Sutton Common

By Richard Smith

Sutton Common is an Iron Age Marsh Fort situated between Selby and Doncaster. It consists of two enclourses. This outline follows the site chronologically in terms of excavations carried out and discoveries made rather than the inhabitancy of the site itself. The first archaeological investigation was carried out by Rev. Scott F Surtees. This included mapping, providing a description and offering an interpretation of the evidence found. He believed that the site was originally a Roman Fort. This view was later challenged by a Mr A Hadrian Allcroft who argued that the layout of the site was not conforming to that of Roman Fort, but instead believed that it was a refuge for fugitives (Van de Noort et al., 2007).

Sutton Common Excavations (University of Hull)

The first excavations of Sutton Common occurred in 1909 -1910. These were carried out under the supervision of Dr Corbett from Doncaster and between 1910–1914 by Major Crathorne Anne and G. V. Charlton. Unfortunately the records of these excavations were lost, though later referenced by C. E. Whiting. In the reports gathered by Whiting, he describes items found in the previous excavations. These include: decayed wood, thatch, arrowheads, and other flints. These items were found in a circular depression, which were interpreted at the time as huts. Further investigations led to the discovery of fallen stakes and an Ox skull near the northern gate of the site and possible human remains in the northeast gate (South Yorkshire SMR, n.d.)

Whiting himself undertook fieldwork in 1933, 1934, and 1935 for a total of six weeks. He excavated a number of trenches across both hills. The trenches were extended to cut into land on either side and between the two enclosures (the Palaeochannel). The items discovered during these excavations include; charred wheat, a baked clay ball (possibly a net sinker), Romano–British pottery, an oak plank, a circular oak slab (interpreted as a wheel), a possible dug out vessel, several stone tools, waste, and a number of bones (human, ox, sheep, goat, and cattle horns). Based on the local landscape, Whiting believed that the two enclosures were once sandy islands surrounded by wetland. He also concluded that there were at least 2 periods of activity at the site, the first being when the wooden palisade was erected and a period much later. He believed that it was a prehistoric site with the first phase of activity dating to the Bronze Age and the second phase to before the arrival of the Romans, possibly the 2^nd Century AD (Van de Noort et al., 2007).

Whiting’s excavations were followed by a period in which the site did not attract archaeological interest until the 1980s, though other events occurred on the site. In the spring of 1980, the tenant farmer bulldozed the larger enclosure in order to create more farming area and was in the process of bulldozing the smaller enclosure when the operation was stopped by Stuart Eastwood and Malcolm Dolby from the Doncaster Museum. At the time the operation had ceased, however, the southeast corner of the smaller enclosure had been destroyed. This caused considerable damage to the earthworks and artefacts at the site (Van de Noort et al., 2007). Furthermore, in 1982, the Ministry of Agriculture caused additional damage to the site when it initiated a drainage programme in the area (South Yorkshire SMR, n.d.). These actions caused concern in the archaeological community over the damage they may have caused and as such three research projects were funded by the English Heritage and carried out by the South Yorkshire Archaeology Unit (Van de Noort et al., 2007).

In 1987, the first project was carried out. It started out with an enlargement and re-excavation of one of Whiting’s trenches. A further three trenches were added to the site. A wider landscape examination also showed that there were more sites and “islands” in the wider area (Van de Noort et al., 2007). Discoveries made during this procedure included; a framework of interlaced wooden poles and partially carbonised seeds stated to be “One of the best preserved from any rural site in Britain” (South Yorkshire SMR, n.d.) and which indicated the presence of a grain store. Additionally further analysis of Whiting’s reports brought about the theory that the site had a ritualistic connection. The second assessment followed in 1988 and the third in 1989. Both of these assessments discovered that the damage caused earlier had destroyed organic materials however wooden stakes and a wooden bead in excellent condition were found. Additionally there was evidence of many structures in the area. In 1992 a comparative study was carried out and followed up in 1993 which found that the items discovered in 1987 were now dry (South Yorkshire SMR, n.d.).

In 1996 Sutton Common was investigated by the Humber Wetlands project. The investigation included field walking, aerial photographic analysis and palaeoenvironmental assessment. More stone tools were discovered in some of the ‘islands’ in the nearby area, though not in all. Overall 122 pieces of flint from the later Mesolithic –early Bronze Age were recovered which indicated there was a river or stream that flowed through the palaeochannel (Van de Noort et al., 2007). From 1999 –2001, fieldwork was continuing on the site through monitoring and trial excavations of the bigger enclosure in order to keep an eye on future water damage and to investigate any archaeological items on the western side of it. Ring tree analysis of the timbers in 2001 suggest that immature oak trees were used substantially (South Yorkshire SMR, n.d.).

Sutton Common was severely compromised during the ploughing, bulldozing, and the drainage programme. With the earliest reports of excavation at the site missing, a lot of theories rely on Whiting’s findings and of similar excavations and investigations of the time. As a result of which, the meaning the site will not be as accurate as other sites and even today, there are only loose theories about what the site was used for, ranging from rituals to settlements, forts to refuges. Though many items were discovered, the lack of organic material has damaged the prospects of understanding the site and hampering archaeological progress. However palaeoenvironmental work has provided great work in determining the landscape which may help provide clues.

Bibliography:

Van de Noort, R., Chapman, H.P. & Collis, J. (eds) The excavation of an Iron Age ‘marsh – fort’. York: Council of British Archaeology.

South Yorkshire SMR (n.d.) Iron Age Enclosures on Sutton Common, Norton [HER Number 00133/01] Available online: http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=MSY3776&resourceID=1027 [Accessed: 17/11/2015]