AninterimreportonexcavationsatlandatGallant'sFarm,EastFarleigh,Kent

ByStephenClifton

Abstract

ThisisaninterimreportonexcavationsthatIhavedirectedatasiteinEastFarleigh,Kentin2013and2018.ThesiteconsistsoffeaturesidentifiedaslateIronAgeandlateRomano-British,anditisclosetoaclusterofRomanbuildingsthatlieapproximately100mtothenorth,whichwerealsoexcavatedbythesamearchaeologicalteamoverthelast12years.Theaimistowriteareportthataccuratelydrawstogetherthematerialthatwehavegathered,aswellasextendingourdata-setwithgeophysicalsurveydata,andcomparisonwithothersimilarsites.Iwillbeaimingtoemulateidentifiedbestpractice,anditshouldcrystallisethethinkingonthisareaofthesitebeforemoreworkiscarriedoutinsubsequentyears.

Introduction

TheMaidstoneAreaArchaeologicalGroup,MAAG,havebeenexcavatingasiteinEastFarleighsince2005,whenthethenlandowners,MrandMrsBoughaninvitedthegrouptoinvestigateaknownRomanbuildingonthesite(Fig.2).Romanwallsandfoundationshadbeenobservedonthesitefromabout1800,andaplanofonerangeofbuildingswasrecordedin1839(Smith,J,1839,57),alongwithintimationsofotherbuildingshavingbeenremovednearby.

TheMaidstoneAreaArchaeologicalGroup,(MAAG),wasformedonthe16April1969,andisacharitablegroupaffiliatedtotheKentArchaeologicalSociety(KAS)andMaidstoneMuseum.ThefirstMAAGchairmanwasthethendirectorofthemuseumAllenGrove,(www.maag.btck.co.uk/GroupHistory).Thegroupundertakearchaeologicalexcavations,localresearchandcommunityengagementintheformofregulartalks,meetingsandexhibitions.Thegroupcurrentlycomprisesapproximately75members,ledbyachairmanandarchaeologicaldirector.Thereareasmallnumberofactivememberswhoparticipateinarchaeologicalactivitiessuchasexcavation,findsprocessing,andresearch.ThegroupusuallyconveneforactivearchaeologicalworkonaSunday,andsometimesonedayduringtheweek.TheexcavationseasonusuallystartsaroundEasterandrunsthroughuntiltheendofOctober,dependingontheweather.Informationonthegroupcanbefoundonthewebsite(www.maag.btck.co.uk)andadailyblogisrunduringexcavationwork.AnactiveFacebookpageisalsoupdatedregularlyandsharedwithothergroups.Thegroupisfundedbycharitabledonationsandasmallyearlysubscription.Thegroups’fundsarethereforelimited.Carefulconsiderationhastobegivenbeforeanymoneyisallocatedinsupportofexcavation,orpost-excavationwork.

StephenClifton

2

Fig.1AerialphotoshowingEastFarleighandtheRiverMedway

StephenClifton

3

Notwithstandingthis,theprovisionofmechanicalexcavatorsatthestartofthediggingseasonisoftenessentialforachievingthegoalssetforthatyear.

AttractingyoungervolunteersisacontinualproblemforMAAG,andmanyotherlocalgroups.Theaverageageoftheactivemembersis60+andthismustbefactoredintoexcavationschedulesanditoftendictatesthemethodologyonsite.Forinstance,carefulconsiderationmustbegiventothewaythetrenchesareaccessed,leadingtostepsbeingcutintothebaulkofparticularlydeeptrenches.Thearchaeologicalknowledgeandexperienceofactivemembersvaries,asdotheabilityofmemberstoundertakephysicalwork.Withanyvoluntaryactivitythenumberofparticipantscanvarygreatlyonanygivenday.Thismakesplanningadiggingscheduledifficult,andsomedecisionscanonlybetakenwhenmembersactuallyturnuponsite.Typicallytheactivemembersofthegroupnumberaboutsevenoreightandonanygivenoccasionwecanexpectfourorfiveofthosetobepresent.Thislimitednumberofexcavatorsmeansthatprogressisoftenveryslow.Allofthesiterecordingisdonebythesitesupervisors.However,traininginexcavationtechniquesisgiventoanyonenewtoarchaeologyandanyonewishingtolearnhowtodrawandrecordisencouragedandsupported.

Thesubjectofthisinterimreportisanadjacentareaoflandthatliesalittletothesouththatbecamethefocusofattentionduetothegroups’investigationsonMrandMrsBoughan’slandleadingtosuppositionthatthesiteextendedinthisdirection,supportedbyareferenceonthe1961ordnancesurveymaptoaRomanbuilding,(siteof),onthisalmostthreeacrepieceofland.Permissionwassoughtfromthelandownertoundertakesomeexploratorywork,andanumberoftestpitsweredugin2013withamechanicaldiggeracrosstheareathatwasfreeoftrees.ThesetrenchesdidnotrevealthepresenceofaRomanbuilding,butdidrevealsomearchaeologicalfeaturesintwoofthetrialtrenches.Thesefeatureswereexploredatthetime,butnofurtherexcavationswereundertakenuntil2018,whenMAAGreturnedtothisareaandextendedtheexcavationtrenchestorevealtwopreviouslyunknownlateIronAgeditchesandwhatappearedtobeafifthcentury‘corn-drier’.

