A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

K. Jarrett

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

Cover: Figure 1 Crickley Hill from Great Witcombe villa, Gloucestershire (photo: K Jarrett) Kirsten Jarrett, 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any other form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the copyright holder.

Page | 2

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

Abstract
The archaeological investigations of Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire which took place over a twenty-five-year period, with the help of several thousand volunteers led to many exciting discoveries. Since the final season of excavations, post-excavation work has continued, processing an enormous archive, in order to create reports relating to the various phases of activity (from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages). This paper provides a summary of Romano-British and early Medieval settlement and ritual activity on the hilltop. The post-Roman settlement consisted of two separate (but related) late Roman or early post-Roman zones perhaps demonstrating rare evidence for social stratification. It introduces new discoveries made by the author during post-excavation analysis, considering Crickley Hill in relation to the Roman and post-Roman archaeological landscape of Southwest Britain.

Preface
This report has been created by Kirsten Jarrett BA (Hons.) MA PhD AIfA, who specialises in the archaeology of Roman to early Medieval Southwest Britain, having undertaken doctoral research (University of Sheffield) investigating identity within this region during this time. She has undertaken post-excavation analysis and research on the Crickley Hill archive since 1997, and is currently writing volume 6 in the series of site reports on the Roman and early Medieval activity at the site. Other research interests include late antique ritual practices, and small finds, of southwest Britain. Dr Jarrett is a freelance archaeological educator and researcher, having taught for the Continuing Education Departments in the University of Nottingham and Keele University, and for the WEA. It is hoped that the full, revised, report (Vol. 6) will be published within the next two years. This paper has been written in response to requests for an interim summary of the late- and post-Roman activity. The author would like to thank Dr Philip Dixon: not only for providing the opportunity to undertake this project, but also for the support and patience that he has provided during this work, and for permission to include his settlement plans in figure 2. Thanks must also be extended to Dr Stephen Leach, again for the patience and support the he has provided, and for frequent proof reading (although of course any remaining errors are those of the author). Thanks also to David Hollos for his discussions on and information relating to the Long Mound and Short Mound. The author has made photographs of the site, and of finds from the site dating to these periods, available online: http://www.flickr.com/photos/crickley_hill_ad/ The author is also developing a website to make data and interpretations widely available; in the mean time, updates of progress will be posted on a Blog run by the author. This site also has a link to a finds database incorporating many Roman and post-Roman diagnostic artefacts: http://crickleyhillad.blogspot.com/

Page | 3

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire Introduction: general outline of activity
Crickley Hill, located on the Cotswold escarpment (fig. 1), is a multi-period site (fig. 2), with significant activity beginning in the Neolithic including an enclosure, settlement (on a raised area, towards the western end of the hilltop), and shrine (Snashall 1997; Snashall 1998). A unique monument - the Long Mound was built over the shrine during the late Neolithic to early Bronze Age, and was modified, perhaps during the Middle Iron Age (Hollos 1999; see Jarrett and Hollos, forthcoming). The most prominent features of the hilltop are the Iron Age ramparts, which enclose a hillfort of c. 10 ha (Parry 1994: 23). A workforce of several thousand volunteers, under the Directorship of Prof. Philip Dixon (formerly of the University of Nottingham), dug an unusually high percentage (c. 52%, ibid.) of the hilltop (relative to other hillfort excavations: see Alcock, Stevenson, and Musson 1995; Rahtz et al. 1992), over 25 seasons (1969-1994). A number of unique features were revealed, alongside more typically encountered activity, and these have been placed within wider local and regional contexts through long-term analysis and study, by a number of scholars focusing upon particular features and phases of activity.1 As might be expected, this has not only enriched our understanding of comparable sites, but has also posed further questions for future research.

