

on
Test-pit 2 spade 50-70mm As F17 fill, but 3 5 % : packing pores, cracks in 30:70 <10%: fine Chitonic to enaulic, some Clay-rich aggregate at
mark fill 2 blocky clods lower fill near cut, and around 2 amorphous fragments close porphyric. Dark red- base of fill. General H
clods brown (PPL), very dark organic staining, rare
brown isotopic (XPL), iron mottles.
light yelllow (RL)

Test-pit 2 spade n/a As F17 fill, but Line of planar voids and n/a n/a Lens of clay-enriched Lays of clay enriched
mark cut angular blocky interconnected interpedal cracks. material (see Pedofeatures) close porphyric material
under spade Occasional channels. is light yellow to medium within a zone 5000um
mark brown (RL). Rest as above. thick of sporadic clay
enrichment at base of
fill. Diagonally-running
lens of fine materials,
following cut.
 4. H. Lewis, ANCIENT CULTIVATION REMAINS, HENGISTBURY HEAD, DORSET
The spade marks studied possess some microscopic
characteristics similar to those created in implement
marks through experimental tillage (Lewis 1998).
They have feature cuts marked by planar (linear)
voids and interrupted lines of voids, and lenses of
accumulation of fine particles (clay and silt) at the
base of their fills, echoing the void-demarcated cut
lines (Fig. 7). Clay-silt accumulation zones are seen at
variable depths from the tops of the features: at 50
mm (in pores and as coatings in the fill of Feature 17),
115 mm (clay-silt lens at Feature 17 cut), and 60-70
mm (clay-silt lens at cut of spade mark in test-pit 2).
The significance of these zones will be discussed
below. Finally here, while the main microstructure is
single-grained (mostly quartz sand) or intergrain
microaggregate, there are blocky peds associated with
the spade mark in test-pit 2 (Table 2). These may
relate to shear plane formation at the edges of tillage
features (ibid.).
Other sites in England where spade marks have
been examined micromorphologically include Culver
Street, Colchester, Essex (Romano-British or later
horticulture or agriculture; Macphail 1992b; Crummy
et al. 1992) and Whittington Avenue, London
(Macphail 1994a & b). Macphail's (1992b and pers.
comm.) samples from Site G at Culver Street show
strong mixing of large aggregates in their fills, which
are distinctive in organisation and by their mixed
nature by comparison with similar surrounding
materials into which they had been cut. In addition,
their cuts are marked by strong boundaries consisting
of lenses of fine materials and/or organic material, as
Fig 7.
Microscopic spade mark cuts, a) HH 2/5; b) HH 1/4; c) HH 2/5: lens of fine materials
91
well as short or long planar voids. Possible shear
planes in the surrounding matrix are also frequently
noted. It has been predicted (Davidson & Carter
1998, 830) that spade tillage should lead to inversion
and fabric mixing, and create coarse angular
aggregates (Macphail et al. 1990, 61). The marks
from Hengistbury Head Site 6 fit well with these
examples.
The lower cultivation soil
This horizon appears to be an old topsoil, probably a
ploughsoil, its depth created through a combination
of downslope movement, additions of windblown
sand, and the accumulation of organic matter. It
appears somewhat leached, and iron and sesquioxide
staining and mottling are seen. The later Iron
Age/Roman period ditch (Feature 700) cuts it, and
Chadburn (1987) suggests that it is a cultivation layer
associated with the spade-digging horizon, which it
overlies. The layer appears to be strongly influenced
by the later phase of traction cultivation (which cuts
into the top of it), as well as by extensive rooting and
burrowing. There are possible furrows in this layer,
lower down in the profile than noted during the 1984
excavation (see below).
The micromorphological characteristics of the
horizon are summarised in Table 4. Within the base of
the lower cultivation soil, at the surface of spade mark
Feature 17, there is a set of horizontally-oriented
planar voids and channels. These show some kind of
physical pressure or disturbance, but it is unclear what
the specific origin of this is: one possibility is
.- •*...>-
1L
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF THE MICROMORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTIVATION SOILS FROM

HENGISTBURY HEAD SITE 6 (% are based on visual estimates of area)

Upper cultivation soil [723] Lower cultivation soil [728]

Microstucture Single, bridged & pellicular grain, intergrain Single grain with intergrain microaggregate
microaggregate, occasional apedal channel,
blocky where associated with tillage features

Porosity 30-40%: packing pores, channels, planar 30-40%: packing pores, planar voids
voids & void lines where associated with associated with tillage features
tillage features

c:f ratio 45-50:50-55 55:45

Organic <10-15%: fine amorphous fragments, cellular <10%: as [723], but with some large remains
components remains in pores &c microaggregates, some with cellular structure & occasional charcoal
iron-stained

Groundmass Chitonic to gefuric & enaulic, stipple-
speckled, very dark reddish-brown to
isotropic (XPL), with zones of yellow clay
(XPL), dark-medium reddish-brown (PPL),
light yellow (RL)
Enaulic, some "close porhyric where associated
with tillage cuts (see above). Stipple-
speckled, medium to dark reddish-brown
(XPL), medium orange-brown to dark brown
(PPL), light yellow (RL)