ThearchaeologicalworkatEastFarleighin2018,(andsince2005),isaresearchexcavation.Thereisnoimminentthreattothesitefromdevelopmentorenvironmentalchange.TheaimoftheprojectistorevealasmuchinformationaspossibleaboutthesiteandtocommunicatethatinformationaslucidlyaspossibletothelocalpeopleofEastFarleighandtothewiderarchaeologicalcommunity.Ourobjectivesaretoexplainasmuchofthestoryofthisareaofgroundaspossible,throughgeophysicalsurveysandexcavation,whilstencouragingandtraininganyonewhowishestobecomeinvolved.Weareseekingtoresolvetheunansweredquestionsraisedinthe19th-centuryconcerningtheRomanbuildingsfoundnearertotheriver,andtheirrelationshiptootherknownRomansitesinthearea.ThisinterimreportbringstogethertheinformationthatMAAGhavegatheredinadvanceoffurtherworkin2019andtheproductionofafullreportonthewholeRomansitetothenorth.

StephenClifton

4

SiteAssessment

ThesiteissituatedonthesouthernbankoftheMedway,andiscentredonTQ72850,53550,andconsistsofa2.5acre(10,242m²)parceloflandtothenorthofasmallindustrialunitontheB2010,(LowerRoad),onthewesternsideofEastFarleighnearMaidstoneinKent.Thisrectilinearareaoflandconsistsofawoodedperimeteronthreesidestotheeast,northandwestandanopenareaofscrublandwithvariousself-seededgrasses,nettles,brambles,gianthogweedandafewsmallsaplings.Theviableareanotaffectedbytreesbeing1.4acres,(5708m²).Itisaroughlylevelplatformatapproximately35mAOD,butwithaslopeawaytothenorthof1mover30m,andformspartoftheMedwayrivervalley.Aslopeof100min2.5kmtothesouthisresponsibleforthevaryingdepthofhillwash.Theriveris273mtothenorth.

Fig2.WholesiteatEastFarleighshowingRomanbuildingsandextentof2018areaofinvestigation.

StephenClifton

5

ThisareafallswithintheKentishWealdenbasinandgeologicallyitispartofthelowerCretaceousHythebedsoverlainbylowergreensandandgaultclay.Thestoneherebeinggenerallyreferredtoas‘Kentishragstone’,butinrealitycomprisesawidespectrum,fromlayersofhard,wellcemented,sandyandglauconiticlimestone,(ragstone)throughtopoorlycementedlayersofcalceroussandstone,knownas‘Hassock’,(Blagg,1990).Theragstonevariesverywidelyincolourandconsistency,anditistypicallyverydifficulttodressintosmartcoursestone,hencethename,andisoftenusedasarubblestone,(Blows,2017).However,manyoftheRomanbuildingsimmediatelytothenorthofthesitehavebeenconstructedtoaveryhighstandardusingdressedragstone,withrougherrubblecore,andquoiningoftufa.

Fig.3GeologyofKent

Theragstoneisknowntohavebeenexportedoutofthecountytootherpartsofthecountry,andinparticulartoRomanLondiniumviatheriversystem,(WorssamandTatton-Brown,1993).Withinthelowergreensandthesedimentscontainthegreenironsilicate,glauconitewhichimpartsagreenishhuetothestone,andweatheringcanproduceanorangeybrownstaintothestone,reflectingtheironcontent,(Middlemiss,1975).Longtermexposuretosunlightandotherweatheringbleachesthestonetoagreywhitecolour,ascanbeseenintheragstonewallsandbuildingsallaroundMaidstone.

TufaisanotherstonethatcanbeseeninevidenceaspartofthebuildingmaterialsassociatedwiththeRomanstonebuildingsnearby,itisfoundattheedgesoftheHythebedsandassociatedwithnaturalsprings,(Blagg,1990).Duetoitssoftandeasilyworkednatureitisoftenusedforfinequoiningorcarving.

TheHytheformationvariesinthicknessfrom30mintheMaidstoneareato10minEastKent,withtheragstonebedsusuallybetween0.15mand1mthickandcomprisingbetween50%and20%oftherockintheHytheformation,(Middlemiss,1975).

StephenClifton

6

Thehighclaycompositionofthesubsoilmeansthatinwetweatherthegroundisveryslipperyandpuddleseasily,andinhotdryweatheritbakeshard,makingitverydifficulttowork.Whenusingmechanicaldiggersthegrouphavehadproblemsoncethegrounddriesout.Thesmallermachinesstruggletopenetratetheground,andtoothedbucketsneedtobeemployed,whichisnotidealforpreservingthefeaturesandcreatinganeattrench.

Thisareaoflandhasbeenagricultural,insomeformoranother,sincetheendoftheRomanperiod.Theredoesnotappeartohavebeenanyhabitationorotherconstructionaluseofthelanduntilthebeginningofthe19thcentury,whenthehop-pickers‘huts’werebuiltattheconfluenceofanumberoffarmtracks,(Fig.4),andprobablywerethecauseofthediscoveryandremovaloftheRomanbuildings.In1995thelandownerreceivedanEUgranttoreplacethehopswithaplantationofdeciduoustrees(Daniels,2018).Atthistimeanareathoughttorepresentthelocationofthearchaeologicalsitewasleftfreeoftrees.