Figure 2: Phases of activity at Crickley Hill: Red = Roman or later activity (Plan: K. Jarrett / CHAT, incorporating settlement plans from Dixon 1988, with the kind permission of Prof. PW Dixon)

This paper summarises hillfort activity and reoccupation during the early historic period, and introduces discoveries made during the course of post-excavation analysis.2 The hillfort was abandoned at the end of the Early Iron Age (see Dixon 1994). However, as at number of other hillforts across the Southwest (see Burrow 1979, 1981a and b for a summary of activity within Somerset; see Jarrett 2010 for a survey of sites across the Southwest), Crickley had intermittent activity and minor reoccupation during the late pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA) to early Roman periods (site Period 3c). After a hiatus of settlement (which is common with regard to hillfort activity in the Southwest), reoccupation perhaps began during the late 4th or early 5th century.
Prof. Philip Dixon has focused upon Iron Age activity at the site; David Hollos has investigated the Long Mound; Dr. Nicola Snashall has undertaken the research on the Neolithic activity; and Dr Kirsten Jarrett has undertaken the research on the late preRoman Iron Age, Roman, and post-Roman activity. 2 Undertaken since 1997 by the author, during and after MA research (Jarrett 1999) Page | 4
1

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

In the late- to post-Roman period (Period 4) nucleated settlement was again established on the hilltop, perhaps some time after the first quarter of the 5th century AD.3 The small number and limited range of most Roman period finds at Crickley (as well as their frequently worn and fragmentary condition) - in comparison to finds from local Romano-British settlement in the area - parallels finds at post-Roman sites across Western Britain. Only four Roman coins were found on the hill top one of which was likely to have formed a votive deposit within the Long Mound during the later 4th century. It is difficult to determine the date at which Crickley was abandoned: the later 5th 6th century wares imported from the Mediterranean or Continent (see Campbell 2007) that are typical finds on reoccupied hillforts in western Britain have not been found, which may indicate a cessation of occupation before the end of the century. However, such wares do not generally occur within this region (with finds of North African amphorae from Gloucester, see Heighway and Garrod 1980: 96, as likely to date to the early, than late, 5th century). The presence of organic-tempered wares, and some metalwork (comparable to finds that commonly occur within 5th 6th century contexts), may suggest prolonged occupation (see below). The hilltop subsequently saw irregular use, including (seemingly sporadic) Middle Saxon (Period 4bii) activity; recent analysis of the finds suggests this may include minor occupation within the horn-work entrance to the hillfort. There is possible evidence of Medieval pastoral use in the form of a shepherds bothy (although this building may alternatively date to the Roman period). Fortunately, the site was never ploughed, although limestone quarrying has damaged some areas of the site (particularly north and west of Period 4 settlement in the south-east area of the hilltop). The hillfort is currently a popular tourist destination (and consequently suffers from surface erosion); it has been awarded an SSSI classification, primarily due to the presence of rare faunal species.

Late- to post-Roman activity at Crickley Hill

Settlement Due to extensive excavation, two separate but related Period 4 areas of settlements (seemingly of differing status) were discovered on the hilltop. As investigations of other reoccupied hillforts within the South-West have been limited, comparable settlement patterns have yet to be discovered, although it is hoped future research will determine the extent of this practice. Both settlement zones exhibited at least two phases of occupation, with comparable finds in both areas suggesting their contemporaneity (although there are some differences: see below). However, a short phase of settlement may have preceded the main reoccupation of Crickley (the finds from this area suggesting a date within the Roman period: see below). Occupation deposits were recognised on the silted surface of the hillfort ditch; the location of dwellings outside the ramparts compares with activity at the hillfort at Cannington (see Rahtz 1969: 66; Burrow 1981b: 192, 295). Occupation deposits were also found in the area of the original hillfort entrance (consisting of dark earth and hearths, with evidence for metalworking indicated by the presence of two crucibles), although the finds suggest that this activity more likely dates to the LPRIA early Roman period, and Middle Saxon period (see below). The unenclosed settlement area, located to the south-east of the site, behind the rampart, contained rows of buildings of various forms, constructed in a range of materials (mirroring the diversity seen on other late- to postRoman settlements, such as Poundbury, see Sparey Green 1988). The building superstructures (in some cases of turf, in others of cob or wattle-and-daub, and perhaps with straw roofs) commonly rested upon foundations of limestone slabs, which had been placed around the edge of shallow scoops. Although the floors of these buildings were hollowed into the ground surface, they did not resemble the typical forms of 5th 6th century Germanic SFBs (Sunken Featured Buildings), due to their irregular plans, stone footings, and sparse postholes. However, in personal correspondence, Christopher Hawkes noted how one building, at least, compared with Roman buildings excavated at Trer Ceiri, on the Lln Peninsula in Gwynedd. Some building plans were subrectangular, others more circular, and one building was polygonal in plan, comparable to a late Roman building at
3 Burrow (1981a and b) surveyed the evidence for Roman or later activity at hillforts in Somerset. In addition, the author considered the evidence for Roman period activity (which, considering the range and type of finds typically found within sealed contexts dating to the 5th and 6th century at some hillforts, may in some cases be related to post-Roman activity) at hillforts across the Southwest (see Jarrett 2010). This was undertaken by a survey of the HER, and by visiting a number of sites within the region, at which surfacescatters of Romano-British ceramics were recognised. Page | 5

