Table Of ContentContents
Listofillustrations The Arretine and Samian sherds by
Listofplates Dr. GSimpson . . 88
Summary Chapter VII TheStonebyDGBuckley .. . . 89
Introductionandacknowledgments Chapter VIII TheOtherFinds 98
Part I The structures Part III Economy, environment and population
ChapterI TheEnclosure Chapter IX The debris of metal working by
ChapterII ThePitsbyJSJefferies ManselGSpratling .. .. .. 125
Chapter HI ThePhase 1 Settlement ChapterX TheAnimal BonesbyRHarcourt .. 150
Chapter IV ThePhase2Settlement ChapterXI TheHuman BonesbyCKeepax . . 161
Chapter V ThePhase3 Settlement ChapterXII The Plant Remains by A Evans and
MJones . . .. . . ■ ■ 172
Part II The finds
Chapter VI ThePottery Part IV Discussion
Introduction ChapterXIII Gussage in its Setting by H CBowen 179
TheCeramicFabricsbyFEGale Chapter XIV GeneralConsiderations . . .. 184
TheCeramicForms
TheAmphoraebyDPSPeacock Bibliography . . . . .. .. . . ■ ■ 195
TheGallo-Belgic sherdsby VRigby Index 198
List of illustrations
Vesseltypes39—40
Simplified siteplan Vessel types43—8
Detailedexcavation plan Vesseltypes49, 55—59
Plan oftheexcavated settlement Ceramic groups: Phase 1 (286, 292, 296) . .
Section key 3 Ceramic groups: Phase 1 (296, 297, 305, 308)
Sectionsofenclosureditch 4 56 Ceramic groups: Phase 1 (606, 637, 639, 642,
Entranceplans 5 655,682,812)
Sectionsofentrancearea 6 57 Ceramic groups: Phase 1 (379, 382, 383, 388)
Sections ofantennae ditches and entrance area 7 58 Ceramic groups: Phase2(1M)
Diagramsofpit profiles 10 59 Ceramic groups: Phase 2 (1M, 1M/N, IN)
Histogram relating profiles, dimensions and 60 Ceramic groups: Phase 2 (52, 53, 55, 57,
volumesofthepits 10 603)
Pit sections 11 61 Ceramic groups: Phase2(57, 187, 209)
Pit sections 12 62 Ceramic groups: Phase 2 (209, 215, 351, 416,
Pit sections 13 424)
Pit sections 14 63 Ceramic groups: Phase 3 (342, 371, 359, 380)
PlanofthePhase 1 settlement 17 64 Ceramic groups: Phase3 (380)
Plan ofthe Phase2settlement .. 22 65 Ceramic groups: Phase 3 (380, 381, 387)
Plan ofthecircularhut 23 66 Ceramic groups: Phase 3 (402, 410, 415)
Plan ofthePhase3 settlement .. 26 67 Ceramic groups: Phase 3 (709, 711, 781, 933,
Planofenclosure310 .. 27 815)
Sectionsof310enclosureditch 28 68 Stoneartefacts: Phase 1
Planofenclosure 130 .. 29 69 Stoneartefacts: Phase 1
Sectionsof 130enclosureditch 30 70 Stoneartefacts: Phase3
Sectionsoffeatures2, U, IK, 857, 861 31 71 Stoneartefacts: Phase3
Plansofburials62, 285,359 33 72 Chalk artefacts: Phase 1
Plansofburials 139, 204—5,435 34 73 Chalk artefacts: Phase3
Plansofburials31, 387,410, 815 35 74 Flint artefacts
Detailed planofAreaF.. 36 75 Shaleartefacts
DetailedplanofAreaG 37 76 Objectsofbakedclay: Phase 1. .
Detailed planofAreaH 38 77 Objectsofbaked clay: Phase2..
Detailed plan ofAreaJ .. 39 78 Objectsofbakedclay: Phase3..
DetailedplanofArea L/M 40 79 Objectsofglass: Phase 1
DetailedplanofAreaN 41 80 Ironartefacts: Phase 1 ..
DetailedplanofArea P 42 81 Ironartefacts: Phase2 ..
Detailed planofArea R 43 82 Ironartefacts: Phase3 . .
Detailed planofAreaS .. 43 83 Iron artefacts: Phase3 . .
DetailedplanofAreaT 44 84. Bronzeartefacts: Phase 1
Detailed planofAreaU 45 85 Bronzeartefacts: Phase2
Detailed planofAreaW/X 46 86. Bronzeartefacts: Phase3
Detailed plan ofArea Y 46 87. Bronzeartefacts: Phase3
Ceramic petrology. Group One: percentage of 88. Boneartefacts: Phase 1 ..
heavyminerals 50 89. Boneartefacts: Phase 1 . .
