Assessing Iron Age Marsh-Forts: With Reference to the Stratigraphy and Palaeoenvironment Surrounding the Berth, North Shropshire

Cover
Title Page
Copyright page
Contents Page
List of Figures and Tables
Acknowledgements
List of abbreviations
	Chapter 1
Assessing Iron Age marsh-forts – an introduction
	1.1. Marsh-forts in a hillfort context
	1.2. The ‘problem’ with hillforts
	1.3. The archaeological and ecological opportunities presented by wetlands
	1.4. Structure
Assessing Iron Age marsh-forts – an introduction
	Figure 1.1. Research structure.
	1.5. Definitions
		1.5.1. Defining terms
		1.5.2. Chronology
		1.5.3. Radiocarbon dates
	Chapter 2
The British Iron Age, hillforts and marsh-forts – literature review
	2.1. Summarising Iron Age studies
		2.1.1. Antiquarian and early twentieth-century paradigms
		2.1.2. A ‘New Archaeology’ for the Iron Age
		2.1.3. A post-processual perspective
		2.1.4. Thematic studies and agendas
	2.2. Iron Age landscapes – hillforts and enclosures
		Figure 2.1. Zones of differing settlement forms
		(adapted from Cunliffe, 2005 Figure 4.3).
		2.2.1. Inventories, classifications and groups
		2.2.2. Hillfort, enclosure and the implications for settlement
		2.2.3. Iron Age climatic change and changes in landuse
	2.3. Marsh-forts
		2.3.1. Sutton Common (Fig. 2.2)
		Figure 2.2. Artist’s impression of Sutton Common, showing twin enclosures, multivallation, causeways and 4- and 6-post structures (Van der Noort et al, 2007:Fig. 10.1). Image reproduced by kind permission of the Council for British Archaeology.
	2.4. Summary
	3.1. Site selection – national and regional marsh-forts
		3.1.1. National Level – Marsh-Fort Gazetteer
		3.1.2. Regional Level – North Shropshire’s marsh-forts
	Chapter 3
Methodology and Resources
	3.1.3. Local level – The Berth and Wall Camp
	3.2. The Berth
		3.2.1. Ground conditions and equipment
		3.2.2. Stratigraphic coring and palaeoenvironmental sampling
		Figure 3.1. The Berth, showing Scheduled Area, large and small enclosures, Berth Pool and field names together with coring and organic sampling locations and 2016 trench positions (Source: LiDAR 1m DSM; accessed May 2017).
		Figure 3.2. BNP 15 – 0-100cm, showing the transition from top soil (left) to peat (right).
		Figure 3.3. BNP15 – showing large wood inclusion between 180-220cm.
		Figure 3.4. BNP 15 – varved shelly marl between 360-460cm.
		3.2.3. Radiocarbon determinations
		3.2.4. Post-fieldwork – processing and analysis of palaeoenvironmental data
		Table 3.1. The Berth – plant macrofossil and beetle samples by location.
		3.2.5. Adopting a multi-proxy palaeoenvironmental approach to landscape reconstruction
		Figure 3.5. An indication of the spatial representation available from nested data-sets.
		Table 3.2. The Berth Coleoptera – MNI: Species ratio.
		Table 3.3. Plant macrofossil and insects habitat groupings.
	3.3. Summary
	4.1. Conceptualising wetland landscapes
		4.1.1. Defining landscape
	Chapter 4
Marsh-forts in a landscape context
	4.1.2. Landscape archaeology, methodology and interpretation
		4.1.3. Landscape reconstruction and Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
		4.1.4. Landscapes as waterscapes
		Table 4.1. Sutton Common characteristics (after Van der Noort et al., 2007).
	4.2. Marsh-fort Gazetteer – a survey of potential marsh-forts
		4.2.1. Marsh-fort Criteria
		4.2.2. Marsh-fort Gazetteer – regional analysis
		Figure 4.1. The Sutton Common landscape, looking east across the large enclosure, towards Shirley Pool (Norton, 2017).
		Figure 4.2. The Atlas of Hillforts – marsh-forts (https://hillforts.arch.ox.ac.uk: January 2018).
		Figure 4.3. Distribution of potential marsh-forts – England and Wales (Google Earth: January 2018).