Fig.41890Mapofthesiteshowingtracksandhoppicker’saccomodation

StephenClifton

7

Fig.5Aerialphotoofthesitefrom1940Fig.6Aerialphotoofthesitefrom2018

Thehopgardenshaveleftalegacybelowground.Inordertogrow,thehopsweretrainedalongwiresoveraframeworkoftimberpoles.Thesepolesweretensionedwithwiresattachedintothegroundwithtimberandconcreteanchors,aswellasconicalcoiledwireanchors.Thesesystemshavebeenfoundallacrossthesiteandrepresentmorethanonegenerationofhopgardenactivity,withthetimbersystembeingreplacedbytheconcreteversion.Theseanchorsweredugintotheground,typicallytoadepthofaboutametre,oftenthroughthearchaeologybeneath.Thereisnoavailableplanofthehopgardenarrangement,butitisclearthattherowsraneast/west,withtheanchorssetclosetothetrack-ways,thegrouphavediscoveredmanyofthese.Thecoiledwireanchorsaremuchmorefrequent,andinterferewithgeophysicalreadings.Similarlythebeatenearthofthetracksbetweenrowsofhopscansometimesbeidentifiedintheresistivitysurveydata.

Methodology

In2013MAAGhadtheopportunitytodosomeworkonthislandaftertheownergavehispermission.Thiswastoevaluatetheareainlightofa1961OrdnanceSurveymapreferencetoaRomanbuilding(siteof).Tothisend26trialtrenchesweredugusingaJCBStarMcCannmechanicaldiggerwitha1.9metertoothlessditchingbucket,(Fig.7).

Oncethetopsoillayerswereremovedbymachine,therestoftheexcavationwascompletedbyhand.Initiallythetrenchedgeswerecleanedupi.e.protrudingrootsremoved,andsectionsstraightenedasfaraspossible.Anyremainingmaterialfromupperlayerswasremovedsothattheareaofstudywasconsistentlythesamecontext

StephenClifton

8

layeracrossthetrench.Duetothehighclaycontentofthesoilinmanyplaces,extensiveusewasmadeofplasticsheetingtocoverthetrencheswhennotbeingexcavated.Thishasthebenefitofhelpingtokeepfeaturesdryinwetweatherandmoistindryweather.Excavationwascarriedoutusingmattocks,shovels,spades,handshovels,archaeologicaltrowels,plasticbucketsandwheelbarrows.Spoilheapsarekeptclosetothetrenchbutleavingaclearwalkwaybetweentheedgeofthetrenchandthespoilheap.

Althoughthegrouprecognisesthepotentialvalueoftakingbulksoilsamplesfromcontexts,thepracticalandfinancialresourcesofthegroupisverylimited,sosoilsamplesareonlytakenwherewebelievethattheywillbeusefulandprovidesignificantpaleoenvironmentalinformation,suchasfromcharcoalrichdeposits.Allfindsarekeptwitharecordofthesitecode,contextnumberandtrenchnumber.Smallfindsareindividuallybaggedandnumberedandrecorded.Thefindsarewashedbygroupmembersandthenreturnedattheearliestopportunity.Potterywillbeindividuallymarkedwiththesitecodeandcontextnumberbeforebeingbagged.Thismaterialisthenstoredbymembersinadvanceofevaluationbyspecialists.Thelong-termstorageofmaterialafterspecialistreportshavebeenwrittenisaproblemasyettoberesolved.Inthepast,MaidstoneMuseumtookmaterialfromMAAGexcavations,butthemuseumnolongerhasthecapacitytostorelargecollectionsoveralongperiod,sosometoughdecisionswillhavetobetakenonthis.

SiterecordingiscarriedoutbyoneofthesupervisorsandfollowstheMOLAprinciplesassetoutinthe1995handbook(MOLA,1995).Acontextsheetisusedtorecordthecut

Fig.7Trenchplanshowingtrialtrenchesfrom2013and2018

StephenClifton

9

andfilloffeatures,andacontextregistersheetkeepstrackofthenumberingandgeneralinformation.Smallfindsareindividuallynumberedanddetailsarerecordedontheirownsmallfindssheet.Whereappropriatethepositionofsmallfindsarerecordedonthesitedrawings.Featuresarephotographedusingadigitalcameraandscale.Plansoftrenchesaredrawnat1to20scaleontoPermatraceandsectionsaredrawnat1to10scale.SitelevelsaretakenofthefeaturesusingaLeicaopticallevellinginstrument.ArecordofrelativecontextnumbersusingtheHarrismatrixmethod,(Harris,1979),iskeptonthecontextsheetandlatertransferredtoasite-widesheet.

TheArchaeologicalRemains

InApril2013,26testpitsweredug,usingaJCBtypemechanicaldiggerfittedwitha1.9metertoothlessditchingbucket.Eachtrialtrenchwasdugtoanaveragelengthof3m,andtrenchdepthsvariedfrom.65mto1.4m.Allofthetestpitswherenofeaturesorartefactswereobserved,weredugthroughthetopsoiltothenaturaldepositsbeneath.Intwotrencheshowever,featureswereobserved,andthesewereleftopenforlaterinvestigation.

Thesetwotrenches,(Nos.16and17,Fig.10)weresubsequentlyexcavatedin2013.Thefirsttrench(number16)wasfoundtocontainasingletruncatedpotinadarkgreyfabriccontainingcrematedbonesinanorangeygreybrownclaysoilmatrix.Thispotwasfounduprightinashallowgully,[411],runningroughlyeast/west,(Figs.8and9).Nootherfindswererecoveredfromthistrench.Theothertrench,17,laterenlargedandrenumbered18C(hereinafterreferredtoassuch,Fig.11),containedaburntfeature,inaroughoblongshape,1.23mx.78m,witha‘flue’extendingbeyondtheextentofthetrench.Thisfeatureconsistedofreddenedandblackenedscorchedclay,andasinglepieceofpotterywasrecovered,whichhasbeententativelydatedtothefifthcenturyA.D.(Lyne,2018).Asmallextensiontothetrenchwasdugof.75mx.65mtoexplorethisfeaturefurther.

