SECTION 2.2.6:CLAYDON
PIKE TRENCH 27
INTRODUCTION
CHRONOLOGY
THE CIRCULAR SHRINE
The Exterior
The Interior
THE FINDS ASSEMBLAGE
DISCUSSION
A roughly rectangular area c 180 m² off the north-east corner of
Trench 13 exposed a circular masonry building interpreted as a shrine
with an associated cobbled path. Topsoil was machine stripped from the
entire area to an approximate depth of 0.2 m, except in the south-east
quadrant of the building where a 2 m long strip was cut to natural sand.
The machine was also used to strip a small area several metres north of
the excavation area to confirm that the cobbled path continued to the
north and east.
The excavation was a three-stage process. An MSC team supervised by OAU
cleared the stripped area to the top of occupation layers (2020, see below),
and cut two sections across the post-medieval ditch (2022/A and B, see
plan). The second phase was a one-week training excavation by the Oxford
External Studies Programme, and the third was an excavation carried out
with volunteer labour. The last two phases were supervised by OAU.
Top of page
Chronology
The chronology of the shrine is based upon the ceramic and coin assemblages,
both of which were relatively substantial given the overall size of the
excavated area. Just over 3.5 kg of pottery came from the trench, and
about 60 % of this was directly associated with the shrine. Almost 90%
of the ceramic assemblage from the shrine was fully recorded, and a substantial
amount (20%) of this comprised Oxford colour-coated wares, indicating
a 4th century date, contemporary with the late Roman villa/farmstead in
Trench 13. Over 33% (248) of all coins from Claydon Pike came from Trench
27, and over 90% of these were 4th century in date. Within the 4th century
group there was a different distribution pattern to those of the site
as a whole, including the late Roman settlement area in Trench 13 (See
King, section 3.3). In particular, the number of coins from the years
364 to 378 was very high (43.5%) by comparison with the settlement area
(10.1%) and the site as a whole (21.4%), suggesting that the main period
of activity lay in the later 4th century. But most of these coins were
possibly from a single dispersed hoard (see finds assemblage below), and
a small number (11) of late 3rd century coins were also found.
The majority of coins from the trench were from unstratified contexts,
but of the remaining 56, 48% were from the cobbled layer (2032) within
the shrine, and a further 35% from junction between this layer and the
brown gravelly clay (2042) below. Two coins, dated 364-78, came from the
lowest silt layer (2044) thought to predate the shrine, and if this were
the case, then the building may have been one of the latest Roman structures
on the site. However, the coins came from the top of this layer and it
is quite possible that they were intrusive. The latest coins from any
of the shrine surface layers are of the same date (364-78), therefore
implying that the structure was relatively short-lived. However, a small
number of coins of Arcadius (388-402) were found, suggesting activity
continuing at least until the end of the 4th century and possibly into
the early 5th, although no further building phases were noted. The walls
were subsequently robbed (robber trenches 2035, 2036) and the post-medieval
field drain dug, cutting across the shrine and removing two wall sections
and much of the interior.
Top of page
A circular building interpreted as a shrine was sited on a low knoll,
or island of silts and clays, which fell away to the north into the palaeochannel,
where silts and collapsed peat indicated very wet conditions. The shrine
comprised three wall arcs and three stretches of robber trenches outlining
a circular building with an internal diameter of approximately 6 metres.
The wall foundations were an average of 0.7 m in width where preserved,
and were two courses deep of flat limestone slabs with shaped faces to
give smoothly curved inner and outer foundation faces. The core of the
foundations were of solidly mortared rubble. The wall footings laid on
this foundation were preserved only on wall arc 2024, the northern wall,
and a very short section on the east end of wall arc 2023, forming the
south wall of the building. These wall footings were 0.55 m wide and also
2 courses thick, made up of slabs smaller than those used for the foundation,
but also with inner and outer wall faces shaped. The core of the wall
was again of mortared rubble. The walls and foundations were set into
shallow trenches about 0.45 m deep (from modern ground level) and varying
from 0.8 to 1 m wide where preserved between wall arcs 2024 and 2025 along
the north-east line of the building (section 66).