		Figure 4.4. North/South Yorkshire – distribution of potential marsh-forts around Sutton Common (Google Earth: January 2018).
		Figure 4.5. Moorhouse Farm, Tickhill, showing ditch circuits to the west of the farm buildings (Google Earth: 2020).
		Figure 4.6. Little Smeaton
		(Google Earth: December 2018).
		Figure 4.7. Lincolnshire, Fenland and East Anglia – distribution of potential marsh-forts (Google Earth: January 2018).
		Figure 4.8. Tattershall Thorpe in relation to Fiskerton and the Iron Age coastline
		(Field and Parker Pearson, 2003:
		Fig.12.1). Image reproduced by kind permission of Prof M. Parker Pearson.
		Figure 4.9. Stonea Camp – upstanding earthworks (Norton, 2017).
		Figure 4.10. Stonea Camp in its flat landscape setting (Norton, 2017).
		Figure 4.11. Looking east across the salt marsh towards Holkham (circled) (Norton, 2017).
		Figure 4.12. Warham Camp – external defences, looking west (Norton, 2017).
		Figure 4.13. Central and Southern England – distribution of potential marsh-forts (Google Earth: January 2018).
		Figure 4.14. Cherbury Camp – entrance (Norton, 2018).
		Figure 4.15. Kempsey; channels flow left towards the River Severn (Norton, 2017).
		Figure 4.16. Gadbury Bank (no public access) (Norton, 2017).
		Figure 4.17. Risbury Camp behind houses (right); Humber Brook (left) (Norton, 2018).
		Figure 4.18. Risbury Camp showing the large interior area, now orchard (Norton, 2018).
		Figure 4.19. Island Covert (no public access) (Norton, 2017).
		Figure 4.20. Cheshire – distribution of potential marsh-forts (Google Earth: 2020).
		Figure 4.21. Peckforton Mere from Peckforton enclosure with Beeston Castle (background right) (Norton, 2015).
		Figure 4.22. Oakmere from across the mere (no public access) (Norton 2015).
		Figure 4.23. Somerset Levels and Severn Estuary – distribution of potential marsh-fort and lake villages (Google Earth: 2020).
		Figure 4.24. Hetha Burn West and Great Hetha (Google Earth: 2020).
		Figure 4.25. Wales – distribution of potential marsh-forts (Google Earth: December 2018).
	4.3. Summary
		Figure 4.26. y Werthyr, Anglesey (Google Earth: January 2018).
		Figure 4.27. Y Werthyr – geology (Edina Digimap: December 2018).
		Group 1
		Group 2
		Group 3
		Group 4
	5.1. North Shropshire – physical environment
		5.1.1. Geography, geology and glaciation
	Chapter 5
North Shropshire’s marsh-forts
	Figure 5.1. Shropshire – North Shropshire Plain, shown in relief (Source: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/ June 2017).
		5.1.2. Hydrology and soils
		5.1.3. Wetland development and peat formation
		Figure 5.2. Core section showing ‘true boulder clay’ (right) at 620-720cm (The Berth, Norton; November 2016).
		5.1.4. North Shropshire’s wetlands and palaeoenvironmental record
		Figure 5.3. North Shropshire: relief, hydrology together with sites mentioned in the text (Source: http://digimap.edina.ac.uk/roam/os: January 2018).
	5.2. North Shropshire – archaeological evidence
		Figure 5.4. North Shropshire’s
		wetlands (Leah et al., 1998: Fig. 3). Image reproduced by kind
		permission of Oxford Archaeology Ltd.
		Figure 5.6. Peat wastage at Wall Camp (Norton, 2014).
		Figure 5.5. Fenn’s/Whixall Moss – the bog bodies were reputedly recovered from centre foreground (Norton, 2016).
		5.2.1. Settlement and occupation – hillforts
		5.2.2. Cropmarks and enclosure
		5.2.3. The Cornovii – social structure and identity
		5.2.4. Romanisation
		Figure 5.7. The Nesscliffe Spoons – Shrewsbury Museum (Norton, 2014).
	5.3. North Shropshire’s marsh-forts (Fig. 5.8)
		5.3.1. The Berth (Fig. 5.9)
		Figure 5.9.  The Berth from the air looking south, showing the main enclosure (centre), the small enclosure (left) and the causeways. The edge of Berth Pool is visible (right) and the Wrekin is visible in the far distance (Hampton, 2017).