Fig.8CremationvesselinsituinthegulleyFig.9Thecremationdeposit

StephenClifton

10

Fig.10Testtrenches16and17asexcavatedin2013

StephenClifton

11

Fig.11Testtrench17enlargedin2018toform18C,showinghearthandflue[412]and[835]

StephenClifton

12

Fig.12Trench18Cshowingtheintersectingditches[845]and[839]

StephenClifton

13

In2018thegroupreturnedtothispartofthesitetofurtherexplorethefeaturesseenin2013andtoseeifanyoftheRomandrainageditchfeaturesextendedasfarasthisparcelofland.Tothisendafurtherfivetrenchesweredug,thefirsttwowerehandexcavated,theotherthreewereexcavatedusinga3tonne360omechanicaldiggerwitha1.2mtoothlessditchingbucket.Thesetrenchesweresituatedonthenorth-eastcornerofthesiteandonlyrevealedfeaturesassociatedwiththe19th-centuryhopgarden,andnofeaturesordepositsofearlierarchaeologicalinterest.Thesetrencheswererecorded,closeddownandbackfilled.Thetrenchwiththehearthfeature,(18C),wasthenthefocusofattentionanditwasextendedtothenorth,southandeast.Additionallyanotherspeculativetrenchwasdugcloseto18C,at1.2mx9m,inwhichnofeatureswereobservedanditwasbackfilled.

Ateamofnomorethatsixvolunteergroupmembers,ledbymyself,excavatedthistrenchbyhandusingstandardMOLAtechniques,(MOLA,1995).Thenatureoftheclaysoilmadeexcavationslowandarduous,andthevariationsinthecolourofthesoilproducedbydifferentialsinmoistureretentionmeantidentificationofpotentialfeatureswasverydifficult.Whenre-openingthetrenchwiththemechanicaldigger,muchofthehearthfeature[412]waslost,howeverasthetrenchhadbeenenlargedanadditionalareaofcharcoaldeposit[837]wasencountered,whichappearedtobeassociatedwith[412].Thisdepositwasnomorethan8–10mmindepth,andhadwelldefinededgesasthoughoriginallyretainedbytimberbarriersorsimilar,therewasnospreadbeyondthisdiscretefeature.

Beneaththecharcoalspreadwasanoccupationlayer(843)containingafewsherdsofIronAgeandearlyRomanpottery,andcutintothislayerwasasmallpitorpossibleposthole[847/848].Therewasnodatingevidenceforthesefeatures.Beneath(843)weretwofeatureswhichappearedtobeditches,(Fig.12).SubsequentpotteryanalysishasshownthesefeaturestobelateIronAgeorpossiblyearlyRoman.Thefirstoftheseditches,[845],runsroughlyeast/westandiscutintothegaultclaychertnaturallayer,andwastracedforadistanceof5m.Itwasfilledwithanorangeybrownclayverysimilartothesurroundingnaturallayer.Whatremainedwasquiteshallowatanaveragedepthof32cm.Thisfeatureappearstorunparalleltothegullyfeatureobservedin2013intrench16.Thefewsherdsofpotteryaredatedfrom50BCto60A.D.

Thesecondditch,[839],runsapproximatelyNW/SEatadepthof320mm,andhasadistinctslotcutintothebaseabout320mmwide.Thefillisasimilarorangeybrownclayandchertmix.Thebaseisflattenedanddugtothenaturalragstone.Aditchprofilethatcouldbeassociatedwithabeam-laidwall.AparallelcanbeseenonmanylateIronAgesites,andagoodexampleisenclosure11,[858],atPegswoodMoor,Northumberland,(Proctor,2009),whichexhibitedthesameflatbottomedcharacteristicandhasbeeninterpretedastheconstructiontrenchforatimberfence,(Figs.13and14).

StephenClifton

14

Fig.13Viewof18Clookingeastshowingditch[845]markedinred,andditch[839]markedinwhite

Fig.14Trench18Clookingwestshowingthetwoditchesinsection

StephenClifton

15

Fig.15Sectiondrawingsfromtesttrenches16and17and18C

StephenClifton

16

Thetwoditchesintersectattheeasternbaulk,allowingforasectiondrawingtoillustratetherelationship.Theexcavationoftheditchesseemedtosuggestatthetimethat[845]predatedandwascutby[839],butthepotteryhintsatthepossibilitythatitwasinfacttheotherwayaround.Howeverthereareanumberofvariablesandthedatesareveryclosebetweenthetwo,anditisentirelypossiblethatresidualpotsherdsweredepositedinoneortheotherditchwhenonewasreplacingtheother.Onlyfurtherexcavationofthesefeaturesinotherpartsofthesiteislikelytoshedfurtherlightonthisaspect.Alsoobservedwereanumberofsmallcirculardiscolourationsinthesoilinthevicinityof[845]closetothewesternbaulk.Theseweretreatedasfeaturesandexcavatedaccordingly.However,theyyieldednofindsofanykind,anditislikelythattheyareanaturalphenomenon,suchastreerootsorsolutionhollows.

