Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T07:34:22.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wayland's Smithy, Oxfordshire: Excavations at the Neolithic Tomb in 1962–63 by R. J. C. Atkinson and S. Piggott

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Alasdair Whittle ,
Don Brothwell ,
Rachel Cullen ,
Neville Gardner  and
M. P. Kerney
Alasdair Whittle
Affiliation:
School of History and Archaeology, University of Wales College of Cardiff, Cardiff CF1 3XU
Don Brothwell
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY
Rachel Cullen
Affiliation:
Formerly Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD
Neville Gardner
Affiliation:
School of History and Archaeology, University of Wales College of Cardiff, Cardiff CF1 3XU
M. P. Kerney
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wayland's Smithy, on the north scarp of the downs above the Vale of the White Horse, is a two-phase Neolithic tomb. It has been a recognized feature of the historic landscape since at least the 10th century AD. It was recorded by Aubrey and later antiquaries, and continued to be of interest in the 19th century. It was amongst the first monuments to be protected by scheduling from 1882. The first excavations in 1919–20 were haphazardly organized and poorly recorded, but served to confirm, as suggested by Akerman and Thurnam, that the stone terminal chamber was transepted, to show that it had held burials, and to indicate the likely existence of an earlier structural phase.

Further excavations took place in 1962–63 to explore the monument more and restore it for better presentation. The excavations revealed a two-phase monument. Wayland's Smithy I is a small oval barrow, defined by flanking ditches, an oval kerb, and a low chalk and sarsen barrow. It contains a mortuary structure defined by large pits which held posts of split trunks, a pavement, and opposed linear cairns of sarsen. This has been seen as the remains of a pitched and ridged mortuary tent, in the manner proposed also for the structure under the Fussell's Lodge long barrow, but in the light of ensuing debate and of subsequent discoveries elsewhere, it can also be seen as an embanked, box-like structure, perhaps with a flat wooden roof. This structure contained the remains of at least fourteen human skeletons, in varying states of completeness. The burial rite may have included primary burial or exposure elsewhere, but some at least of the bodies could have been deposited directly into the mortuary structure, and subsequent circulation or removal of bones cannot be discounted. Little silt accumulated in the ditches of phase I before the construction of phase II, and a charcoal sample from this interval gave a date of 3700–3390 BC.

Wayland's Smithy II consists of a low sarsen-kerbed trapezoidal barrow, with flanking ditches, which follows the north–south alignment of phase I. At the south end there was a façade of larger sarsen stones, from which ran back a short passage leading to a transepted chamber, roofed with substantial capstones. This could have risen above the surrounding barrow. The excavations of 1919–20 revealed the presence of incomplete human burials in the west transept; the chamber had probably already been disturbed. The excavations of 1962–63 revealed further structural detail of the surrounds of the chamber, including a sarsen cairn piled in front and around it; deposits of calcium carbonate well up the walls of the chamber could be taken to suggest the former existence of chalk rubble blocking, in the manner of the West Kennet long barrow.

The monuments were built over a thin chalk soil which had been a little disturbed. The molluscan evidence shows open surroundings. Molluscan samples from the ditch of Wayland's Smithy II show subsequent regeneration of woodland.

Later activity on the site took the form of field ditches and lynchets, part of locally extensive field systems in the Iron Age and Romano-British period. Molluscan samples show again open country. There is evidence for disturbance of the tomb in late prehistoric and Roman times, and the denudation of the barrow had probably largely been effected by the end of the Roman era.