		Figure 5.8. North Shropshire’s lowland fortifications, showing sites referenced in the text (Google Earth; January 2018).
		5.3.2. Wall Camp, Kynnersley (Fig. 5.10 – Fig. 5.16)
		5.3.3. Whittington (Fig. 5.17-Fig. 5.19)
		5.3.4. Stocketts Enclosure (Fig. 5.20; Fig. 5.23); Pan Castle (Fig. 5.21; Fig. 5.22)
		Figure 5.10. Wall Camp – western ramparts (Norton, 2014).
		Figure 5.11. The Weald Moors – superficial geology (BGS 1:50000; July 2017).
		Figure 5.12. Wall Camp – site map and excavations (Malim and Malim, 2010: Fig.2b). Image reproduced by kind permission of Tim Malim.
		Figure 5.13. Wall Camp –modern floodmap (Source: Edina Digimap: Geological Indicators of Flooding Accessed May 2017).
		Figure 5.14. The Telford Torc (PAS: WMID-C53CB8; January 2017). Image reproduced by courtesy of the Portable Antiquities Scheme.
		Figure 5.15. Wall Camp – WC5 stratigraphy and auger locations (LiDAR DTM 1m).
		Figure 5.16. The Weald Moors – archaeological locations and find spots (LiDAR 1mDTM Dec 2017) (Shropshire HER July 2014; PAS 2014).
		5.3.5. Pave Lane, Newport
		5.3.6. Castle Farm, Shifnal
		Figure 5.17. Whittington Castle – outer earthworks (Norton, 2015).
		Figure 5.18. Whittington Castle area showing sites and embanked areas, overlain with modern flood data (LiDAR 1mDSM; BGS: Geological Indicators of Flooding July 2017).
		Figure 5.19. Whittington Castle and Old Oswestry – superficial geology (BGS 1:50000 July 2017); LiDAR 1m DTM (Dec 2017); sites (Shropshire HER July 2014; PAS July 2014).
		Figure 5.21. Pan Castle, looking south from the motte to the bailey; earthworks are visible in the middle distance (Norton, 2015) (above).
		Figure 5.20. Stocketts Enclosure – aerial view (Google Earth, January 2018).
		Figure 5.22. Schematic map of Pan Castle (Downman, 1906). © Shropshire Council.
		5.3.7. Bomere Wood
	5.4. Summary
		Figure 5.23. Stocketts Enclosure and Crose Mere –superficial geology (BGS 1:50000 July 2017), LiDAR 1m DTM (Dec 2017), sites (Shropshire HER May 2014; PAS July 2017).
		Table 5.1. North Shropshire’s marsh-forts.
	Chapter 6
The Berth – a marsh-fort in its landscape context
	6.1. Location, superficial geology and archaeological history
	6.2. The Berth and the Upper Perry – macro-scale landscape analysis
		Figure 6.1. The Berth – location map (OS 1:50,000 series; Edina Digimap; January 2018).
		Figure 6.2. The Berth: superficial geology and contour (BGS 1:50,000; June 2017).
		Figure 6.3. The Berth – schematic map(Tyler); Gelling’s trenches are highlighted in red. © Shropshire Council HER.
		Figure 6.4.  © The British Library Board: Buckler Collection Add MS 36378-003.
		Figure 6.5. Downman’s schematic of the Berth (Downman, 1906). © Shropshire Council.
		Figure 6.6. The Berth Cauldron
		(Photograph ©; reproduced by kind
		permission of The British Museum).
		6.2.1. The Berth/Upper Perry – Prehistoric/Mesolithic/Neolithic (Fig. 6.12)
		Figure 6.8. ‘Slave chain’ and currency
		bars. © Shropshire Council.
		Figure 6.7. ‘Slave chain’ and currencybars. © Shropshire Council.
		Figure 6.9. Roman glass bead. Image
		reproduced by kind permission of Dr D. Allen.
		6.2.2. The Berth/Upper Perry- Bronze Age (Fig. 6.14)
		Figure 6.10. The Berth/Upper Perry – all sites; superficial geology (BGS 1:50000; Dec 2017); Shropshire HER (May 2014); PAS (July 2017).