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

nearby Birdlip (see Mudd 1999), and another at Catsgore, in North Somerset (see Leech 1982). The hearths within these buildings were centrally placed, demonstrating a degree of continuity from pre-Roman practices, although contrasting with the Birdlip structure (see ibid.). The hearth found within a building (see fig. 3) situated close to the entrance to the settlement that was cut through the rampart during this period has similarities with a hearth in a post-Roman building on the hillfort at Dinas Powys (see Alcock 1963). This building, and others in this area, had evidence for industrial activity. This included grain processing (indicated by the presence of quern stones and rubbers), iron working (indicated by slag), and bronze working (probably the smelting of recycled alloys),4 with the fragments of a small crucible suggesting the working of precious metals. The incorporation of a broken stone mould (made from local oolitic limestone, and probably used for manufacturing pewter discs) within the wall of one building in this area suggests either on-site pewter manufacture or association with nearby sites at which such activity took place. Pewter moulds have been found at Witcombe (Beagrie 1989: 186; Leach 1998) and within later Roman phases at Westgate Street, Gloucester (Blagg 1980: 103-05), but these are different to the Crickley example. Similar moulds occur with late Roman contexts at Camerton, Somerset (see Wedlake 1958). Several probable middens were associated with the unenclosed settlement (incorporating a large cache of ceramics within a lean-to building behind the rampart, and deposits within the upper fill of an early Iron Age quarry pit although the latter may instead represent an occupation deposit, and more likely dates to the LPRIA).

Figure 3 Building within unenclosed settlement at Crickley (plan: K. Jarrett / CHAT)

Another settlement zone was located c. 200m to the north-west (towards the western tip of the hill), close to the end of the Long Mound. Enclosure by a fence (which finds of daub from the postholes suggest may have been a relatively substantial feature), building morphologies (being mainly timber-framed structures), and the presence of a granary (itself enclosed by a further fence) - suggesting the control and exploitation of local agricultural resources and population - point towards social stratification. This settlement zone also differed from the unenclosed settlement by having fewer finds (see Preface, for URL links to online finds images and database); the midden for the enclosed settlement may have been placed outside the enclosure, represented by a deposit in the area of the rampart at the tip of the hill.
4

Smelting appears to have been more common during this period (see Dungworth 1997a, 1997b, Northover 1995). Page | 6

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

In having interior enclosures, dividing the hilltop into separate zones, Crickley is similar to Cadbury Congresbury, North Somerset in the post-Roman period (Rahtz et al. 1992). Another feature shared with 'Cad Cong' is the probable provision of a 'guard-house' (ibid.): at Crickley, this is located next to the entrance to the enclosed settlement. Buildings within this settlement zone were more substantial than those to the south-east, being mainly larger timber-framed circular structures (placed directly on the ground surface), with two buildings of post-on-post-pad construction (which have been seen in numerous later Roman contexts).