Wayland's Smithy provides important evidence for the sequence and development of Neolithic mortuary structures and burials. It is possible to suggest a gradual development for the structures ofWayland's Smithy I, in which opposed pits and substantial posts were incorporated into a box-like, linear mortuary structure, which in turn was incorporated into a small barrow. The subsequent construction of Wayland's Smithy II has become a classic example of the succession from small to large, and fits the late date of tombs with transepted chambers suggested by recent study of other sites. The nature of the circumstances surrounding this transformation remains unclear. The burials of phase I suggest the necessity of revising current notions about the ubiquity of secondary disposal in mortuary structures and tombs. In situ transformations suggest a very active concern with the dead, and offset the non-monumental character of the primary mortuary structure. In the relative absence of other detailed local evidence it is hard to relate the site to its local context, though comparisons can be drawn with the sequences of the neighbouring upper Thames valley and the upper Kennet valley and surrounding downland.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , 1991 , pp. 61 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akerman, J. Y. 1847. Observations on the celebrated monument at Ashbury, in the county of Berks, called ‘Wayland Smith's Cave’. Archaeologia 32, 312–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashbee, P. 1966. The Fussell's Lodge long barrow excavations 1957. Archaeologia 100, 1–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashbee, P. 1969. Timber mortuary houses and earthen long barrows again. Antiquity 43, 43–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashbee, P. 1970. The Earthen Long Barrow in Britain. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Ashbee, P., Smith, I. F. & Evans, J. G. 1979. Excavation of three long barrows near Avebury, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 207–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R. J. C. 1965. Wayland's Smithy. Antiquity 39, 126–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, J. 1988. Isbister, Quanterness and the Point of Cott: the formulation and testing of some middle range theory. In Barrett, J.C. & Kinnes, I. A. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends, 57–62. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Barker, C. 1985. The long mounds of the Avebury region. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 79, 7–38.Google Scholar
Berry, J. 1930. Belas Knap long barrow, Gloucestershire. Report of the excavations of 1929. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 51, 273–304.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. J. & Ellison, A. 1975. Rams Hill: A Bronze Age Defended Enclosure and its Landscape. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. & Gardiner, J. (eds) 1984. Neolithic Studies: A Review of Some Current Research. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brothwell, D. R. & Blake, M. L. 1966. The human remains from the Fussell's Lodge long barrow: their morphology, discontinuous traits and pathology. Archaeologia 100, 48–63.Google Scholar
Case, H. 1986. The Mesolithic and Neolithic in the Oxford region. In Briggs, G., Cook, J. and Rowley, T. (eds), The Archaeology of the Oxford Region, 18–37. Oxford: Oxford University Department for External Studies.Google Scholar
Case, H. J. & Whittle, A. W. R. (eds) 1982. Settlement Patterns in the Oxford Region. London: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Clark, J. G. D. 1954. Excavations at Star Carr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corcoran, J. 1969. The Cotswold–Severn group. In Powell, T. G.E. (ed.), Megalithic Enquiries in the West of Britain, 13–104. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, B. 1974. Iron Age Communities in Britain. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Curwen, E. C. 1934. Excavations in Whitehawk Neolithic camp, Brighton, 1932–33. Antiquaries Journal 14, 99–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, G. E. 1950. The Prehistoric Chambered Tombs of England and Wales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Darvill, T. C. 1982. The Megalithic Chambered Tombs of the Cotswold–Severn Area. Highworth: Vorda.Google Scholar
Darvill, T. C. 1987. Prehistoric Britain. London: Batsford.Google Scholar
Dimbleby, G. W. & Evans, J. G. 1974. Pollen and land snail analysis of calcareous soils. Journal of Archaeological Science 1, 117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. G. 1972. Land Snails and Archaeology. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fox, C. 1940. The distribution of currency bars. Antiquity 14, 427–33.Google Scholar
Gaffney, V. & Tingle, M. 1989. The Maddle Farm Project. An Integrated Survey of Prehistoric and Roman Landscapes on the Berkshire Downs. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Gardner, N. P. 1987. The Animal Bones from Excavations at Wayland's Smithy, Oxon (1962–63) and Silbury Hill, Wilts (1968–70). Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, University College, Cardiff.Google Scholar
Gillespie, R., Gowlett, J., Hall, E., Hedges, R. & Perry, C. 1985. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 2. Archaeometry 27, 237–41.Google Scholar
Hemp, W. J. 1930. Belas Knap long barrow, Gloucestershire. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 51, 261–72.Google Scholar
Hertz, R. 1960. Death and the Right Hand. Aberdeen: Cohen & West.Google Scholar