A post-medieval field drainage ditch (2022) running from north-west to
south-east cut through the south-west half of the building, removing two
sections of the wall from two to three metres each and destroying almost
exactly half of the interior. No positive evidence for an entrance was
preserved, though a doorway could have been positioned to the north-west,
associated with the cobbled pathway which approached from the north-east.
Alternatively, there may have been a cobbled pathway leading around the
exterior of the building (contexts 2027, 2038) to an area of cobbling
(2034) outside of an entrance facing south-east (see below). An easterly
orientation is more usual for religious structures in Britain, occurring
in over 90% of those structures where an entrance has been located (Smith
2001, 153). A metalled pathway surrounding the exterior of the temple
building also has parallels in Woodeaton (Goodchild and Kirk 1954, 25)
and Frilford (Bradford and Goodchild 1939) in Oxfordshire.
Top of page
The Exterior
Surrounding the building on all sides was a gravelled surface (2027,
2038) about 1m wide which overlaid the outer faces of the foundation courses.
This may well have been an external pathway (see above), and was covered
by the alluvial silt (2030) which spread over all of the site. The gravelled
layer was about 5 mm thick where it abutted the wall but thinned out to
fade away completely about 1m away from the wall. No finds were associated
with this layer.
The most prominent external feature was a cobbled pathway (2029) curving
from south-west to north-east, and intercepting the building at a tangent
in the north-west quadrant of the building. This pathway was metalled
with unshaped flat limestone slabs laid to form an uneven but solid surface
about 1.5 m wide (section 65). Flanking this to the east, and contemporary
with it was a ditch (2045) approximately 0.6 m wide and 0.6 m deep. As
this ditch paralleled the path to the north, its eastern edge (away from
the path) became indistinct and was lost in the silts and peats of the
palaeochannel. These marsh deposits were also visible to the west of the
pathway where there was a rounded terminal of a wider, shallower ditch
or pool (section 65). Both ditches are presumed to have served to drain
the cobbled path surface. The cobbles were packed onto the top of a foundation
of gravelly clay (2028). This foundation appears to create a raised causeway
across the marshy area; it produced no artefacts and could be either a
natural finger of clays of a deliberate construction. The cobbled surface
produced only a few fragments of pot, 79 animal bones, an iron nail and
three mid-late 4th century coins.
To the east of the cobbled path and about 3 m north-east of the shrine
were two successive oval features (2039, 2031; not shown on plan). The
earliest was about 0.5 m wide and 1.4 m long from south-west to north-east
(feature 2039). The second (2031) was immediately to the south-east of
2039 and was cutting away its south-east edge. The fills of both were
clean silt, but the second feature (2031) had a surface of flat limestone
slabs packed flat into the top of the fill. Under these stones were several
matching fragments of a large burnt pot, a large sherd of a Dressel 20
amphora, and a fragment of vessel glass. Continuing clockwise around the
exterior of the shrine and just north of the robber trench 2035 was an
ephemeral linear feature (2026) running from south-west to north-east
(not shown on plan). This was composed of a series of flat stones laid
in a line apparently filling a shallow gully about 0.15 m wide. It could
be traced to the north-west for about 0.75 m where its roughly level bottom
emptied out onto the downward slope that ran around the north-east, north
and north-west sides of the shrine, down to the marsh. It is likely that
this feature served as a drain leading excess water away from the shrine.
The next exterior feature was an area of cobbling (2034) just outside
the wall line at the south end of wall arc 2025 (see above). This extended
away from the wall for about 1 m and appeared to extend inside the wall
line as well. (These cobbles were distinct from the limestone slabs of
the wall and foundation). Curiously, one of the limestone slabs making
up wall 2025 was set vertically, on edge, and was placed as if to form
the north edge of the cobbled area. This stone set on edge could have
served as a foundation for a door jamb, and is thus further indicative
of an entrance in this south-eastern sector (see above). Two metres south
of this cobbled area, along the eastern edge of the excavation, was a
semicircular feature, 0.1 m deep and filled with dark grey-black silt
(not shown on plan). When first revealed by machine, the surface produced
many fragments of pottery, but the lower level was devoid of artefacts.