Ceramic petrology. Group Two: percentage of 90. Boneartefacts: Phase 1 . .
fabricsA/B, F, J, P and L 51 91. Antlerartefact: Phase 1
Ceramic petrology. Group Two: percentage of 92. Boneartefacts: Phase2..
fabricsQ, R, Tand V 52 93. Boneartefacts: Phase2 ..
Vessel type 1 57 94. Boneartefacts: Phase3 . .
Vesseltypes2—6 60 95. Boneartefacts: Phase3 . .
Vesseltypes7—11, 13—14 62 96. Section ofpit 209
Vesseltypes20—23 63 97. Bronze-plated steel link from the mouth-piece
Vesseltypes24—6, 28—30 65
Vesseltypes36—7,41—2 67 98. Bronze billet and modelling tools of bone
68 (GussageAll Saints)
99. Two crucibles for melting bronze (Gussage All of three-link bridle-bits from Gussage All
Saints) Saintsand South Cadbury, Somerset
100. Terrets of 'Arras' and 'Mill Plain' type from 105. Fragments of moulds for casting three-link
Dorset and Suffolk and moulds for casting bridle-bit components
suchterrets fromGussageAllSaints 106. Three-linkbridle-bit from HagbourneHill
101. Terret of 'Barbury' type from Dorset and a 107. Three-link bridle-bit from Ringstead
108. Three-link bridle-bit from Ringstead ..
ments for casting a strap-union and linchpins 109. Scatter diagram of cattle metacarpals and
fromGussageAll Saints diagrammatic illustration of a cow skeleton
102. 'Simple' terret from Glastonbury, Somerset from Pit 61
and fragments of moulds for casting 'simple' 110. Histograms showing percentages of features in
terrets from GussageAllSaints which carbonised seedsoccur
103. Moulds for casting 'simple' terrets from 111. MapoftheareaaroundGussageAllSaints ..
GussageAll Saints 112. Comparative plans of Gussage and Gussage II
104. Fragments of moulds for casting the side-links 113. Gussage All Saints: comparative period plans
Figure 4falls at the end oftheplate section
List of plates
between pages 102 and 103
Theenclosure beforeexcavationviewed from the XX. Enclosure 310.
south (Cambridge University Collection). XXI. View of the trapezoid enclosure from the south.
Aerial view of the enclosure during excavation XXII. Longitudinal section of enclosure ditch 310 at
(RCHM). the southern terminal.
Aerial view of the enclosure during excavation XXIII. Section of ditch 3IOC.
withthevillageofGussageAllSaintsin theback- XXIV. Section of pit 209.
ground (RCHM). XXV. Human skeleton in pit 387.
Aerial view of the enclosure after excavation XXVI. Human skeleton in pit 410.
(Aerofilms Ltd). XXVII. Human skeleton in pit 204.
Aerial view of the enclosure after excavation XXVIII. Human skeleton in pit 285.
(Aerofilms Ltd). XXIX. Animal bones in pit 293.
General view of the enclosure from the west. XXX. Cow and calf remains in pit 61.
General view of the east entrance from the east. XXXI. Rotary quern in pit 604.
The east entrance viewed from the west. XXXII. Clay support for rotary quern in pit 604.
The east entrance viewed from the north. XXXIII. Iron-working hearth in the top of working-
A palisade trench oftheeast entrancein Phase2. hollow 2.
Section of antenna ditch 603. XXXIV. Porous Pits:
Vertical view of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 (left, upperandlower) Navicular bones of205(5).
enclosure ditches south of the east entrance. (upper right) Cuneiform bone of 205(5).
Section of enclosure ditch IX. (lower right) Right femur of 205(5).
Successive four-post structures. (centre) Right hallux of 31(6).
Alignment of four-post structures. XXXV. Healed fracture on the right humerus of 285(3)
Four-post structure. and cuts on the left humerus.
Circular hut. XXXVI. Detail of injuries on the left humerus of 285(3).
Working hollow 259. XXXVII. Skull of 204(8) with anomalous tooth wear,
Working hollow 360. abscessing, and resulting periostitis.
Summary
A three-acre settlement at Gussage All Saints, Dorset was ticular interest is a collection of bronze-founder's debris,
completely excavated and most of the archaeological including broken investmentmoulds, which wasfoundasa
deposit removedso as toprovide a basisfor broader inter rubbish deposit. The excavation was aproblem-orientated
pretations. Post-holesfor buildings, numerouspits, gullies project within a rescueframework, designed to look back
and internal enclosures provided evidence that the settle at Dr Gerhardt Bersu's excavation of the site of Little
ment was occupied throughout the second halfofthefirst Woodbury, near Salisbury, in 1938 and 1939, which,
millenniumBC, andevidencewasrecoveredforitsdevelop although apartialexcavation, hadformanyyearsprovided
ment, material culture, economy andpopulation. Ofpar thepatternfor Iron Age economy in southern Britain.