Pedofeatures Sesquioxide staining: rare rounded aggregates Sesquioxide staining, iron mottles; zones of
of clay-rich fabric; zones of fine materials fine materials infilling voids, especially
infilling pores, some linear; rare pottery immediately under tillage features

cultivation of the lower cultivation soil; another is the
disruption created by plant roots. Besides these
disturbance indicators and rare charcoal inclusions,
there are no microscopic indicators that can clearly be
related to cultivation of this horizon. Through
intensive 'blanket' sampling it has been possible to
find microfeatures (such as the lenses mentioned
above) in other tilled horizons with no visible
implement mark features, and even in very actively
disturbed soils (Lewis 1998). Unfortunately, it was not
possible to carry out such a sampling strategy at
Hengistbury Head.
The plough marks
The 1984 excavation uncovered a horizon of 15
furrows, 80-150 mm deep with a 'gentle U-shape',
some being asymmetrical. The furrows ran up and
down the slope (north-south), and there was no
evidence of cross-ploughing (Chadburn 1987, 133-4).
Only 6-7 furrows were identified in the 1997 test-
pits (Fig. 3). These were 200-270 mm wide, 50-200
mm deep, and U-shaped. Most were filled either with
material similar to the overlying cultivation soil [723],
or with a mixture of this and soil akin to the lower
cultivation layer [728]. The latter suggests that the
lower cultivation layer was already a separate lower
horizon (no longer topsoil), being cut through by the
traction implement at the time of this cultivation
episode.
While Chadburn found no cross-ploughing, a
possible furrow-end in test-pit 1 (Feature 2) ran
east-west, at right-angles to the standard alignment
seen on this site. Unfortunately only one small part of
this feature was exposed (Fig. 3). All other furrows
followed the previously identified alignment.
Although the plough mark horizon seems to
represent one main event, there is slight evidence for
more than one episode of traction cultivation. One
linear feature ran north to south in test-pit 1, parallel
to Feature 1, but slightly deeper and off to the west.
The depth and width of some of the features also
suggest that the implement ran through some furrows
more than once. Feature 5 had a wide and uneven end
(Fig. 4), as though there had been two or more passes
with the implement at that point. In addition, furrows
were seen (in section only) at the boundary of the
upper cultivation layer and modern topsoil. The
disturbed nature of the overlying and underlying
cultivation soils, and the small area of excavation,
make it difficult to say more than that it seems

92
 TABLE J. SUMMARY OF THE MICROMORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PLOUGH MARKS (% are based on visual estimates of area)

Zone Thickness Microstructure Porosity c:f ratio Organic components Groundmass Fedofeatures

F5 surface n/a Convex surface In some places there is a reduction n/a n/a n/a Lenses of densely-
upper cut in porosity (25-30%) compared to packed grains &c
overlying [723] & upper F5 fill microaggregates at
surface

F5 upper 10-50mm Single & bridged grain, 25-40%: packing pores, channels, 40:60 10-15%: amorphous Close porphyric, stipple- General organic
fill intergrain microaggregate, vughs. fragments, cellular speckled, dark reddish- staining, rare pottery
granular remains in pores (PPL), very dark brown- fragments
isotopic (XPL), very
yellow (RL)
>
¥5 lower 45mm As F5 upper fill 15-25%: as F5 upper fill As
Z
As above Chitonic, Rest as F5 As above. Also silt Q
fill above infill or crust m
fragment (two lenses),
silty-clay infills, rare O
linear clay infills