The south edge of this feature had been cut away by the post medieval
ditch.
On the south edge of the site, to the south and east of wall 2023, was
an area of rubble approximately 1 x 2 m. This was found to be limestone
slabs, probably from either wall or foundation which had tumbled outwards.
All along the outside of wall 2023 was observed the same gravel ring as
was visible to the north of the building, although here it was very patchy
and eroded.
Top of page
The Interior
The interior of the shrine was stratified beneath two layers of alluvial
deposits, one of which (2021) sealed the entire site. The lower deposit,
a dark grey to black silt, was found only inside the building, and the
interface between these layers produced several coins. Below the alluvium
was an eroded cobbled surface (2032) which was most complete in the northern
part of the interior, but which was increasingly worn or eroded towards
the south-east, possibly as a result of increased human activity in the
area of the entranceway. The stones were packed into a matrix of medium
brown gravelly soil. Many well stratified coins (27) and animal bones
(154), along with pottery (1.1 kg) were found either between the stones
or mixed with the brown matrix. This appeared to be a deliberately cobbled
floor surface. The stones were laid flat, many edge to edge, and were
quite level, varying by only 0.03 m across a distance of 6 m. Along the
inside face of the north wall (2024) the stones rested directly on the
offset of the foundation stones.
An isolated layer of burnt material was located over cobbled surface 2032
in the northern part of the interior, and could possibly represent a hearth.
Another feature (2043) was recognised in the surface of the cobbles to
the south-west of this burnt area. This was an 'L' shaped setting of stones,
with the long arm of the 'L' running north-west to south-east for about
1 m and the short arm turning to the north-east for about 0.6 m. These
stones were all set edge to edge, and were aligned on the presumed doorway
to the south-east. However, excavation exposed no underlying feature and
the stones were only a single layer thick like the rest of the cobbling.
A small complete pot was found in the eastern part of the building, placed
in a small hollow between three large cobbles.
Below the cobbled surface was a layer of dark brown/grey silt with a few
flecks of gravel (2042; section 66). The upper section of this layer contained
more gravel and the lower part was sandier. A discontinuous lens of white
gravel separated the two. This was clearly visible in section but not
in plan during excavation. Both parts of this layer produced abraded fragments
of pottery (0.1 kg) and bone (51), and a number (16) of coins. These layers
were noticeably thicker to the north-east and extended only part way across
the interior from east to west, presumably where they filled a slight
hollow in the underlying layer. Beyond the edge of the hollow, 2042 thinned
and was discontinuous. To the north this layer was cut away by 2035, the
robber trench for the wall, but was not found on the exterior, suggesting
contemporaneity with the shrine.
Below 2042 was a layer of grey/brown silt with some gravel (2044). This
was found to underlie 2042 across the whole of the interior and also to
underlie the wall robber trenches. The only finds from this layer were
two late 4th century coins, which came from the top, along the interface
with 2042. Layer 2044 was thinner to the east (about 0.05 m) but thicker
to the west where it reached a maximum of 0.1 m. It was very thin or missing
entirely from a small area in the north-east central part of the interior,
where 2042 appeared to directly overlie the tan natural sand which elsewhere
was found below 2044. It is likely that this layer predated the construction
of the shrine.
Top of page
The Finds assemblage
The finds assemblage from the area of the circular shrine is unusual
within the site, both in its size and character. Perhaps the most obvious
difference was the large quantity of coins, many of which were located
within and beneath of the cobbled floor surface, with apparent evidence
for specific depositional 'zoning'. Over 170 sherds of pottery were also
recovered from these floor levels, and a complete small pot was deliberately
buried within the cobbles. Aside from coins, other small finds were scarce,
but included a 1st century brooch from just below the cobbled surface,
and a bone pin from the cobbled path (2034) leading from the postulated
south-east entrance. An iron chisel and joiner's dog also came from the
internal cobbled layer, and a small copper alloy votive axe was recovered
from the vicinity of the shrine. A number of animal bone fragments (417)
were recorded from Trench 27, although only 10% could be identified to
species. No articulated animal bone deposits were recorded. The general
character and context of this finds assemblage indicates a religious function.
