The Durotriges have been little studied as an ethnic group or archaeological construct so, as a native Durotrigan, a survey of this tribe, so little referred to in the ancient sources and epigraphically almost invisible, is welcome. The major features of the material culture were first defined by Brailsford and the burial type, coinage and pottery have been the subject of specialist studies. The present picture of the tribe is summarised in the fourth edition of Cunliffe’s Iron Age Communities in Britain (2005).
The present survey arose from Papworth’s position as the National Trust’s Regional Archaeologist carrying out survey and excavation of properties in the Wessex area, the results here expanded as a PhD funded by the Trust. The study covers a range of sites as well as recent research on coin finds and field surveys carried out by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. The research of many local field-workers is also included.
The first four chapters cover current issues in Iron Age studies, the study of the Iron Age in Dorset and the Durotriges as an historical and archaeological creation. Ch. 5 defines the communities within the apparently subjective choice of seven areas in Dorset and neighbouring counties. Study boxes and site tables define the main features in each area, but many significant sites beyond their limit are also included. Ch. 6 compares the study areas, the questions set in ch. 4 forming the basis for discussion. There is an appendix drawing ethnographic parallels with Maori culture, a comparison first made by Les Groube during his field survey of Dorset.
Maps of Iron Age coin distribution and settlement sites, including those continuing into the Roman period, attempt to define the tribal area. A comprehensive plan illustrating the factors defining the Durotrigan ‘culture’ is lacking; fig. 201, keyed to show both coin finds and settlements, omits the latter, presumably due to a printing fault. Fig. 203 in the conclusion attempts to show development of various attributes from core to periphery but is too crudely drawn.
The coin distribution includes a significant cluster in the Tarrant Valley which straddles an inexplicable gap between study areas 5.6 and 5.7. The Bulbury hoard and the occurrence of imported finds might have defined foreign trading contacts; the important iron-smelting site near Dorchester is included, but the wider evidence for metal-working deserved greater emphasis. Pottery, the most distinctive artefact of the tribal zone, is illustrated by finds from Maiden Castle and South Cadbury and recent analysis of the Poole Harbour production centre is covered, as well as the Armorican imports to higher-status sites.
Burials are discussed in detail, but the burial grounds might have deserved illustration. The earlier practices of pit burial or exposures are shown to have preceded the crouched inhumation rite with grave-goods. Distinctive metalwork types such as the copper-alloy torcs and the mirrors would reinforce the concentration of these formal burials in the southern territory.
One of the most significant contributions is the series of geophysical surveys of hillfort interiors as at Hod Hill (fig. 130) and Ham Hill (fig. 91). The former questions the relationship of the Roman fort to the settlement pattern and apparent open areas, the latter reveals the rectilinear enclosure systems paralleled at Cleavel Point (fig. 48), Sigwells (fig. 99), and Castle Ditches (fig. 141). Crab Farm (fig. 183) with its dense pattern of enclosures, settlement features and superimposed defences and road line is a fascinating palimpsest extending well into the Roman period.
The potential oppida at Dorchester and Ilchester are discussed, but the Gussage Hill/Launceston Down dyke system deserves consideration as a potential eastern centre within Cranborne Chase, an area with evidence for horse rearing and the manufacture of harnesses (268–9). As a survey of landscape and settlement patterns across much of the Dorset Downs it is strange to omit detailed analysis of the extensive surviving field-systems which must have provided the basis of the pre-Conquest agricultural economy.
Some place names are wrongly spelt on the illustrations as, for instance, Wolfeston for Wolfeton, Mycen for Myncen Farm, and Pilsden for Pilsdon Pen. The reproduction of published images is generally good, but one photograph of coins (fig. 126) is largely illegible.
As a conclusion there is a discussion of the range of settlement types, their morphology and development over time within each area. There is reference to much new or unpublished data, but the text is largely descriptive and there should have been either a more strictly objective sampling method or a comprehensive coverage of the tribal area. This study nevertheless is a guide to current research and the basis for future reconstruction of Durotrigan communities.