Introduction
TheGussageAll Saints Iron Age settlement is sited between exposed within an irregular rounded enclosure of about
the 76m and 81m contours on the eastern slope of a ridge four acres, which had originally been surrounded at least
100m high; it overlooks a valley to the north in which now
lie the villages of Gussage St Michael and Gussage All All the occupation wasassigned to whatwascalled the Iron
Saints (ST 998101). It is roughly circular in plan and three Age A2—AB (300—100 BC), beginning with situlate jars
acres in area with a single entrance in the east defined by and haematite coated bowls and ending in the first century
two pairs of flanking antennae ditches. BC with saucepan pots in a smooth dark fabric. Unfor
The Roman road which crosses the ridge from north to tunately, no complete plan of the enclosure was ever pre
south strikes across the fields some 700m west ofthe settle pared, but from the aerial photographs it is possible to see
ment. The 20-acre field in which the latter was discovered that the simple entrance through the earthwork in the east
overlooks the valley to the north and commands extensive was at least 17.00m wide and flanked by characteristic
views of the chalk downlands to the north and east. From antennae ditches. Excavation showed that the enclosure
the west and south the settlement was overlooked by rising ditch had never been completed. Within the investigated
ground towards the crest of the ridge. Aerial photographs area, Bersu excavated 190 pits of varying sizes, most of
taken during the excavation indicate the presence of fields which he interpreted as being for the storage of consump
now completely destroyed by ploughing to the west and tion grain. On the basis ofthe aerial photograph a total of
south of the enclosure as well as to the north on the slope 360 pits were estimated for the whole settlement. In
down to the village. A brook which runs through thisvalley addition, irregular oval to circular depressions were inves
provides the nearest source of water. The settlement was tigated and termed 'working hollows'. Bersu considered
founded on chalk bed-rock save in its southern part that they were structurally part oftheagricultural cycleand
towards the high ground where the chalk was coated with a had probably been used for threshing grain. Other struc
brown flinty clay. Pockets of this material occurred in the tures given agricultural connotations were square arrange-
chalk over the remainder of the settlement but were less
numerous on the downhill side. The enclosure was totally occasions. The ground plans were normally 00.90—1.00m
excavated on behalfofthe Department ofthe Environment sq and they were interpreted as granaries for seed-corn on
in the spring and summer of 1972 on account ofits erosion the basis of parallels amongst modern agricultural com
by ploughing. However, the rescue excavation was the out munities. Numerous pairs of posts set between 1.00m and
come ofa research project aimed at reviewing Dr Gerhardt 2.00m apart were interpreted as drying racks. The post-
Bersu's excavation of the site of Little Woodbury, near holes of two houses were uncovered: House 1 stood in the
Salisbury, in 1938 and 1939, which has for many years centreofthe settlement and was at least 15.00mindiameter
appeared to provide a pattern for Iron Age life in southern with acentral setting offour posts set in a squarewith sides
Britain. 3.00m long. House 2 was a simple post-ring 10.00m in
There are two enclosures in theparish ofBritford, south diameter.
west of Salisbury. The larger settlement was called The influence of Little Woodbury on Iron Age studies in
Woodbury and to avoid confusion, the smaller settlement southern Britain has been far-reaching and can be sum
500m to the east was named Little Woodbury. The latter marised under three main headings.
was selected by the Prehistoric Society as the site for a 1.The site hasgiven its name to a Woodbury typeeconomy
research excavation because its size made total excavation a based around single farmstead units rather than villages.
feasible proposition. The aim ofthe Prehistoric Societywas It is thought that the economy of such a unit was based
the total excavation of the settlement to fulfil two objec- on stock-breeding, grain cultivation, the storage ofgrain
for consumption in pits and the seed-corn above ground
in four-post granaries. It was also characterised by the
excavations at other sites and to reveal something of practice of roasting or parching grain before storage, by
the nature and social organisation of Iron Age settle- the presence ofcircular houses, (although the Woodbury
House 1 type is unique) by the presence of working
hollows for threshing and winnowing grain, and fields
on aerial photographs. from which the crops were harvested with small iron
Thework was directed by Dr G Bersu whose pioneer recon sickles and dried on double posted racks. It was
struction of farming practice there has rendered it the type envisaged as a well-characterised agricultural economy,
site forthemixed farmingeconomyofthe British Iron Age, with mixed farming based predominantly on corn grow
fundamental to any understanding of settlement types ing and with a life span ofsome four and ahalfcenturies
(Bersu 1940, Brailsford 1948, Brailsford 1949). before the Roman conquest. This concept was based
By the end of the second season considerably more than almost entirely on the partial excavations at Little
one-third of the whole settlement of 15,000 sq m had been Woodbury (Piggott 1958).