		Figure 6.11. The Berth/Upper Perry – all sites; LiDAR 1mDTM (Dec 2017); Shropshire HER (May 2014); PAS (July 2017).
		6.2.3.The Berth/Upper Perry – Iron Age/Undated (Fig. 6.15)
		Figure 6.12. The Berth/Upper Perry – Prehistoric/Mesolithic/Neolithic.
		Figure 6.13. Unexcavated burnt mound adjacent to the Berth’s small enclosure (Norton 2017).
		6.2.4. The Berth/Upper Perry – Roman (Fig. 6.17)
		Figure 6.14. The Berth/Upper Perry – Bronze Age.
		Figure 6.15. The Berth/Upper Perry – Iron Age/Undated.
		6.2.5. Tetchill Brook (Fig. 6.18)
	6.3. The Berth – a ‘line-of-sight’ analysis
		Figure 6.16. The Berth – cemetery, pit alignment, enclosures and field system.
		Figure 6.17. The Berth/Upper Perry – Roman.
		Figure 6.18. Tetchill Brook – depositionary evidence (NB. Findspots overlap).
	6.4. Summary
		Figure 6.20. The Berth – Line-of-sight analysis; 97mOD (Edina Digimap; 2m LiDAR; Historic England 20150925_ScheduldMonument.shp).
		Figure 6.19. Berth Hill, seen from Berth Pool (Norton, 2014).
		Figure 6.21. The Berth – Line-of-sight analysis; 80mOD (Edina Digimap; 2m LiDAR; Historic England 20150925_ScheduldMonument.shp).
		Figure 6.22. The view from the summit of Berth Hill looking west. From left, the wooded slopes of Nesscliffe, the hillforts surrounding Cefn-y-Castell, and the Breiddin (right) (Norton, 2014).
		Figure 6.23. The North Shropshire Plain viewed from Llanymynech, looking east towards the Berth (Norton, 2016).
		Figure 6.24. Hillfort intervisibility (Matthews, 2014: Fig. 1) with the Berth highlighted. Image reproduced by kind
		permission of the Council for British Archaeology.
	Chapter 7
The Berth – stratigraphic sequencing and radiocarbon dating
	7.1. The Berth – stratigraphic sequence
		7.1.1. Topography, hydrology and geology
		7.1.2. Stratigraphic results
		Figure 7.1. The Berth contour map (LiDAR = 1mDSM).
		Figure 7.2. The Berth – superficial geology (BGS 1:50,000).
		Figure 7.3. The Berth landscape, showing the peat basin and Berth Hill (2D+ LiDAR=1mDTM; Vertical Exaggeration x 2).
		Figure 7.4. The Berth – field locations, 2016 and 2017 coring transects, and locations of radiocarbon dated cores (LiDAR = 1mDSM).
		Figure 7.5. Berth North Pasture – Transects 1 and 2.
		Figure 7.6. Berth North Pasture – Transects 3 and 4.
		Figure 7.7. Berth North Pasture – Transect 5a-5g and Lea Field transect.
		Figure 7.8. Berth North Pasture – cores illustrating depth bordering the main enclosure  (1c-5c) and the drop off from the gravel spit (5h-5k; 4f-4a).
		Figure 7.9. Berth South Pasture – east.
		Figure 7.10. Berth South Pasture – west.
		Figure 7.11. Berth North Field – Transects 1 and 2.
		Figure 7.12. Berth Main Causeway – cores.
		Figure 7.13. Core 3BBMC16 – Windermere Interstadial (Norton 2016).
		Figure 7.14. The Berth – 2D+ stratigraphy (LiDAR = 1mDTM; Vertical Exaggeration x 2).
	7.2. The Berth – chronological sequence
		7.2.1. Chronological coverage and reliability
		Table 7.1. The Berth – radiocarbon results; August 2014; January 2016; June 2016; November 2016 (highlighted dates = possible anomalies).
		Table 7.2. The Berth – chronological multi-plot of radiocarbon dates.
		Table 7.3. The Berth – radiocarbon dates grouped by depth and age (left) and minus anomalies (right).
	7.3. Stratigraphic summary and cross-correlation of peat deposits
		Figure 7.15.  Natural water flow from north to south showing the water course (dotted line) across Berth North Pasture (LiDAR = 1mDSM).