F5 lower n/a One cm thick zone of Line/zone of interconnecting vughs, n/a n/a n/a n/a
cut subrounded aggregates packing pores & voids with plant 1
in underlying material remains o
F28 lower 180mm Single grain with 30-40%: packing pores rrt
40:60 <10%: as in F5 Enaulic to chitonic. No major pedofeatures
fill intergrain microaggregate Medium to dark reddish-
brown (PPL), very dark
reddish-brown (XPL),
very light yellow, rn
stipple speckled
O
F28 cut n/a n/a Not visible n/a n/a n/a n/a 3
F6 surface n/a n/a Straight line of packing pores n/a n/a n/a n/a I
X
F6 fill 60-200mm Angular-subangular 15-20%: packing pores & vughs, 45:55 10%: as in F5, also Gefuric & chitonic, Rare partial infills w
>
blocky; single grain & interpedal cracks. One crack/channel occasional coarse stipple-speckled, medium of fine materials,
intergrain microaggragate. two cm from base appears to echo cellular remains, rare to dark brown (PPL & slightly dusty o
Sub-rounded aggregates cut carbonised & calcium XPL), very light yellow (RL) o
at base replaced remains
rn
F6 lower n/a Angular blocky peds in Diagonal lines of fine particles n/a n/a n/a Diagonally running
uppermost underlying associated with a similarly lens of fine particles
[745] orientated planar void & an
echoing crack/channel two cm
up in F6 fill
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
possible that there were traction cultivation episodes
prior to, and possibly relatively soon after, the main
plough mark horizon. As with the spade marks, no
ridges were apparent; perhaps later ploughing
episodes or harrowing levelled any upcast material.
Some features were asymmetrical in profile, and
Feature 1 showed signs of asymmetrical ploughing. It
was steeper on the western edge and had a lens of
topsoil-like material along this side of the furrow. This
lens was stratigraphically the basal fill, fitting the
profile inversion pattern of mouldboard ploughing
(see below).
Three furrows were sampled for micromorpho-
logical analysis. Their characteristics are summarised
in Table 5. All furrows sampled showed apparently
slightly enhanced organic matter content compared to
surrounding contexts, based on the same indicators
seen for the spade mark fills. While Feature 28
showed no further indicators, Feature 5 was
associated with a 10-20 mm wide zone of rounded to
subrounded aggregates in the material immediately
underlying the cut. In Feature 6 similar aggregates
were seen at the very base of the fill. These may be
compared to similar morphologies seen at the same
location in features created under experimental tilling
with ards ('rolled' aggregates; Lewis 1998). The
presence of such aggregates at this location in the
features reflects the action of a traction implement
moving through the soil, rolling and compacting
material beneath it. This appears to be a characteristic
created by traction implements in general, and may be
related to the 10 mm compaction zone defined by
Jongerius (1983, 122) in modern furrows (see also
Gebhardt 1990; 1992).
Lines of voids delineated the furrow cuts. Only the
cut of Feature 6 was associated with a lens of fine
particles and aggregates, as described above for the
spade marks. Feature 5 had a more general clay- and
silt-based feature accumulation zone in its lower fill in
line with Romans & Robertsons' (1983a & b)
observations of clay accumulation in soil pore space at
the depth of base of tillage. A crust fragment was also
located here; this is a further possible inversion
indicator.
The upper cultivation soil
The upper cultivation soil was at 0.10-0.30 m depth
in the test-pits, and was disturbed by rooting and
burrowing. This horizon was a dark yellow to
reddish-brown sandy loam, and had the appearance
94
of an old topsoil. Again, there appears to have been
colluvial and possibly blown sand deposition adding
to its depth. In some places, zones of the underlying
lower cultivation soil were mixed in; these areas may
relate to burrowing, rooting, or tilling. The upper
boundary between this layer and the overlying topsoil
showed possible plough marks in the field section (but
not identified in plan when excavated).
The layer was microscopically very mixed (see
Table 5 for a summary description), suggesting strong
disturbance. While this may be related to rooting and
burrowing, the tilling features in the surrounding
layers make it very likely that some of this mixing is
related to ploughing. This horizon is clearly related to
the underlying plough marks, with patches of it
included in the mixed fills of the marks.
DISCUSSION OF THE IMPLEMENT MARKS
The results of the 1997 excavation are similar to those
of the previous investigation in some ways. The
sequence remains twofold: one spade-based arable
episode or initial ground preparation, followed
(possibly much later) by a relatively long period of
intermittent traction tilling. There are, however,
several local and larger-scale issues brought up by the
re-examination of this site.
Spade cultivation or ground preparation?
Cunliffe (1987, 346) proposes that the Hengistbury
Head Site 6 spade marks represent the opening up of
an area subsequently tilled using another implement.
However, there is no evidence for directly-related
tilling by any implement, although one furrow from
the later plough mark horizon was cut at a depth that
might have hit the top of some spade marks. Later
land use appears to have had little physical impact on
the spade marks, and is not distinct in the lower
cultivation soil. Chadburn suggests (1987, 134) that
the marks represent spade cultivation, with associated
ridges or hills being destroyed by later cultivation. If
the remains do show an agricultural practice in which
spades were the main implements of cultivation, this
practice would seem to have occurred only once in the
history of the site. Spade tillage may be envisioned as
occurring in several ways, creating a tilth by turning
over and breaking up an entire topsoil layer, and/or by
creating ridges or mounds/piles for planting, as in the
case of narrow-ridge or lazy-bed fields. At Site 6 no
 4. H. Lewis. ANCIENT CULTIVATION REMAINS, HENGISTBURY HEAD, DORSET
ridges or hills were found, and a form of 'double-
digging', in which soil is turned back into the hole
from which it came, is suggested (based on inversion
indicators). Beyond this basic conclusion, there seem
to be several possibilities concerning forms of land use.
The pattern of deposition described above may
have been created by digging over, clearing, or even
harvesting a plot of land. It suggests the purpose of
digging was not the removal of soil, but could be for
the removal of plants, for example shrubs, grasses, or
even certain crops, such as peas, beans, or flax, which
were found on Hengistbury Head from the later Iron
Age (Nye & Jones 1987). Root crops are also a
possibility, but these are apparently unattested in
prehistoric Britain (Greig 1991 - although Barker
(1985, 47) lists turnip and carrot (citing Lambrick &
Robinson 1979 and Parrington 1978)). The observed
pattern could also represent planting, with the soil
from each spade mark being replaced upon setting
plants or seeds. Planting-ditches and pits, possibly dug
with spades or mattocks, have been identified from
the Romano-British period in Britain, and associated
with horticulture, although it is uncertain what was
grown in them (Jones 1992, 23-4).
Given that there is no clear evidence for con-
temporaneous or immediately subsequent cultivation,
the motivation for the spade-digging episode at Site 6
remains unknown. It is impossible to suggest whether
or not the spade marks are associated with
horticultural or arable practices, or even with
agriculture at all. The spade marks may be related to
clearance, possibly associated with the Late Iron
Age/Romano-British ditch. Although this is said by
Chadburn (1987) to post-date the phase of spade-
cultivation stratigraphically, the temporal relationship
between them is unclear. Therels no new information
with which to assess this relationship.
Roman period mouldboard plough use?
The furrows were thought to date to the Late Iron
Age-early Romano-British period (the date of Feature
700, the ditch through which they cut). Cunliffe
(1987, 345-6) suggests that they are Romano-British,
which would fit with Nye and Jones's (1987, 327)
proposal that the site saw increased cultivation during
that period. Both the macroscopic and microscopic
evidence presented here, however, suggests that these
marks are, at the earliest, Romano-British in date, and
probably much later, as they were likely to have been
produced with a mouldboard plough.
95
Ploughs are necessarily asymmetrical traction-
tilling implements, which have at least a mouldboard
attached to one side (Lerche 1994; Glob 1951). The
cutting action is produced by a horizontally-oriented
share in front of the plough body, which undercuts the
furrow, after a coulter has vertically cut the furrow.
The mouldboard lifts the resulting slice, and turns it
into the previous furrow (Sach 1968, 5; Lerche 1994,
12; Leser 1931, 159; Rees 1979, 61). The fill in a
plough furrow is thus an inverted slice from the
neighbouring soil. As such, in situations where several
(sub)horizons are ploughed, an inversion or partial
inversion in horizons should be noticed. For instance,
Gebhardt (1990; 1995) reports that ten cm long
'comma shaped' fragments of Bt material in the Ap
horizon at Malguenac (Morbihan, NW France) show
mixing caused by ploughing. These fragments
represent a specific zone of plough mark fill (Noe
1976, 59). The lack of such inversion features has led
to the interpretation of historic-period ard use in some
cases (Madsen 1980). Ards do not systematically
invert; although horizon mixing occurs, ards push
most of the uppermost layers up into ridges at the
sides, and pull up material from depth into ard
mark fills.
At Hengistbury Head Site 6, the identification of
asymmetrical ploughing through inversion indicators
(and feature shape in one case - Feature 1), argues for
the use of an implement such as a mouldboard
plough. Micromorphological evidence supports the
field interpretation that the marks were created by a
turning implement (plough) as opposed to a pushing
implement (ard). The apparently enriched organic
content of the furrow fills is reminiscent of the spade-
dug samples and marked by the same micro-
indicators. This suggests that the furrows were
produced using an implement that turned upper, more
organic, material over into each feature. Turning
could also explain how plant remains form a lining to
the cut of Feature 5 (see Table 5) (although rooting
can account for this; Atkinson 1957, 225). The
presence of a fragment of a sorted infill or crust
fragment (associated with surface or near surface
processes) at the base of Feature 5 also suggests
turning action of surface material into the basal fill.
In Britain, finds of mouldboard ploughs and coulters
are conventionally dated to the Romano-British
period at the earliest (Rees 1979, 57, 59). Inverted
furrow fills have not been confidently dated to this
period (Jones 1992, 23), although there are potential
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
asymmetrical mouldboard plough marks which may
(for instance, at Warren Villas and Oakley Down,
Wiltshire; Macphail 1998 and pers. comm.). The
dating of mouldboard plough use for tillage to the
Roman period in northern Europe as a whole is
problematic, with most Roman period furrows being
attributed to the use of ards.
While the furrows at Site 6 could in theory be
Romano-British in date, this would necessitate a claim
for this site as a candidate for Roman period
mouldboard plough cultivation in Britain. I am not
willing to make this claim on the evidence available.
The plough furrows seen could easily have a much
later date; the size and depth of the furrows fall within
the typical range for medieval plough marks, as does
the distance between them (after Lerche 1994, 106)
and parts of the headland, at least, are known to have
been cultivated in historic times.
The visibility of implement marks and the 'single-
event horizon' interpretation
At Hengistbury Head, both spade and plough marks
appear to show single-event horizons. As implement
interaction with subsoil horizons is usually fairly clear,
except in certain conditions (eg Evans & Serjeantson
1988, 364), and there are no further signs of spade
tillage in the profile, the field evidence suggests that
the spade marks do mark a single event. Multiple
traction-ploughing events, however, can be proposed
based on the 1997 field evidence.
One curious factor regarding the preservation of
plough or ard marks especially is that often a single
horizon clearly stands out from the others. This has
been explained as initial clearance activity (eg using a
'rip ard' which would create deeper furrows than a
normal ard), ritual ploughing events (where marks
underlie monuments), or ground-levelling (Rowley-
Conwy 1987; Rausing 1988; Thrane 1989;
Kristiansen 1990; Tarlow 1993/4). However, it is not
always easy to attribute apparent single tillage
horizons solely to cultural decisions. First, the
recognition of tillage features in the field is variable,
depending mainly on colour contrast (Fowler 1971,
161; Lindquist 1974, 19), and is best when organic
matter-enriched features cut into lighter coloured
subsoils (Macphail et al. 1990), except in the case of
major constructions such as ridge-and-furrow, whose
morphology is diagnostic. In addition, it is possible
that the soil profile changes produced by tillage itself,
such as compaction zones and the apparently higher
96
organic matter content within some features
compared to that in the surrounding matrix, aid in
creating the impression of one cultivation episode. A
combination of cultural interaction with the soil and
ongoing soil processes may create the effect of single-
event tillage episodes where in fact several are present.
At Bjerre Site 7 in Denmark, for example, soil
micromorphology indicated the presence of later and
earlier ard marks cutting into an apparent single-event
ard-tilling horizon seen in the field (Lewis 1998). The
macroscopically visible marks at that site were,
microscopically, 'highlighted' by 500-1000 um thick
lenses of amorphous organic matter, clay, and iron
accumulation, akin to pans. These lenses outlined the
sides and bases of the^ard marks within the horizon
visible in the field, but there was no such panning at
the edges of other marks not seen in the field but
interpreted through microscopic study. For some
reason (as yet unclear), the macroscopically visible
horizon of marks was the preferential location within
the soil profile at Bjerre for accumulation of
translocated fine material, while overlying and
underlying marks were not. Apparent single-event
tillage horizons may thus indicate something
important about the physical and chemical
characteristics of these distinct horizons and their
interaction with post-depositional soil processes, but
are not necessarily indicative of number of episodes of
tillage, nor of the purpose or meaning of that episode
of cultivation. It may be that the clearly visible
Hengistbury Head plough mark horizon stands out as
an event due to some similar (but unidentified)
situation. It seems unlikely given the history of the
site, the evidence of the field sections, and the
characteristics of the buried topsoils, that the
observed furrows represent either initial or final
ploughing. With detailed investigation it is possible to
better understand ancient cultivation marks, and to
build more culturally specific and significant
interpretations of meaning.
Studying ancient cultivation by characterising soil
macro- and microfeatures: where Hengistbury
Head fits
The plough and spade marks from Hengistbury Head
possess certain microscopic characteristics that are
typical of cultivation features (after Lewis 1998). A
significant finding of this study is the location of clay-
silt lenses at feature cuts. These are basal lenses
(generally 400-1200 um thick) of accumulated fine
 4. H. Lewis, ANCIENT CULTIVATION REMAINS, HENGISTBURY HEAD, DORSET