Figure 4 Central building of enclosed settlement at Crickley: black = postholes, white = burnt stone (GIS plan: K. Jarrett / CHAT)

One of these buildings was rectangular a sub-divided structure, with an entrance in the southern gable wall during the second phase of construction - and located in the centre of the enclosure (fig. 4). This was mostly of timber construction, although the southwestern corner incorporated stone (which may represent the position of a chimney, or perhaps an attempt to strengthen the building against high winds).5 The plans for these two buildings might be interpreted in a number of ways, although it seems most likely that the southern gable wall of the first phase building significantly bowed or protruded outwards. This may represent the position of a porch (and therefore parallel late and post-Roman buildings within urban contexts across the west), although it might instead indicate a building with an almost pointed wall line. This structure had both hearths and cooking pits, in common with local Roman-period buildings, and in contrast to buildings in the unenclosed settlement: this arrangement of domestic space parallels that seen within a late Roman building at the nearby Birdlip settlement, despite this building being of circular plan (See Mudd 1999; see also Jarrett 2010). An illegible late Roman coin was found above the old ground surface outside the northwest corner of this building. The deposition of this coin is likely to be contemporaneous with the settlement, although it is not possible to demonstrate a stratigraphic relationship with the building. The context within which this coin was found - amongst the fallen stones of a modern field wall also contained 17th and late 18th early 19th century ceramics: it might be conjectured that the collapse of the wall disturbed the surface below. Other buildings were recognised outside of the settlement, including a small post-on-pad structure on a terrace to the north, and part of a building near to the eastern end of the Short Mound (see below). This latter building (although incomplete) appears to have been circular or sub-circular, and had stone footings, a central hearth, and a door to the southeast; the only dating material associated with this building was later ceramic, which may have been deposited in a wash, from the enclosed settlement above.
5

Chimneys are uncommon during and after the Roman period, although a number of examples have been recognised in Dyfed, with a hearth placed within a gable wall of a Roman period building at Strata Florida; other (sub-divided) buildings dating to the 3rd century also had entrances within the gable walls (Green 1982: 94, 96, 98). Page | 7

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

Ritual activity

Figure 5 Long Mound from post-Roman settlement, Crickley Hill (photo: K Jarrett)

Ritual activity dating to (or after) the early and later Roman periods has also been recognised at Crickley, in the form of deposits placed within the Long Mound (fig. 5): including a 2nd century Trumpet style fibula; a coin of Valentinian; and Oxfordshire colour-coated ware. This may be compared to similar practices at prehistoric monuments across the Southwest (and in some other areas, such as the Peak District) during the Roman period. It has been argued that, at least in some cases, such activity may indicate the incorporation of classical ideologies within the mediation of elite identities, and the renegotiation of the landscape within this process, during the Roman period (Jarrett 2010; Jarrett and Hollos forthcoming). In addition to the deposition of objects within the Long Mound, a shorter imitation of this monument - the Short Mound was constructed on a terrace close to the tip of the hill, during or after the 2nd century AD (see Hollos 1999; Jarrett 1999; Jarrett and Hollos, forthcoming). This monument was constructed across a pathway that ran along the tip of the hill to the valley below (and perhaps gave access to water sources) (fig. 6).6 It had also been built over a near-complete local grey ware bowl (that imitated South East Dorset Black Burnished ware), dating to between the 2nd and 4th centuries (or possibly even later, considering the continued production of SEDBB1 into the 5th century: see Gerrard 2004), although the monument contained no deposits (with the exception of a Victorian figurine). There are no certain parallels for either the Long Mound, or the Short Mound, although the presence of long mounds at a number of hillforts in the Bristol Channel region that have Roman or later activity (in the form of Romano-British ceramics) (Jarrett 2010; Jarrett and Hollos, forthcoming) present possible comparisons. However, without investigation of the other monuments, this remains a conjecture. A long barrow dating to the Roman period has been found in the South, at White Horse Hill, Uffington, although this monument contained burials (ADS Depositor ID 157216).7

Figure 6 Short Mound terrace (view west), Crickley Hill (photo: K Jarrett)
6 7

But see Firman 1994, for a discussion of geological changes http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archsearch/record.jsf?titleId=1773944 Page | 8