TheexcavationceasedattheendofOctober2018whentheweatherstartedtomakecontinuedactivityonthesiteverydifficultduetothemuddynatureoftheclaysoil.Thefeatureswerecoveredwithnylontarpaulinsoverthewinter,andthensubsequentlybackfilled.

ThePotteryEvidence

Thepotteryrecoveredfromthecontextsassociatedwith18Crepresentsasmallassemblageweighingjust115gintotal.Manyofthesherdsappearabradedandmuchofitcouldwellberesidual.Thefieldworkassociatedwith18Cyieldedatotalof26sherds,aswellastwosherdsoffifthcenturypotteryfrom[412]whichwasexcavatedin2013.Mostofthesepiecesweresmallandhardtoidentify.Thepiecesoffifthcenturycoarsewarecomefromthefillof[412]whichisthefirstfeatureencounteredbeneaththehillwashlayer(831).AndbeneaththisisalayerofveryabradedearlyRomanorIronAgematerialinlayers(842)and(843)togetherwithaverywornpieceofRomanrooftile,(tegula).Thepotteryfromthesedepositslookasthoughtheymayberesidual,buttheyaresomedistancefromtheknownRomanbuildingstothenorth.TherewasonlyonepieceofrecognisablyRomanmaterialfromaflagoninNorthKentfineware,dated43to250A.D.(Lyne,2018)

Thetwoditchesbelowyieldedonlyafewverysmallpotterysherds,(Fig.16).Ditch[839]producedfoursherdsweighing27g,onepieceofafine‘Belgic’grogtemperedwarejar,dated25BCto70A.D.(1);onepieceofcoarsewareinglauconiticfabricdated50BCto60A.D.(14);andtwopiecesofaneckedjarinNorthKentshelltemperedwaredatedto25BCto80A.D.(2and4).Theotherditch,[845],yieldedtwosherdsofcoarseglauconiticware(5)datedto50BCto60A.D.(Lyne,2018).

StephenClifton

17

Thepotteryrecoveredfromthistrenchnicelysequencestheuseofthisareaoflandandputsthehearthfeature,[412],attheveryendoftheRomanperiod,andtheunderlyingditchesatthebeginningoftheRomanperiodorthelateIronAge,andthereisanoccupationlayerbetween,probablyassociatedwiththecessationofuseoftheditches.

Geophysicalsurvey

OverthreeunseasonallywarmdaysinFebruary,2019aresistivitysurveyandamagnetometrysurveywerecarriedoutonthesite,usingequipmentprovidedbytheUniversityofKentundertheguidanceandtutelageofLloydBosworthfromthetechnicaldepartment.Theheavilywoodedareasandthosenotaccessibleduetoundergrowthormodernbuildersrubblewereavoided.Thesame3,600m2weresurveyedusingbothmethods.A30mx30mgridsystemwasusedallowingforfourgridstobesetout,encompassingthetrenchedareadugin2018.Theresultsaretantalising,butbothmethodsproducedextremelynoisydata.Thisisprobablyduetotheprevioususeofthegroundforgrowinghops,whichinvolvesmetalretainingdevicesscrewedintothegroundtosupportthehoppolesandwires.Theseironfixtureshaveturnedupalloverthesiteandgeneratespikesinthereadings.

Magnetometryworksbypickinguptinydifferencesintheearth’smagneticfieldandthemeterproducedanevenresult,albeitverycontrasty,acrossthearea.Asectionofthegroundaroundthetrenchesfrom2018wasnotsurveyedduetothedisturbancecausedbyexcavation.Severalanomaliescanclearlybeseen,mostnotablyasquarishfeature,ofapproximately20mx20m,almostinthecentreofthesitetotheeastoftrench18C.Besidesthisfeaturetherearetwoothercurvinganomaliesthatcouldbeditches,onetothesouthwestandtheotherrunningoffthesquarefeaturetotheeast,(Fig.17and19).

Fig.16Aselectionofpotteryfrom18C,illustratedbyMalcolmLyne

StephenClifton

18

Fig.17Magnetometrysurveyofthesiteshowinganomalies

Theresistivitysurveywasifanythingevenmoreconfused,(Fig.18and19).Wewerenotexpectingmuchfromthis,becausethetrialtrencheshadnotthrownupanythingtosuggestbuildingsontheland,andresistivityworksbyhighlightingdifferencesinelectricalresistancecausedbyfeaturessuchaswalls.However,therearenumerousswirlsofhighandlowreadingsthatmustbegeological,buttwoareasofinterestwererevealed.Onthenorthernedgeofthesurveyareaontheedgeofthefirst,(eastern),30mgrid,isaright-angledanomalyofhighsignalthatlooksasifitisworthyoffurtherexamination.Andthereisalsoanareaoflowsignalatthefaredgeofthesecondsquarethatlookslikeasquarishfeature,coincidentallyoccupyingasimilarpositiontothelargefeatureinthemagnetometrysurvey.Thetwoditchesidentifiedin2018werenotdiscernableinthesurveydata.