materials (including clay, fine silt, amorphous organic Other typical characteristics of cultivation features
and mineral (at least iron) components), and compare seen include voids marking and echoing implement
well to lenses created experimentally under both ard mark cuts, and adjacent zones of loosened soil
and spade tillage (Lewis 1998; Gebhardt 1990). Such (feature fills) and compacted or sheared soil
micro-features frequently mark the bases of tillage (immediately around cuts). The latter two char-
features, and it has been suggested that they result acteristics represent general patterns of soil
from a local movement of fine particles disturbed disturbance created by the main soil-engaging parts of
through the physical action of tilling. This fine digging and tilling implements (Sach 1968, 20). In
material appears to accumulate (illuvially) within general, an implement's share or blade loosens the soil
voids created by the implement's shearing forces (such above it and in front of it, and at the same time it (and
as the planar voids mentioned above), found at the the sole in traction implements) compacts the soil
bases and sometimes sides of implement marks. The immediately beneath it and to the sides. Implement
material is presumably prevented from further disturbance patterns are thus marked in the soil by: 1)
downward movement because of the compaction and compaction and friction zones at the base or sides of
compression zones created at the cuts of tillage impact zones (eg, Lerche 1982, 113), often with sub-
features. feature distortion characteristics created by
Although further research needs to be conducted on downwards and sideways pressure, and 2) loosened
the exact characteristics of and mechanisms behind zones (including fills, 'dragging zones' (Hansen 1969),
the creation of these lenses, their location supports ridges). Some of these zones have been characterised
Romans and Robertsons' (1983a & b) general theory micromorphologically (Lewis 1998); a general
that micro-features created at the base of tillage might summary of these impact zones is given in Table 6 and
be used to interpret ancient cultivation in the absence Figure 8.
of macroscopic implement marks, although it.cannot
support their attempts to identify implement type by
such features. The findings from Hengistbury Head
suggest that the interpretation of lenses of
translocated fine materials, in particular, is important
in characterising implement impact. In the larger
study (Lewis 1998), lenses produced at the edges of Ridge Furrow
tillage marks were different in character from lenses of
fine particles related to surface sealing and crusts (in
soils where both were formed), and it was suggested
that those related to base of tillage might be distinct
from other similar micro-features. The archaeological
survival of these lenses at the edges of implement
marks suggests that we should'focus on these feature-
specific types of micro-features when studying ancient
cultivation. Other types of micro-features, such as
general zones of clay accumulation in pore spaces and
around aggregates (eg, as found within the main fill of
Feature 17), as opposed to in a lens, do not appear to
distinguish base of tillage, nor can they clearly be
related to cultivation, as opposed to other disturbance
processes. The Hengistbury Head marks thus support
the argument that some types of textural
pedofeatures, although often found in tilled soils, are
not distinctive of cultivation (eg, Usai 2001; Carter &
Davidson 1998), while suggesting that certain other
types are potentially good indicators of implement
action. Fig 8.
Schematic representation of ard mark feature zones