		Figure 7.16. Looking from the ramparts of the main enclosure towards the small enclosure across Berth North Pasture; the east-west causeway acts as a dam in wet weather (Norton, 2016).
		Figure 7.17. The Berth as depicted on the Megalithic Portal http://www.megalithic.co.uk/.
	7.4. Hydrological change and the extent of Berth Pool
		Figure 7.18. 1794 Baschurch Parish Map; Shropshire Archive P22/L/1/1. © Shropshire Council.
		Figure 7.19. Berth Pool; contour and variations in the snail/Chara horizon (LiDAR 1mDSM).
	7.5. Summary
	Chapter 8
The Berth – palaeoenvironmental reconstruction
	8.1. BNP15 – Berth North Pasture– stratigraphy and taphonomy
		Table 8.1. The Berth – Holocene palaeoenvironmental data; chronological coverage and overlap.
		Figure ‎8.1. Berth North Pasture – BNP15 – stratigraphy annotated with pollen zones.
		Table 8.2. BNP15 – Proxy analysis and chronological phases (NB **reversed date).
		8.1.1. BNP 01, 02, 03A – 500-300cm – circa 13000-8750BP
		Fig.ure ‎8. 2. BNP15 – Pollen analysis (R. Eastwood 2016).
		Table ‎8.3. BNP15 – Plant macrofossils – arboreal species plus selected herbs/sedges/aquatics (* = minor presence).
		8.1.2. BNP-03B – 300-250cm – circa 8750-8300BP
		8.1.3. BNP-04 – 250-150cm – circa 8300BP –7100BP
		8.1.4. BNP-05 – 150-120cm – Atlantic climatic period – circa 7100-6300BP
		8.1.5. BNP 06/07 – 120-0cm – Atlantic/Sub Boreal – circa 6300-5000BP
		8.1.6. BNP15 – Summary. Human impact during the early Holocene
		Figure 8.3. Example of alder-carr, Worcestershire (Norton, 2016).
	8.2. Berth Main Causeway – 3BBMC16 (Kang, 2017) – Early/Mid Bronze Age
		Table 8.4. BNP15 – Charred plant remains.
		Figure 8.4. 3BBMC16 – Stratigraphy and dating.
	8.3. Berth Excavation 2016 – Trench 1– Iron Age
8.3.1. The arboreal landscape/damp fen
		8.3.2. Open water/marginal plants
		8.3.3. Damp and dry grassland
		8.3.4. Human habitation
		8.3.5. Berth Trench 1 – Summary
	8.4. Berth Pool (Twigger, 1988)
	8.5. The Berth – palaeoenvironmental reconstruction – summary
		Figure 8.5. Mid-Shropshire meres (Twigger, 1988) (Google Earth; September 2017).
		Figure 8.6. Mid-Shropshire meres – radiocarbon dating (Twigger 1988) Image reproduced by kind permission of Dr S. Twigger.
		Figure 8.7. Berth Pool II – pollen analysis (Twigger 1988) Image reproduced by kind permission of Dr S Twigger.
	9.1. The Berth and Sutton Common – a comparison
		9.1.1. The palaeolandscape
	Chapter 9
Assessing Iron Age marsh-forts – discussion and conclusions
	9.1.2. Topography and location
		9.1.3. Size, morphology, access and orientation
		9.1.4. Site usage – features and finds
		9.1.5. Chronology
		9.1.6. Positioning the Berth and Sutton Common in time and space
	9.2. Marsh-forts in North Shropshire
	9.3. Marsh-forts in England and Wales – supra-regional perspectives and themes
		9.3.1. Economic control
		9.3.2. Landscape patterning and boundary control
		9.3.3. Control of ceremonial and ritual practice – waterscapes as place of votive deposition
		Figure 9.1. Regional traditions of metalwork deposition in the Iron Age (adapted from Wait 1985: Fig. 2.13) and marsh-fort locations (Google Earth; April 2018).
	9.4. Conclusions
	9.5. Marsh-forts – a theory
Bibliography
Appendix 1 – Radiocarbon dates
Appendix 2 – Samples weights and volumes
Appendix 3 – Full species lists
	Key