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

Material culture and technology As at other reoccupied hillforts, seemingly residual Romano-British pottery was discovered at Crickley: this was generally, but not exclusively, fragmentary and worn (including a Samian sherd that had been repaired by a rivet found within the topsoil in the area of the unenclosed settlement). However, its condition and sherd size (see Burrow 1979, 1981a, 1981b), distribution, and range (which includes Samian and Oxford colour-coated wares, as well as local grey wares) suggest deliberate and selective importation from nearby Romano-British sites - or even the continued production of some local wares into the 5th century (See Jarrett 1999). The comparatively large quantity of Romano-British local grey-ware in the area of occupation outside the hillfort (see above) suggests that this activity pre-dates the main period of reoccupation. Ceramics were predominantly hand-made coarse wares, and included grass-tempered pottery (which may suggest a 5th 6th century date); except for the use of organic temper (pers. comm. Shiela Elsdon), fabrics were of a similar range to those found within pre-Roman levels, and most fabrics were found within both settlements (suggesting the contemporaneity of activity in these two zones). Petrographic analysis of ceramic sherds (pers. comm. Ron Firman) point to the use of local clays (suggesting on-site ceramic production), although some sherds (those containing high levels of mica, found primarily within the enclosed settlement) are macroscopically comparable to sherds found at Cadbury Congresbury.8 This restricted distribution may suggest that different fabric forms were used in negotiating social hierarchies (although more work is needed for to confirm this supposition). The globular form of some organic-tempered wares has possible parallels within Anglo-Saxon contexts, which may suggest cultural exchange (or influence) within the region during the 5th 6th centuries. Crucibles were found within both the unenclosed settlement, and in association with the occupation deposits within the hillfort main entrance (see above). The latter were of a type found within the Roman and post-Roman west, and are therefore difficult to date, although they are similar to examples found at Coygan Camp (see Wainwright 1967), which may point towards an earlier date for occupation within this area. However, as they were found within a niche in the rampart wall, they are not necessarily contemporaneous with this occupation (see below).

Figure 7 Copper alloy object: possible tag end (not to scale) (illustration: K. Jarrett / CHAT)

Metalwork from the unenclosed settlement included a copper alloy object, similar to early Medieval tag ends (fig. 7), which has parallels from other post-Roman sites in the West (such as Dinas Powys, see Alcock 1963), perhaps also shows Germanic influence. Although the range of diagnostic finds from these phases of activity is limited, making dating problematic, a later Roman military style buckle (of the type issued to auxiliary soldiers in the Roman army) was found on a path in the south-eastern settlement zone (fig. 8). The only close parallel to this buckle within Britain is a late 4th early 5th century example from Catterick (Hawkes and Dunning 1961: 43).9 The composition of both buckles has been tested (through non-destructive XRF analysis), with preliminary results suggesting that these finds are likely to originate from the same Rhineland workshop (pers. comm. David Dungworth; see also Hawkes 1961: 14). The Crickley example, however, was worn, and perhaps repaired (as might be seen in the use of different alloys for pin and frame - although this is seen on other buckles, and may be a practical measure). Its similarity to the Catterick example suggests that it may have once had a larger surrounding frame, although again, further analysis is needed. If it has indeed been modified, this might suggest its curation (perhaps as an heirloom), or possibly its continued- or re-use as official or local military insignia, well into the 5th century.
As determined by the authors examination of a sherd from Cadbury Congresbury, housed within Bristol City Museum Several similar buckles - including locally manufactured examples - have been found within the region (commonly at villas and in association with towns, see Jarrett 2010: 188-89,197, 199, 202-04, 207-08, 242, 253, Appendix Table 14), suggesting the presence of military or civic officials, possibly (if from 5th century contexts) belonging to local militia (Salway 1981: 410). Page | 9
8 9

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

A number of spindle-whorls have been found at Crickley (along with a probable copper-alloy needle and needle-sharpening stone, indicating textile production and working). However, there were no loom-weights from the main areas of settlement (with the exception of a group of earlier Iron Age examples, within a pit beneath the building shown in fig. 3, which had been covered by slabs before or during its construction). This is in line with other Roman and post-Roman sites in the West (although early Anglo-Saxon loom-weights have been found at Dinas Powys, see Alcock 1963).

Figure 8: Crickley Hill Late Roman buckle (not to scale). (Illustration: K. Jarrett / CHAT)

Sporadic artefacts dating to the Middle Saxon period (including a penannular brooch with trefoil-lobed terminals, similar to an example found at Cannington; and a strap end: see Graham-Campbell 2000) have been found on the site. Possible bun-shaped loom-weights may date activity within the horn-work entrance of the fort to this period, although there is no certain evidence for later occupation.