97
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

TABLE 6: TILLAGE IMPLEMENT IMPACT ZONES AND DISTURBANCE PATTERNS

(Observations based on comparative experimental tilling results in silty sand in 'ideal' conditions at the Silsoe soil bin
Lewis 1998, except where otherwise stated
Pattern Location Cause
Mechanical compaction zone At base and sides of impact Downwards and sideways pressure from
(including 'gloss'; Lerche 1982) zone, under impact zone implement moving through soil,
(distortion) compressing aggregates and particles
(Lerche 1994, 106) - all implements
should create compaction zones

'Dragging zone' (Hansen 1969) At base and sides of impact Deposition of fine particles and aggregates
zone taken up onto a forward-moving
implement

'Cut' marked by linear (planar) At base and sides of impact Edge of implement impact, literally
voids or aligned packing pores zone 'cutting' the soil

Concentration of fine particles At base of furrow - in cut, Deposition of fine materials from tillage break-
and/or density-based compaction immediately above or below up - trickle-down, translocation
zone in fill cut

Loose fine and coarse angular- In furrow Deposition of surface and subsurface
subangular blocky and rounded aggregates through tillage
peds in fill

Loose fine-medium subangular- In ridges Deposition of surface aggregates from

angular blocky peds and fine tillage
materials

In addition, characteristics defined as being specific
to traction or non-traction implements were
identified. The macroscopic organisation of particular
fill components represents the pattern of soil
movement created by the implement (fills of material
from above or below lining the sides and bases of the
plough marks; small patches of subsoil material in the
tops of the spade marks). The identification of 'rolled'
aggregates at the edges of only the traction features
supports results from experimental research (Lewis
1998). As described above, both sets of features
possess macroscopic and microscopic evidence of soil
turning, micro-features which may be important in
distinguishing between ard and plough marks.
CONCLUSIONS
The adage 'going from the known to the unknown'
has sometimes been ignored in the study of tillage in
archaeology, perhaps because of the perception that
where cultivation features are seen in the field, what is
deemed the most important issue - that of presence
and type of cultivation - is already resolved. Where
excellent preservation exists, and tillage features are
visible macroscopically, there appears to be little need
to apply methods such as soil micromorphology or
fine-detailed field study of the features (but see
Nielsen 1986; 1993; Everton & Fowler 1978). Tillage
features themselves have also rarely been examined
for specific micro-features, with most micro-
morphological research focusing explicitly on horizon
and profile characteristics as a means of identifying
cultivation in the absence of macro-features. Horizon
traits such as physical disturbance, general 'dusty/dirty'
clay enrichment, and the presence of fine charcoal are,
however, not usually associated with tillage in a clear
cause-and-effect relationship - there are many other
influences to consider. Often it is only or mainly
through the existence of a combination of several such
horizon features (Davidson et al. 1992, 57), that a case
for tillage can be made in the absence of other lines of
evidence (eg, ard marks, soil pollen, etc.).
Tillage marks themselves have specific physical
organisational characteristics which can be defined in
the field and micromorphologically, and relics of these