Top of page
Discussion
The location, structural form and associated material culture, all strongly
suggest that the circular masonry building in Trench 27 was a late Roman
shrine. It was probably built towards the latter half of the 4th century
AD (360-70s?) on a slightly raised area, c 70 m ENE of the late Roman
villa (B 9). A raised cobbled pathway led from the shrine, not towards
the villa site, but away to the north, across a marshy area towards a
known Roman road located c 100 m distant.
The small quantities of stone rubble found on site and the level consistency
of the top of the wall footings may indicate that the walls were of timber
framing built on top of good quality masonry foundations and wall footings.
A similar construction is postulated for the villa building in Trench
13. It is possible that the building could have formed a two-storey tower
type structure, but it is perhaps more likely to have been single-storey.
As only minimal ceramic roofing tile and no roof slabs were found, the
roof was probably of the conical thatch type well attested in rural contexts.
The limestone slabs for the foundations and wall footings were of Cotswold
limestone, while all the rest of the stone and cobbles were local material.
The Claydon Pike shrine has a number of parallels within southern Britain,
perhaps the closest in form, character and chronology being that at Bancroft
in Buckinghamshire, c 60 km to the north-east (Williams and Zeepvat 1994).
Here, a small (5.7 m internal diameter) masonry-footed circular shrine
was located on elevated ground, c 300 m north of a villa complex. It was
dated to mid - late 4th century, and contained 23 coins, an iron spear
tip and a large amount of late 4th century pottery. Most of this was buried
within a large pit within the centre of the shrine, which also included
an articulated pig burial (ibid 109). Additional circular masonry buildings
in central southern Britain with an unequivocally religious function include
Brigstock (Greenfield 1963) and Collyweston (Knocker 1965) in Northamptonshire,
and Frilford (Bradford and Goodchild 1939) in Oxfordshire. Another possible
example lies near to the villa at Chedworth in Gloucestershire (RCHM 1976,
28). Claydon Pike, with an internal diameter of some 6 m, is slightly
smaller than this series of buildings with diameters averaging some 10
m. Otherwise, details of both wall and flooring are closely comparable,
especially at Brigstock, which also had a large quantity of finds (including
many coins) deposited in specific zones on and within the floor surface
(Smith 2001, 76).
The relatively small size of the Claydon Pike shrine, as well as its proximity
to the villa/farmhouse, marks a close connection to another 'class' of
circular masonry building found across central southern Britain, including
Redlands Farm, Stanwick, Northants, and Ditchley in Oxfordshire (Keevil
and Booth 1997). Many such examples were located very close to - or were
an integral part of - villa sites, and have been assigned a variety of
different functions, from domestic to agricultural and industrial (ibid.
38). Some have been suggested as household religious structures (eg Darenth,
Tring, Petersfield, Stroud: Rodwell 1980), although there are generally
either very few finds to aid in the interpretation, probably due to the
nature of the rituals practised. A well-constructed octagonal building
within the villa complex at Bancroft - despite having no directly associated
finds - was postulated as a family shrine during the late Roman period
(Williams and Zeepvat 1994, 110). It would therefore have been contemporary
with the more rustic circular shrine to the north, which was probably
of a public nature, patronised by the villa retainers and perhaps the
local population. The shrine at Claydon Pike may have fulfilled a similar
'semi-public' role, an idea strengthened by the presence of a trackway
leading across the marsh to the main Roman road, rather than directly
to the villa. But there is no reason to suppose that the occupants of
the villa, who must have been responsible for the construction of the
shrine, were not also its patrons.
top of page
|