Excavation of a narrow trench into a probable Bronze Age barrow with the intention of obtaining environmental samples. The barrow was found not to contain a buried soil level or be of turf stack construction and therefore contained no pollen-bearing stratigraphy. The barrow, however, seems to have been constructed on a natural mound, which was raised by fill probably from the surrounding ditch. This fill sealed a layer of ash and charcoal that was radiocarbon dated to the mid-Neolithic period and must represent an earlier use of the site.
In May 2006 the Woolmer Forest Heritage Society, under the direction of the authors, opened two narrow trenches into a probable Bronze Age barrow situated at SU 80310 37450 on Broxhead Common, c1.5km north of Bordon. Broxhead Common, a heathland, covers an area of 40ha and is classified as a Special Protection Area. The excavation is one of a series of similar investigations, designed to obtain environmental samples from buried soil levels preserved under barrows on the Surrey/Hampshire greensand heathlands. The object is to better understand the vegetational history of the greensand at the time the barrows were being constructed. This broader study, which has already obtained samples from several barrows in south-west Surrey, is a co-operative project between Surrey Archaeological Society, Royal Holloway College and various Hampshire bodies. Permission for the work was obtained from the landowners, MoD Defence Estates, and the Herpetological Conservation Trust, which manages the common.
The Broxhead barrow is not a Scheduled Monument, but the excavation was undertaken with the approval of English Heritage and the Hampshire County Archaeologist and the work was funded by grants from East Hampshire District Council, Whitehill Town Council and Awards for All.
| X |
[You can close the layer by clicking the X at the top right of this layer.] |
The Broxhead Common lies between a branch of the River Wey to the south and its tributary, the River Slea, which runs to the north of the site . The mound itself is situated on a ridge at or close to the highest point of the common. An Ordnance Survey triangulation point (105m OD) has been inserted at the apex of the mound.
The common today is largely covered by heather, gorse, birch and pine and is one of a series of now-disconnected heathlands on the Folkestone Beds series of the Lower Greensand on either side of this section of the Hampshire/Surrey border.
| X |
[You can close the layer by clicking the X at the top right of this layer.] |
The sub-circular mound is clearly defined, being c22m across east-west and c18m north-south, with a maximum height of 1.5m. While there is evidence of previous disturbance in the form of a deep linear radial depression on the south-west side - possibly a military trench - the remainder of the mound appears to be intact. There is slight evidence remaining for a ditch on the western and southern sides. Elsewhere it has been obliterated by a footpath. There are no formally recorded finds from the mound or its vicinity, though there are verbal reports of flintwork being recovered from the common.
| X |
[You can close the layer by clicking the X at the top right of this layer.] |
trench 1 (4.5 x 1.3m)
This trench was located on the south-west side of the mound on the eastern edge of an existing radial area of disturbance, with the aim of minimizing disruption to any intact stratigraphy. In the event, the section showed that this part of the mound had been more extensively disturbed than at first appeared. A number of slit trenches were visible in the section and the intervening stratigraphy was so disrupted as to point to this side of the mound having been virtually reconstructed in the relatively recent past, as a number of rifle cartridge cases were recovered from various points. The south-east section was therefore recorded and the trench backfilled.
trench 2 (4 x 1.3m)
| X |
[You can close the layer by clicking the X at the top right of this layer.] |
Having failed to expose intact stratigraphy in Trench 1, a second trench (Trench 2) was opened on the apparently undisturbed south-eastern slope of the mound. Three basic elements were identified in the section underlying the layers of leaf litter and topsoil (201, 202). The latest of these (203) consisted of the black mottled sandy fill of a cut or disturbance either the result of anthropogenic activity - perhaps sand extraction - or possibly being the remains of a tree throw hollow. This was only visible in section and appeared to have removed part of a deposit of medium-brown sand (209) which is interpreted as being upcast from the surrounding ditch. Nearest the apex of the mound, the section showed a series of thin deposits (204-208). Context 205 consisted of fire-reddened sand overlying 206 which contained one small sherd of prehistoric pottery together with ash and charcoal, which has been radiocarbon dated to the Neolithic period (see radiocarbon dating below). There was no evidence for the survival of the buried soil level that might have been expected to have developed on the original ground surface and it is possible that this was mostly deliberately removed before the medium brown sand layer (209) was deposited. Underlying all the above layers was the sand (210) of the Folkestone Beds which at this point appeared to have formed a natural hillock.
The main excavation trench (Trench 2) through the possible barrow mound revealed a complex soil sequence, which is described below. In addition, charcoal was recovered from the edge of context (206), which was associated with fire-reddened sand, and small fragments of charcoal and wood ash. The charcoal was identified and radiocarbon dated, and the results are presented below.
The geoarchaeological study focussed on the examination of the north-east section of Trench 2, which consisted of ten contexts (layers). Context (201) comprised a layer of leaf litter overlying a layer (context (202)) of variable thickness, of dark, decomposed and acidic humus (‘mor’ humus; ‘O’ horizon). These contexts overlay a probable eluviation zone (‘A’ horizon) of yellowish-white sand (context (203)), again of highly variable thickness, resulting from the down-washing of fine mineral sediment (clay and silt) and organic matter. The organic matter appears to have accumulated (illuviation zone) at the base of the ‘A’ horizon and around the edges of contexts (204), (205), (206) and (209). Confirmation of the illuviation zone is the presence of a thin, often broken, iron pan. Context (210) is the natural Lower Greensand, probably with a highly weathered upper surface (‘C’ horizon). There is every reason to conclude that the contexts described here represent horizons of a weakly developed podzol soil profile, which today is typical of the Lower Greensand.