Crickley within the wider landscape

It may be conjectured that settlement of the hilltop began slowly, with only small numbers initially occupying the site, as local settlements underwent transformations during the early 5th century (perhaps some time during or after the 420s 440s). The villa at Great Witcombe (see Leach 1998) may have remained an important feature within the landscape for the Crickley population. It is perhaps significant that the central building of this zone looked out onto the villa in the valley below perhaps as a reminder of the links between past and present status and authority (fig. 9). During this unstable period, the hillfort may have been reoccupied to afford enhanced status (an association with ancestral power perhaps exploited in order to attract supporters) and security (not only due to its massive fortifications, but also its strategic location, with views across the Vale of Gloucester). Ritual activity would have acted as both binding mechanism in the (re)construction of local community identities, and as a way of naturalising local leadership perhaps constructing an ideal of continuity.

Figure 9 View from the central building in the enclosed settlement: arrow marks Great Witcombe villa (photo: K Jarrett)
Page | 10

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

It seems that life at Crickley was far from safe: both settlements were destroyed by fire (although the possibility of accidental fire cannot be excluded, the distance between the two zones suggests that this is less likely, unless this destruction represents a number of separate events). After the first conflagration, buildings were rebuilt, generally upon the same alignments and near to, but not directly above, the razed structures. Some time later, both settlements were again burnt to the ground, after which the site was abandoned. It is hoped that the above brief outline of the archaeology of late- and post-Roman Crickley Hill has suggested something of the richness of this remarkable historical resource - not only replete with hitherto undiscovered aspects of Dark Age life, but also posing questions that might inform future research agendas.

Page | 11

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

References cited
Alcock, L. 1963 Dinas Powys: An Iron Age, Dark Age, and Early Medieval Settlement in Glamorgan Cardiff, University Press of Wales Alcock, L., Stevenson, S. J., and Musson, C. R. 1995 Cadbury Castle, Somerset: the early Medieval Archaeology, Cardiff Beagrie, N. 1989 The Romano-British pewter industry, Britannia 20, pp. 169-191 Blagg, T. F. C 1980 Roman pewter moulds, in Excavations at nos. 1 and 30 Westgate Street, Gloucester: the Roman levels, C. Heighway and P. Garrod, Britannia 11, pp. 73-114. Burrow, I. C. G 1979 Roman Material from Hill forts in Casey, P. J. (ed.) 1979 The end of Roman Britain, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 71, Oxford, pp. 212-29 Burrow, I. G. C. 1981a Hill forts after the Iron Age: the relevance of surface fieldwork, G. Guilbert (ed.) Hillfort Studies, Leicester, pp. 122-149 Burrow, I. G. C. 1981b Hill forts and hill top settlement in Somerset in the first to eighth Centuries a.d., British Archaeological Reports, British Series 91, Oxford Campbell, E 2007 Campbell, Ewan 2007 Continental and Mediterranean Imports to Atlantic Britain and Ireland Ad 400-800, Council for British Archaeology, York Dixon, P.W. 1988 Crickley Hill 1969-1987, Current Archaeology 110, 73-78 Dixon, P. W. 1994 Crickley Hill: The hill-fort defences, Nottingham, Crickley Hill Archaeological Trust, Nottingham Dungworth, D. 1997a Iron Age and Roman Copper Alloys from northern Britain, Internet Archaeology 2, http://intarch.ac.uk/journal /issue2/dungworth Dungworth, D. 1997b Roman Copper Alloys Analysis of Artefacts from Northern Britain, Journal of Archaeological Science 24, pp. 901-910 Elsdon, S. 1994 Analysis of pottery by cuttings and features, P. W. Dixon Crickley Hill: The hill-fort defences, Nottingham, pp. 213-241 Firman, R. 1994 Crickley Hill: the geological setting and its archaeological relevance P. W. Dixon Crickley Hill: The hill-fort defences, Nottingham, pp.11-24 Gerrard, J. 2004 How late is late? Pottery and the fifth century in southwest Britain in R. Collins and J. Gerrard, (eds.) Debating Late Antiquity in Britain AD300-700 Papers from a conference held at the University of York in June 2003, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 365, Oxford, pp. 66-76 Graham-Campbell, J. 2000 A penannular brooch with trefoil-lobed terminals, P. Rahtz, S. Hirst, and S. M. Wright, Cannington cemetery, Britannia Monograph Series 17, London, pp. 352-354 Green, H. J. M. 1982 The Origins and development of Cruck construction in eastern England in Drury, P.J. (ed.) Structural Reconstruction, British Archaeological Reports British Series 110, pp. 87-100 Hawkes, S. C. 1961 `Soldiers and settlers in Britain, fourth to fifth century', Medieval Archaeology 5, pp. 1-41 Hawkes, S. C. and Dunning, G. C. 1961 Catalogue of animal-ornamented buckles and related belt-fittings', Medieval Archaeology 5, pp. 41-70 Heighway, C.M. and P. Garrod 1980 Excavations at 1 Westgate Street: The Roman Levels Britannia 11, pp. 73-114 Hollos, D. 1999 The Long Mound at Crickley Hill, unpublished draft for PhD thesis, University of Nottingham Leach, P. 1998 Great Witcombe Roman villa, Gloucestershire, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 266, Oxford Leech, R.H. 1982 Excavation at Catsgore 1970-1973 A Romano-British Village, Western Archaeological Trust, Excavation Monograph 2, Bristol Jarrett, K. 1999 The late / post-Roman settlement at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire, unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Nottingham Jarrett, K. 2010 Ethnic, social, and cultural identity in Roman to post-Roman Southwest Britain, unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield Jarrett, K. and Hollos, D. forthcoming Telling tales: memory and myth at Crickley Hill, C. Gibson and A. Chadwick (eds.) Memory, myth, place and long-term landscape inhabitation
Page | 12