98
 4. H. Lewis, ANCIENT CULTIVATION REMAINS, HENGISTBURY HEAD, DORSET

)©rOrJ-©©T-H<N00 microscopic traits are at least as likely to survive

i T-H i—i TH ON
archaeologically as are less definitive indicators of
cultivation. Indeed, the zones of varying compaction,
ON T ^ © ON clod structure, porosity, and texture created in and
immediately around tillage marks form the basis for
3 many secondary characteristics, and may be
important in local profile changes involved in
©©o©©©oooo
boundary creation and feature visibility. Microscopic
characterisation of features such as those at
Hengistbury Head can provide vital information for
cs] ~ " CNLT)©©©(N(N©©T^
,J 0 53 T-H rsl the identification of ancient tillage in situations where
^ U— marks are not so well preserved.
Detailed study of the Hengistbury Head Site 6
(N^1 ©T-HOOO©©©©T-H
implement marks has shown that by using soil
O
' <N
micromorphology and detailed field description
methods, we can better characterise and understand
7Z! ™ O't'ONOfNNHOrH
ancient cultivation remains. Most significantly, it has
u— been possible to suggest that the furrows found are
D likely to be mouldboard plough features, and are
H
r 3 " ONrnrtOlNOOO\D
probably later than their proposed Romano-British
date. The traits defined appear to be potentially useful
O
in distinguishing archaeological features produced by
-r; OT|--^-©-^-'^-T^©csiaN turning implements from those produced by pushing
O
JS
implements. Future research and applications should
3 be directed at further refining these characteristics.
CO OT-H©©©©O©OT^
IN
PH Acknowledgements: I am especially grateful to Dorian
Fuller, Karen Milek, Catherine Lewis, Mark Holloway, and
Paul Rychnovsky, and would also like to thank Mim Bower,
OMOOOOOOOlN
(N Amanda Chadburn, Alan Clapham, Barry Cunliffe, Julie
a- Gardiner, and Peter Hawes. J.D. Hill did spot-identifications
of the pottery found. Thanks to the Silsoe soil loin and to
73JJ ©OOOT-H(N©©- Charles French and to the other members of the McBurney
« CN Laboratory, especially Julie Miller, Brendan Coyle, and
•S. U ^ Karen Milek, who produced the thin sections for this
project. Chris Stevens assisted with the production of Figure
1" ©INOOOO©©©<N
' O
8 and read an earlier version of this paper. Louise Perrin
O facilitated the deposition of the archive at the Russell-Coates
Museum. I am grateful to the following people and
73J^ OOtODNOOH organisations for financial assistance: Vladislav Stukalov,
S IN Vladimir Olkhovoi, and Natalya Rostovsteva, the British
U" Federation of University Women, Queens' College
P Cambridge, and the Board of Graduate Studies at the
r^j^p ©COO©T^©T-H©O
University of Cambridge. The thin sections and resin-
impregnated blocks are stored at the McBurney Laboratory,
c University of Cambridge.
60 a
c E
3 60
E g -a

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashbee, P., Smith, I.F. & Evans, J.G. 1979. Excavation of
three long barrows near Avebury, Wiltshire. Proceedings
n, a EQ n i w <^ ^ h of the Prehistoric Society 45, 207-300

99
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
Atkinson, R.J.C. 1957. Worms and weathering. Antiquity
31, 219-33
Barker, G. 1985. Prehistoric Farming in Europe.
Cambridge: University Press
Barrett, J.C. 1994. Fragments from Antiquity: an
archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC
Oxford: Blackwell
Bonney, DJ. 1978. Early fields and land allotments in
Wessex. In Bowen, H.C. & Fowler, PJ. (eds), Early Land
Allotment, 49-51. Oxford: British Archaeological
Report 48
Boserup, E. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth:
the economics of agrarian change under population
pressure. Chicago: Aldine
Bullock, P., Federoff, N., Jongerius, A., Stoops, G. &
Tursina, T. 1985. Handbook for Soil Thin Section
Description. Wolverhampton: Waine Research
Carter, S.P. & Davidson, D.A. 1998. An evaluation of the
contribution of soil micromorphology to the study of
ancient arable agriculture. Geoarchaeology 13 (6),
535-47
Chadburn, A. 1987. The excavation: site 6 (the Dragon-fly
ponds) 1984-5. In Cunliffe, B. Hengistbury Head
Dorset. Volume 1: the prehistoric and Roman
settlement, 3500 BC-AD 500, 61-6, 128-35. Oxford:
Oxford University Committee for Archaeology
Chadburn, A. & Gardiner, J. 1985. A grooved ware pit and
prehistoric spade marks on Hengistbury Head (Site 6),
Dorset, 1984. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51,
315-8
Collcutt, S.N. 1992. Physical setting and geology. In Barton,
R.N.E. Hengistbury Head Dorset. Volume 2: the Late
Upper Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic sites,
23-44. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology
Crummy, P., Shimmin, D., Carter, G. & Smith, N.A.
1992.Chapter 3: excavations at CulverStreet 1981-2 and
1984-5. In Crummy, P. Excavations at Culver Street, the
Gilberd School, and Other Sites in Colchester 1971-85,
21-126. Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Report 6
Cunliffe, B. 1987. Iron Age and Roman. In Cunliffe, B.
Hengistbury Head Dorset. Volume 1: the prehistoric and
Roman settlement, 3500 BC-AD 500, 336-46.
Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology
Davidson, D.A. & Carter, S.P. 1998. Micromorphological
evidence of past agricultural practices in cultivated soils:
the impact of a traditional agricultural system on soils in
Papa Stour, Shetland. Journal of Archaeological Science
25, 827-38
Davidson, D.A., Carter, S.P. & Quine, T.A. 1992. An
evaluation of micromorphology as an aid to
archaeological interpretation. Geoarchaeology 7(1),
55-65
Evans, C. & Serjeantson, D. 1988. The backwater economy
of a fen-edge community in the Iron Age: the Upper
Delphs, Haddenham. Antiquity, 62, 360-70
Evans, E.E. 1970. Introduction. In Gailey, A. & Fenton, A.
(eds), The Spade in Northern and Atlantic Europe, 1-9.
Holywood, Co. Down & Belfast: Ulster Folk Museum
& Institute of Irish Studies
100
Evans, J.G. 1971. Habitat change on the calcareous soils of
Britain: the impact of Neolithic man. In Simpson,
D.D.A. (ed.), Economy and Settlement in Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age Britain and Europe, 27-73. Leicester:
University Press.
Evans, J.G. 1972. Land Snails in Archaeology. London:
Seminar
Everton, A. & Fowler, P. 1978. Pre-Roman ard-marks at
Lodge Farm, Alveston, Avon: a method of analysis. In
Bowen, H.C. & Fowler, PJ. (eds), Early Land Allotment,
179-85. Oxford: British Archaeological Report 48
Fitzpatrick, E.A. 1993. So/7 Microscopy and
Micromorphology. Chichester: Wiley
Fowler, PJ. 1971. Early prehistoric agriculture in Western
Europe: some archaeological evidence. In Simpson,
D.D.A. (ed.), Economy and Settlement in Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age Britain and Europe, 153-82.
Leicester: University Press
Fowler, PJ. & Evans, ].G~\967. Plough-marks, lynchets and
early fields. Antiquity 41, 289-301
Gardiner, J. 1987. The occupation 3500-1000 BC.
In Cunliffe, B. Hengistbury Head, Dorset, Volume I: the
prehistoric and Roman settlement, 3500 BC-AD 500,
22-66. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology
Gebhardt, A. 1990. Evolution du paleopaysage agricole
dans le nord-ouest de la France: apport de la
micromorphologie. Unpublished these de doctorat.
Universite de Rennes I
Gebhardt, A. 1992. Micromorphological analysis of soil
structural modifications caused by different cultivation
implements. Prehistoire de I'Agriculture: Nouvelles
Approches Experimentales et Ethnographiques, 373-81.
Paris: CNRS Monographie du CRA 6
Gebhardt, A. 1995. Soil micromorphological data from
traditional and experimental agriculture. In Barham,
AJ. & Macphail, R.I. (eds), Archaeological Sediments
and Soils: analysis, interpretation and management,
25-39. London: Institute of Archaeology
Gebhardt, A. 1996. Fosses parcellaires et micromorphologie
des sols: une aide a ^interpretation archeologique d'un
paysage agraire? In Castelletti, L. & Cremashi, M. (eds),
Paleoecology. XIII International Congress of Prehistoric
and Protohistoric Sciences, Forli (Italia), 8/14 September
1996. Colloquia: V. Numerical analysis and image
processing in archaeobotany; VI. Micromorphology of
deposits of anthropogenic origin, 107-13. Forli
Glob, P.V. 1951. Ard og Plov i Nordens Oldtid (in Danish
with English summary). Jysk Arksologisk Selskabs
Skrifter Bind 1. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget
Goody, J. 1976. Production and Reproduction. A
Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain.
Cambridge: University Press
Greig, J.R.A. 1991. The British Isles. In Zeist, W, van,
Wasyloikowa, K. & Behre, K.-E. (eds), Progress in Old
World Palaeoethnobotany: a retrospective view on the
occasion of 20 years of the International Work Group
for Palaeoethnobotany, 299-234. Rotterdam: Balkema
Guillore, P. 1985. Methode de Fabrication Mechanique et en
Series des Lames Minces. Paris
 4. H. Lewis. ANCIENT CULTIVATION REMAINS, HENGISTBURY HEAD, DORSET