StephenClifton

19

Fig.18Resistivitysurveyofthesiteshowingtwopossibleanomalies

Sitehistory

ThesitesitsonthesouthbankoftheriverMedway,withtheriversomedistancedowntheslopeofthevalley.TheRomanbuildingsuncoveredbyMAAGbetween2005and2017aresituatedonarelativelyflat,horseshoeshapedpromontorythatoverlookstherivertothenorth.Romanbuildingswerefirstmentionedonthesitein1839andrefertofoundationsremoved‘9yearssince’.Thereisanotherreferencetofoundationsremovedthirtyyearspreviously(Smith,J.,1839).Itislikelythattheseremainswereremovedwhenthefarmtrack-wayswereputinplaceandthenlaterwhenthehop-pickers‘huts’werebuiltsometimearound1830–1840.HoweverthebuildingsfoundandexcavatedbyMAAGdonotappeartobethoseuncoveredinthe19thcentury.The

StephenClifton

20

groundplaninSmith’sbookdoesnotmatchthatofthefirstbuildingexcavatedbythegroup.Itissimilar,roughlythesameproportionsasfarastheygo,butnotthesame.ThisisprobablybecausetheRomanbuildingfoundearlierwascompletelyremovedinordertobuildthemodernhop-picker’saccommodationbuilding,andtheirconcretefloorsstillremainaspartofthevehicleaccesstothispartoftheland.Themodernbuildingsthemselvesweregraduallydismantled,untiltheydisappearedcompletely,sometimeinthe1990’s.

Themodernagriculturaltrack-waysruntothenorthdowntotheriver,andacrosstothewestandeast,anduphilltothesouth.Onthewesternsidethereisarevetment,whichis

Fig.19Anomaliesidentifiedbythesurveytechniques

StephenClifton

21

partiallyconstructedofun-mortaredstone,andwaslaterfoundtohavetruncatedatleastthreeRomanperiodbuildings,andthestoneremovedfromthesebuildingsappearstohavebeenre-usedintherevetment.ItislikelythatthiswaspartoftheactivityreferredtobySmithin1839.

Fig.20TheRomansiteatEastFarleigh

TheRomanbuildingsconsistofanumberofphasesbuttheearliestbuildingsarebelievedtodatetothemid-secondcenturyA.D.andthelastbuildingsstandingwerefinallyabandonedanddemolishedattheendofthefourthcentury,(Fig.20).Thesebuildingsdonotappeartoconstituteadomesticvillatypeestablishment,andindeedthereisasuspectedvillaonthenorthbankoftheMedwayatBarming,whichwouldbeamoreconventionallocation,lookingsouthacrosstherivervalley,(Payne,G.,1880).The

StephenClifton

22

exactnatureofthesiteatEastFarleighisnotclear,butwecansaythattherewasatleastoneRomanoCelticstyletempleaspartofthecomplexandpossiblyatleasttwoothers.ItisalsolikelythatsomeformofarivercrossingallowedcommunicationbetweentheBarmingsiteandthoseonthesouthernsideoftheriver.ItispossiblethattheRomanthirdcenturyphaseisareligiouscomplexwithassociatedaccommodation,(Smithetal,2018,167),potentiallypartoftheestateontheoppositebankatBarming.

Fig.21ThetwoearlyditchesunderlyingtheRomanbuildingsatEastFarleigh

UnderlyingtheRomansiteisapairofsubstantialditchesdatedtothelateIronAgeorconquestperiodRomanbypotteryfoundintheprimaryfills,50BC–60AD(Lyne,2018).Thedepthoftheouterditchtothesouthisapproximately1.6mdeep,withaslotcutintothebaseinplaces.Theinnerditchwasapproximately1.35mdeep,andwasaclassic‘V’shape.Itishardnottoseetheseasdefensiveinnature,particularlyiforiginallytherewasacorrespondingearthenbankassociatedwiththem,althoughnosignofanysuchbankwasobserved.Theditchesweretracedforapproximately70mwheretheyranparalleltooneanother,atabout5.5mapart,runningeast/west.Itthenappearsthattheyturnedsharplytothenorth,towardstheriver.ThepositioningisalsosignificantasthisislocatedclosetotheRiverMedwayonaslightpromontory,ratherthanfurtherupthehillwhereitwouldpresumablyhavebeenmoredefendable.Thatsaid,theoppidumatQuarryWoodisinasimilarpositionatthebaseoftheslopeclosetoawatercourse,(Kelly,1972).ButuntilmoreinformationisavailablewewillhavetokeepanopenmindastowhetherthesefeaturesarelateIronAgeorearlyRoman,buttheymirrorthedaterangeoftheditchestothesouth.

DuringtheexcavationoftheprimaryRomansite,thereweretworesidualIronAgecoinsfoundinlaterfeatures.OnedatedtotheveryendofthefirstcenturyBCandtheothertoearlyinthefirstcenturyA.D.ThefirstcenturyBCcoinisanextremelyraresilverminim,andbelievedtobeoneofonlythreeknownandthefirstofitstypetobesecurelyprovenanced,(Holman,2019).Itisattributedto‘SEG0’,(meaning‘powerful’inCeltic),possiblyaminorKentishchieftain.OritmaybearegionalissueofTasciovanus,aKingfromtheHertfordshireregionwhoappearstohavesoughtinfluenceinKentafterthedemiseofDumnobellaunus.CoinsbearingthelegendSEGOaremoreusuallyfoundintheeastofthecounty,(Holman,2019).TheotherIronAgecoinisofmorecommonbronze,

StephenClifton

23

andattributedtoCunobelin,arulerbasedinCamulodumon(Colchester),whohadgainedcontrolofKentbytheearlyfirstcenturyA.D.Thisisacommontypewithalmost100examplesfoundinKentincludinganexamplefoundinnearbyTovil,approximatelyamiletotheeastofthesite,(Holman,2019).