A Summary of Roman and Early Medieval activity at Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire

Mudd, A. 1999 Birdlip Quarry, A. Mudd, R. J. Williams, and A. Lupton, Excavations alongside Roman Ermine Street, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. The archaeology of the A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester road scheme. Volume 1: prehistoric and Roman activity, Oxford, pp. 153-260 Northover, P. 1995 Analyses of Early Medieval metalwork from Cadbury Castle in Alcock, L. et al. 1995 Cadbury Castle, Somerset: The Early Medieval Archaeology, Cardiff University of Wales Press, pp. 73-4 Parry, C. 1994 Crickley Hill Country Park, Badgeworth / Coberley, Gloucestershire. An archaeological survey, English Heritage, Glos. County Council, National Trust Rahtz, P. A. 1969 Cannington Hill fort 1963, Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 113, pp. 56-68 Rahtz, P. A., Woodward, A., Burrow, I., Everton, A., Watts, L., Leach, P., Hurst, S., Fowler, P., and Gardiner, K. 1992 Cadbury-Congresbury, 1968-73: a late/post-Roman hilltop settlement in Somerset, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 223 Salway, P. 1981 Roman Britain, Oxford Savage, R. 1988 Village, fortress, shrine: Crickley Hill Gloucestershire 3500 BC- AD 500, Cheltenham Snashall, N. 1997 The Neolithic shrine at Crickley Hill, unpublished B.A. dissertation, University of Nottingham Snashall, N. 1998 The interior of the Neolithic enclosures at Crickley Hill, unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Nottingham Sparey Green, C. 1988 Excavations at Poundbury, Dorchester, Dorset 1966-1982, Vol. I The Settlements Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society Monograph 7, Dorchester Van Doesburg, J. 2002 House plans from late medieval settlements in the Dutch central river area: looking for a needle in a haystack, Pamtky Archaeologick Supplementum 15, Jan Klapste (ed.) The Rural House, from the Migration Period to the Oldest Still Standing Buildings (Ruralia 4), Brepols, pp. 151-63 Wainwright G. J. 1967 Coygan Camp, Cambrian Archaeological Association Cardiff Wedlake, W. J. 1958 Excavations at Camerton, Somerset, Camerton

Page | 13