Hansen, H.-O. 1969. Experimental ploughing with a Murphy, C.P. 1986. Thin Section Preparation of Soils and
Destrup ard replica. Tools and Tillage 1(2), 67-92 Sediments. Berkhamsted: AB Academic
Jones, M. 1992. Food production and consumption. In Nielsen, V. 1986. Ploughing in the Iron Age. Plough marks
Jones, R.FJ. (ed.), Roman Britain: recent trends, 21-7. in Store Vildmose, North Jutland. Journal of Danish
Sheffield: Collis Archaeology 5, 189-208
Jongerius, A. 1983. The role of micromorphology in Nielsen, V. 1993. Jernalderens Plejning. Store Vildmose.
agricultural research. In Bullock, P. and Murphy, C.P. Hjorring: Vendsyssel Historiske Museum
(eds), Soil Micromorphology, Volume 1: Techniques and Noe, P. 1976. Pre-medieval plough marks in Viborg. Tools
Application. Proceedings of the 6th International and Tillage 3(1), 59-64
Working Meeting on Soil Micromorphology, London Nye, S. & Jones, M. 1987. The carbonised plant remains. In
1981, 111-38. Berkhamsted: AB Academic Cunliffe, B. Hengistbury Head Dorset. Volume 1: the
Kristiansen, K. 1990. Ard marks under barrows: a response prehistoric and Roman settlement, 3500 BC-AD 500,
to Peter Rowley-Conwy. Antiquity 64, 322-7 323-8. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for
Lambrick, G. & Robinson, M. 1979. Iron Age and Roman Archaeology
Riverside Settlements at Farmoor, Oxfordshire. London: Parrington, M. 1978. The Excavation of an Iron Age
Council for British Archaeology Research Report 32 Settlement, Bronze Age Ring-ditches and Roman
Lerche, G. 1977. Double paddle-spades in prehistoric Features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon
contexts in Denmark. Tools and Tillage 3 (1-4), 111-24 (Oxfordshire) 1974-1976. London: Council for British
Lerche, G. 1982. Additional comments on the Lindholm Archaeology Research Report 28
Heje field. Tools and Tillage, 4(2), 185-91 Rausing, G. 1988. More on the ard marks. Antiquity 62, 285
Lerche, G. 1994. Ploughing Implements and Tillage Rees, S.E. 1979. Agricultural Implements in Prehistoric and
Practices in Denmark from the Viking Period to about Roman Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S69
1800 Experimentally Substantiated. Herning: The Royal Romans, J.C.C. &C Robertson, L. 1983a. The general effects
Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters' Commission of early agriculture on the soil profile. In Maxwell, G.S.
for Research on the History of Agricultural Implements (ed.), The Impact of Aerial Reconnaissance on
and Field Structures Publication 8 Archaeology, 136-41. London: Council for British
Leser, P. 1931. Entstehung und Verbreitung des Pfluges. Archaeology Research Report 49
Anthropos B.I 11, 3 Romans, J.C.C. & Robertson, L. 1983b. The environment
Lewis, H.A. 1998. The Characterisation and Interpretation of north Britain: soils. In Chapman, J.C. &C Mytum,
of Ancient Tillage Practices through Soil Micro- H.C. (eds), Settlement in North Britain 1000 BC to AD
morphology: a methodological study. Unpublished PhD 1000. Papers presented to George Jobey 2, 55-80.
thesis, University of Cambridge Oxford: British Archaeological Report 118
Lindquist, S.-O. 1974. The development of the agrarian Rowley-Conwy, P. 1987. The interpretation of ard marks.
landscape on Gotland during the early Iron Age. Antiquity 61, 263-6
Norwegian Archaeological Review 7(1), 6-32 Sach, F. 1968. Proposal for the classification of pre-
Macphail, R.I. 1992a. Late Devensian and Holocene soil industrial implements. Tools and Tillage 1(1), 3-27
formation. In Barton, R.N.E. Hengistbury Head Dorset. Scaife, R.G. 1992. The vegetational history. In Barton,
Volume 2: the Late Upper Palaeolithic and Early R.N.E. Hengistbury Head Dorset. Volume 2: the Late
Mesolithic sites, 44-51. Oxford: Oxford University Upper Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic sites, 51-9.
Committee for Archaeology Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology
Macphail, R.I. 1992b. Soil studies. In Crummy, P. Monograph
Excavations at Culver Street, the Gilberd School, and Sherratt, A. 1987. Wool, wheels and ploughmarks: local
other sites in Colchester 1971-85, 273-5, 703-8. developments or outside introductions in Neolithic
Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Report 6 Europe? Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 23,
Macphail, R.I. 1994a. The reworking of urban stratigraphy 1-15
by human and natural processes. In Hall, A.R. & Tarlow, S. 1993/4. Scraping the bottom of the barrow: an
Kenward, H.K. Urban-Rural Connexions: perspectives agricultural metaphor in Neolithic/Bronze-Age
from environmental archaeology, 13-43. Oxford: Oxbow European burial practice. Journal of Theoretical
Macphail, R.I. 1994b. Soil micromorphological Archaeology 3(4), 123-44
investigations in archaeology, with special reference to Thomas, C. 1970. Bronze Age spade marks at Gwithian,
drowned coastal sites in Essex. SEESOIL 10, 13-28 Cornwall. In Gailey, A. & Fenton, A. (eds), The Spade in
Macphail, R.I. 1998. A reply to Carter and Davidson's 'An Northern and Atlantic Europe, 10-17. Belfast: Ulster
evaluation of the contribution of soil micromorphology Folk Museum & Institute of Irish Studies
to the study of ancient arable agriculture'. Thomas, J. 1996. Neolithic houses in mainland Britain: a
Geoarchaeology 13(6), 549-64 sceptical view. In Darvill, T. & Thomas, J. (eds),
Macphail, R.I., Courty, M.A. & Gebhardt, A. 1990. Soil Neolithic Houses in Northwest Europe and Beyond,
micromorphological evidence of early agriculture in 1-12. Oxford: Oxbow
north-west Europe. World Archaeology 22(1), 53-69 Thrane, H. 1989. Danish plough-marks from the Neolithic
Madsen, P.K. 1980. Medieval ploughing marks in Ribe. and Bronze Age. Journal of Danish Archaeology 8,
Tools and Tillage 4(1), 36-45 111-25