Fig.22RareIronAgesilver‘minim’

AllthissuggestsIronAgeactivityonthesite,withoutreallygivingusanypreciseinformation.ClearlythepositionofthesiteoverlookingtheRiverMedwaywouldhavebeenstrategicmilitarily,aswellasadvantageouscommercially.Thenatureoftheditchsystemcanonlybeguessedatwithoutfurtherinvestigationbutitispossiblethatitwassomesortofprotectedenclosureinpre-RomanKentorequallyitcouldhavebeenadefendedstagingpostintheRomanconquestafterA.D.43.

ThewidersitehasproducedanumberofapparentlyritualisedelementsfromtheIronAgethroughintotheRomanperiod.Asatmanyothersitesofthisperiodthereisaseemingcontinuitybetweenthepre-RomanandRomanworld,(Willis,2013,440).DepositionsseemtobeaverycommonformofritualisedactivityduringthelateIronAge,evenlydistributedthroughouttheUK,andaremostoftenfoundinpitsandditches(Smithetal,2018,130).OnthesiteatEastFarleighthereareseveraldepositswhichappeartoberitual,buttheyareveryhardtoprovedefinitively.Theexampleclosestto18Cwasthecremationdepositfoundintrench16,(410),from2013.Thiswasfoundduringthetrialtrenchingprocessusingthemechanicalexcavator,andwasfoundtobesittinguprightinashallowgully.Thevesselwastruncated,butthecontentsdonotappeartobecompromised.Thevesselisadarkgreycombedjaringlauconiticfabric,dated50BC-50A.D.andmeasures210mmindiameteratitswidest,(Lyne,2018).The

StephenClifton

24

contentsareadepositoforangeygreybrownclaysoilwithverylittlecharcoal,andalayerofcalcifiedbonebeneath.Itwasnotpossibletoidentifythenatureofthebone.Itwasclearfromthequantityinthevesselthatweareprobablynotlookingattheremainsofawholeanimal,(humanorotherwise),andduetothemarkedabsenceofcharcoal,itislikelythattheboneswereselectedforthisreuseasanofferingwithinthisditch,ratherthanbeingscoopeduprandomlywiththeashesfromthefire,(Cunliffe,1982).

Fig.23Ritualdeposit‘Belgic’jar(illustrationbyMalcolmLyne)

Elsewhere,inoneofthelargeditchestothenorth,(ditchB),analmostintactjarinblack‘Belgic’grogtemperedwarefabricwithflushshouldercordon,andanexteriorrimdiameterof110mm,datedto50BC-60A.D.,(Lyne,2018),wasfoundinoneofthelowerfills,(Fig.23).Itishardtoconceivethatthiswasnotadeposition,andtheslowdrainingnatureoftheclaysoilwouldhavemeantawateryenvironmentsooftenassociatedwithritualdepositsfromthisperiod,(Prior,2003;Hutton,2013).Theageofthisditchanditsneighbour,ditchA,havealwaysbeendifficulttoascertainprecisely.Forinstancetherearetwosherdsoffinewarefromthesamecontext,dated43to60A.D.,puttingthemjustintotheRomanperiod.Anditisthiscrossoverperiodthatissodifficulttopindown.TheditchesappeartohavebeenleftopenforsometimeintotheRomanperiod,ditchBpossiblyforaslongas150years.Thepotteryassemblagesforthetwoditchesshowaslightlydifferentdateprofilebetweenthem,withditchAbeingslightlyearlierandfilledinsooneraftertheRomanconquestandditchBbeingdugatthetimeoftheconquestandfilledinslightlylater,(Lyne,2018).Thismeansthatitisquitepossiblethattheyweredugatthesametime,orinquitequicksuccession.

ThefirstRomanstructureonthesite,buildingtwo,appearstohavebeenbuiltsometimeinthesecondcentury,probablyinthelatterpart,judgingbythematerialusedtobackfilltheditchesoverwhichitwasbuilt.Unfortunatelybuildingtwowasalmostcompletelydemolishedwhenalaterbuildingwasbuilttoreplaceitonthesamelocation,againsometimetowardstheendofthesecondcentury.Buildingtwodoesnotappeartohaveanyothercontemporarystructuresassociatedwithit,andperhapswasastand-alonebuildingconnectedtoagriculturalpractices.Itishardtobecertainduetothetruncation

StephenClifton

25

ofthesiteinthe19thcentury.Allthatremainsofbuildingtwoisitssouthernwallandsouth-easterncorner.Thewallshavingbeenreducedtothefloorlevelofthesubsequentbuilding.Alsorevealedisalargedoorwayinthesouthernwall3210mmwide,whichisreminiscentofthelargeopeningsseeninmodernagriculturalstructures.Tofacilitatetheconstructionofbuildingtwo,ditchBwasbackfilled,andasubstantialamountofragstonewasusedtoleveloffthefloorwithintheconfinesofthebuilding,presumablytoavoid‘slump’.Althoughtheditchsystemhasbeentracedovera70mlengthandthenglimpsedturningtothenorth,whereitisagainoverlainbyalaterRomanperiodbuilding,thisisalmostcertainlyonlyasmallsectionofamuchlargersystem.TheRomanbuildingsconstructedovertheearlierditchesappeartohavebeenpositionedtheredeliberately,itwouldhavebeenpossibletohaveconstructedthebuildingstoavoidthem.Inmodernconstructiontermswewouldhaveseenthemasafoundationhazardtobeavoided,andtakenstepstobuildonsolidgroundifpossible.AsSmithsays,“Whythebuildingswereconstructedoverdeepditcheshasyettobeexplained:theproblemsofsubsidencemusthavebeenobvious,yetbuildingswererebuilt,orre-flooredonthesamesite”(Smith,1997).