These ‘recent’ soil formation processes post-date the event or events however that led to the deposition of charcoal and the burning associated with contexts (205) and (206). These sandy contexts probably represent a former land-surface, where the sand accumulated by aeolian and/or fluvial processes. The absence of unequivocal evidence for ‘O’ or ‘A’ soil horizons is not surprising, since these have probably been removed by more recent processes. That sand continued to accumulate after contexts (205) and (206) were deposited is indicated by contexts (204) and (203). The presence of black, possibly organic, banding in context (204) may indicate incipient soil formation. However their stratigraphic relationship with context (209) is very unclear. Although context (209) is similar in composition to context (203), there is a clear difference in colour, which may reflect localised soil formation processes, or drainage and slope characteristics that has led to the differential removal of iron, aluminium, fine mineral matter and organic materials. Alternatively, context (209) may represent an anthropogenic event (D. Graham pers comm.), such as dumping of sand. If correct, this interpretation is interesting because the event would pre-date the deposition of context (203), and may be contemporaneous with contexts (205) and (206).
The charcoal recovered from context (206) has been identified as beech (Fagus sylvatica). The results of the radiocarbon dating (Table 1) indicate that the charcoal is middle Neolithic in age. This is surprising for two reasons: (1) Today, beech woodland prefers less acidic soils, and is not found, to the authors’ knowledge, on Lower Greensand, and (2) Pollen-stratigraphic and charcoal records from a range of geological and archaeological archives (e.g. mires, lakes, pits, ditches) indicate that beech woodland was not common in the British Isles until the Bronze and Iron Ages. Therefore, its presence during the Neolithic at Broxhead Common is interesting and an important result.
Table 1: Results of the radiocarbon dating at Broxhead Common, Hampshire (The results have been calibrated with Oxcal v.3.5 (Bronk Ramsey, 1995 and 2001), using data from Stuiver et al. (1998))
|
Code |
Location |
Material |
Conventional Radiocarbon Age |
Calibrated Date |
13C/12C Ratio (‰) |
|
Beta-218163 |
Context (206) |
Fagus charcoal |
4790 ±50 BP |
Cal BC 3660 – 3510 (Cal BP 5610 – 5460) and Cal BC 3430 – 3390 (Cal BP 5380 – 5340) |
-27.2 |
The results of the geoarchaeological study and radiocarbon dating indicate that the event or events that led to the deposition of charcoal and burning in contexts (206) and (205) occurred during the middle Neolithic. These sandy contexts were overlain by further thick layers of sand, in which a podzol soil profile has formed. It is entirely likely that all of these layers were deposited by natural aeolian processes. The origin of context (209) is less easy to interpret, because this layer appears to pre-date context (203), and is somewhat enigmatic. For this reason, context (209) may be anthropogenic in origin.
In the event, no evidence was found for the survival of a buried soil level nor for a turf stack core to the mound. Consequently, it was not possible to obtain the environmental evidence that had been the original object of the excavation. Nevertheless, the sequence of events that appear to have led to the formation of the mound, are still of interest.
In its natural state, this point along the ridge appears have formed a slight mound. Assuming that the radiocarbon dating is correct, at some stage during the middle Neolithic a fire had been lit on this mound and the resulting ash and charcoal become preserved under a series of sand deposits - deliberately placed or otherwise. As mentioned in the Geoarchaeology report, the fact that beech was used in this fire is of particular interest.
The mound as we see it today is almost undoubtedly a Bronze Age barrow, given the vestigial remains of a ditch around its circumference. Presumably, layer 209 represents upcast from this ditch and was intended to raise the profile of the natural hillock. The only cautionary note is that no finds of Bronze Age material were made to confirm this hypothesis. At some later and unknown date the surface of the mound was disturbed either deliberately or by natural causes. This partially removed a section of the cleaner sand of context 209 but fortunately left enough of the Neolithic levels to provide datable material. To the south-west, the mound has been extensively disturbed and reconstructed, presumably by sand digging or military activity, while to the east the track has obliterated the line of the ditch.
The authors would like to thank Mr Adrian Matthews of Defense Estates for permission to carry out the excavation and Awards for All, East Hampshire District Council and Whitehill Town Council for funding the exercise. The actual work was carried out, in the main, by members of the Woolmer Forest Heritage Society and in particular by Dave Attryde, Adam Carew, Chris Hayward, Andrew Norris, Chris and Bill Wain and with occasional help from the Jones family. The authors are also grateful to Drs N P Branch and C P Green for obtaining the radiocarbon dating and for the Geoarchaeology report.
Bronk Ramsey, C 1995 Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program, Radiocarbon, 37 (2), 425-430
Bronk Ramsey, C 2001 Development of the Radiocarbon Program OxCal, Radiocarbon, 43 (2a), 355-363
Oakley, K P 1939 Geology and Palaeolithic Studies. In: Oakley, K P, Rankine, W F and Lowther, A W G (eds) A Survey of the Prehistory of the Farnham District (Surrey). Guildford
Rankine, W F 1947 Late Levallois point from C Terrace, Farnham. Surrey Archaeological Collections, 50, 133
Rankine, W F 1956 Some Palaeoliths from the Farnham Terrace gravels. Surrey Archaeological Collections, 54, 1-9
Stuiver, M, Reimer, P J, Bard, E, Beck, J W, Burr, G S, Hughen, K A, Kromer, B, McCormac, G, van der Plicht, J, and Spurk, M 1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24000-0 cal BP, Radiocarbon, 40(3), 1041-1083
Wymer, J J 1999 The Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain. Wessex Archaeology and English Heritage, Salisbury