101
 THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
Usai, M.R. 2001. Textural pedofeatures and pre-Hadrian's
Wall ploughed paleosols at Stanwix, Carlisle, Cumbria,
U. K. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 541-53
Whittle, A. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic
settlement mobility. In Topping, P. (ed.), Neolithic
Landscapes, 15-22. Oxford: Neolithic Studies Group
Seminar Papers 2
APPENDIX: WORKED FLINT AND OTHER STONE
(Julie Gardiner)
Ninety-eight small items of struck flint and six fragments of
stone were recovered from the 1997 test-pits (Table 7). The
raw material is local gravel flint, with the exception of one
piece from test-pit 1 [723], a mottled grey flake with a rough
greyish-buff cortex, which may be a surface chalk flint. This
latter material occurs in other flint assemblages recovered
from Hengistbury Head (Gardiner 1987).
The assemblage consists almost entirely of small flakes,
broken flakes, and spalls (80 = 82%), with ten irregular
waste fragments and three blades. Two pieces, both from
test-pit 2 [728], appear to be fragments of, or trimmings
from, two small irregularly worked cores, both removed
with a hard hammer. While most of the flint is uncorticated,
or virtually so, and in a generally fresh condition, many of
the flakes exhibit considerable edge-damage such as might
have resulted from the original digging-over of the Nursery
Garden or earlier ploughing. Two pieces from test-pit 1 - a
102
blade from [728] and the irregular flake in possible surface
chalk flint from [723] - appear to be finely serrated along
one edge each. The former seems to have a small patch of
edge glass. Viewed under a hand lens these serrations appear
fairly regular but it is possible that they result from later
damage. One small snapped blade from test-pit 2 [723] is
slightly twisted at the break and may be a proximal
microburin.
Overall this is a small assemblage of essentially
undiagnostic waste. The serrated pieces and possible
microburin suggest a Mesolithic element as previously
recognised from Site 6 (Gardiner 1987).
Six small stone fragments, recovered by sieving of test-pit
2 [723], are irregularly shaped, thin laminar pieces of hard
ferruginous sandstone. This material occurs in some
abundance at Hengistbury in the form of Bunter cobbles or
'Doggers', found towards the base of the Bracklesham Beds
and outcropping in the. cliff. The pieces are of interest
because two fragments, each with a maximum dimension of
less than 30 mm, have at least three 'grooves' on one
surface. These run in roughly parallel lines, and are barely a
millimetre in width or depth. The fragments do not conjoin.
Consultation with various colleagues at Wessex
Archaeology, and examination under a hand lens, has failed
to determine whether these marks are natural in origin or
have been incised. The occurrence of Grooved Ware in the
immediate vicinity makes it tempting to suggest that they
are artefactual, but it is difficult to imagine that they could
have been made with anything other than a sharp metal
implement as the stone is very hard.