Holgate, R. 1988. The Neolithic Settlement of the Thames Basin. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiller, A. & Piggott, S. 1938. Excavation of an untouched chamber in the Lanhill long barrow. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 122–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnes, I. 1975. Monumental function in British Neolithic burial practices. World Archaeology 7, 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnes, I. 1989. Megaliths in action: some aspects of the Neolithic period in the Channel Islands. Archaeological Journal 145, 13–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnes, I. & Hibbs, J. 1989. Le Gardien du Tombeau: further reflections on the initial Neolithic. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8, 159–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Roux, C.-T. 1984. À propos des fouilles de Gavrinis (Morbihan): nouvelles données sur l'art mégalithique armoricain. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 81, 240–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukis, W. C. (ed.) 1883. The family memoirs of the Rev. William Stukeley, M.D. and the antiquarian and other correspondence of William Stukeley, Roger and Samuel Gale, etc. Vol. II. Publications of the Surtees Society 76.Google Scholar
Madsen, T. 1979. Earthen long barrows and timber structures: aspects of the Early Neolithic mortuary practice in Denmark. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 301–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masters, L. 1973. The Lochhill long cairn. Antiquity 47, 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, D. (ed.) 1986. Archaeology at Barton Court Farm, Abingdon, Oxon. London: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Morgan, R. 1990. Tree-ring studies at Haddenham. Current Archaeology 118, 343–44.Google Scholar
Needham, S. P. 1990. The Petters Late Bronze Age Metalwork. London: British Museum Occasional Paper 70.Google Scholar
O'Connor, B. 1980. Cross-Channel Relations in the Later Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Parrington, M. 1978. The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement, Bronze Age Ring-ditches and Roman Features at Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, 1974–76. London: Council for British Archaeology.Google Scholar
Pearson, G. W., Pilcher, J. R., Baillie, M. G. L., Corbett, D. M. & Qua, F. 1986. High-precision 14C measurements of Irish oaks to show the natural 14C variations from AD 1840–5210 BC. Radiocarbon 28, 911–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peers, C. R. & Smith, R. A. 1921. Wayland's Smithy, Berkshire. Antiquaries Journal 1, 183–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, S. 1962. The West Kennet Long Barrow: Excavations 1955-56. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1974. Excavation of the Dalladies long barrow, Fettercairn, Kincardineshire. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 104, 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1979. Investigations in Orkney. London: Society of Antiquaries.Google Scholar
Rhodes, P. P. 1950. The Celtic field-systems on the Berkshire Downs. Oxoniensia 15, 1–28.Google Scholar
Richards, J. 1978. The Archaeology of the Berkshire Downs: An Introductory Survey. Reading: Berkshire Archaeological Committee.Google Scholar
Richards, C. C. 1988. Altered images: a re-examination of Neolithic mortuary practices in Orkney. In Barrett, J. C. & Kinnes, I. A. (eds), The Archaeology of Context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age: Recent Trends, 42–56. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Saville, A. 1989. A Mesolithic flint assemblage from Hazleton, Gloucestershire, England, and its implications. In Bonsall, C. (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe, 258–63. Edinburgh: John Donald.Google Scholar
Saville, A. 1990. Hazleton North. The Excavation of a Neolithic Long Cairn of the Cotswold-Severn Group. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Saville, A., Gowlett, J. & Hedges, R. 1987. Radiocarbon dates from the chambered tomb at Hazleton (Glos.): a chronology for Neolithic collective burial. Antiquity 61, 108–19.Google Scholar
Shand, P. & Hodder, I. 1990. Haddenham. Current Archaeology 118, 339–42.Google Scholar
Sheppard, T. 1941. The Parc-y-meirch hoard, St George parish, Denbighshire. Archaeologia Cambrensis 96, 1–10.Google Scholar
Simpson, D. D. A. 1968. Timber mortuary houses and earthen long barrows. Antiquity 42, 142–44.Google Scholar
Smith, I. 1965. Windmill Hill and Avebury. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1988. The social significance of Cotswold–Severn burial practices. Man 23, 540–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. & Whittle, A. 1986. Anatomy of a tomb: West Kennet revisited. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 5, 129–56.Google Scholar
Thurnam, J. 1869. On ancient British barrows, especially those of Wiltshire and the adjoining counties. (Part 1. Long barrows.) Archaeologia 42, 161–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vyner, B. E. 1984. The excavation of a Neolithic cairn at Street House, Loftus, Cleveland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50, 151–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainwright, G. J. & Longworth, I. H. 1971. Durrington Walls: Excavations 1966–1968. London: Society of Antiquaries.Google Scholar
Whittle, A. 1990. A pre-enclosure burial at Windmill Hill, Wiltshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9, 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wymer, J. J. 1966. Excavations of the Lambourn long barrow, 1964. Berkshire Archaeological Journal 62, 1–16.Google Scholar