Acluemaylieinthenatureofthelaterbuildings.Atleastoneofthebuildings,buildingfive,wasaRomanoCelticstyletemple,andalthoughsomeofthesitehasbeenlostto19thcenturyagriculturaldevelopment,andithasnotbeenfullyexcavatedyet,itisclearthatwehaveaclearritualelementtothesite.Buildingone,althoughwithacompletefloorplan,wasrobbeddowntothelastcourseofthefoundationsandhadverylittleinthewayofstratigraphicinformationtogiveus.However,thisstyleofbuilding,essentiallyanelongatedversionofthetemple,buildingfive,appearstobepeculiartoKentandthereareotherexamplessuchasatHollingbourne,(Feakes,2007)andMinster(Parfitt,2006).Itisclearfromtheorientationofthebuildingthatitisnotadomesticstructure.Ifitwere,itwouldbeorientatedtoenjoytheviewoftheriverandmorelikelybeonthenorthbanklookingsouthratherthanonthesouthbanklookingeast.Itisalsoclearthatthebuildingswereconceivedasagrouping,anddatingestimateshaveplacedbuildingsone,fiveandsixintothethirdcenturyandlikelygoingoutofusebytheendofthethirdcenturyorearlyinthefourth.Theorientationataslightangletotheriveriscuriousandraisesthequestionofwhetherthissiteisinfactpartofalargerestate,centredonthepotentialvillaglimpsedatBarmingontheothersideoftheriverin1879byGeorgePayne,(Payne,1880).

Buildingsixisanothercuriosity.Itappearstobeapairofshrinesback-to-backseparatedbyasubstantialwallheadingofftothenorthandsouthonthesamealignmentasbuildingone.Unfortunatelyitwasnotpossibletoexplorethewallfurtherthanafewmetreseithersideofthebuildingbutwewereabletotentativelyestablishthatitcouldnothaveextendedfurtherthanabout7mineitherdirectionandisthereforelikelytohaveturnedtotheeasttoformanenclosure,andpossiblya‘temenos’aroundanasyetunknowntemple.Thegroundplantobuildingsixitselfiscompletebutwassignificantlyrobbeddowntoonlyacourseortwoofstone.And,likebuildingfive,therewassomeevidenceofreuseforanotherpurposepriortoitsfinaldemolition.Afeaturehadbeen

StephenClifton

26

dugthroughthemiddleofthestructure,apparentlyterminatinginalargepitinthecentreofthebuilding,whichwaspartiallyfilledwithalargepieceofragstone.Thisfeaturedidnotappeartobeassociatedwithheatorburning,andtherewasevidenceforachannelproducedbywatererosionrunningawaytotheeast,asthoughitwassomesortofwatersluice.Therewerenofindswhichcouldbeattributedtoreligiousorritualpracticespecifically,foundinthebuilding.

Fig.24Buildingsixseenfromthewest

Buildingfiveisthebuildingthathassurvivedthebestofallthebuildingsonthesite,andthisisnodoubtbecauseofitsreuseafteritslifeasatemplehadceased.Likebuildingoneandsixithasbeenestablishedthatthebuildingwasbuiltsometimearoundthemiddleofthethirdcentury,butbytheendofthethirdcenturyorpossiblyearlyinthefourth,itwasbeingusedforotheractivities.Whenthebuildingwasexcavatedalargeentranceinthenorthwallhadbeenblockedupwithstone,beforethewholewallwassubsequentlyremoveddowntoafewcourses.Theblockingofthedoorwaywouldsuggestthatoncethetemplehadceasedtobeusedasatempleitwasdeliberatelyputoutofuse.Anotherremarkablefeatureofthisbuildingwasthesurvivalofpaintedwallplasterontheoutsideofthebuildingonthewesternwall.A500mmsectionsurvivesalongthelengthofthiswallrevealingapinklowerpanelseparatedbyablackbandandapaleblueorwhiteuppersection.Therewasnotraceofwallplasteronorneartheoutsideofanyoftheotherexteriorwalls.Itmaybethatthebuildingwasnevercompletedforsomereason,orthatitwasremovedfromtheotherwalls,butitisperhapsindicativeoftheshortperiodoftimethatthebuildingwasinuseforitsprimary

StephenClifton

27

purpose.Theouterwallshadbeenremoved,(sometimearound300AD),presumablytofacilitateaccesstotheinnercellawhereanumberofovenshadbeenintroduced,andnumerousmortariaandquernstoneswererecovered.

Potteryandcoinevidencepointstothislaterre-useofthebuildingcontinuingthroughoutthe4thcenturyandanumberofcoinsoftheHouseofTheodosius,dated388-402A.D.,werefoundinthedemolitionlayer(Holman,2019).Itisclearfromtheremodellingofthestructureandthelaterusethatitwasputto,thatitsuserswerenotfazedbythebuilding’sformerlifeasatemple,orperhapstheywereunaware.GiventheshorttimespaninvolvedandthepervadingnatureofritualandreligionintheRomanperiodjustafewdecadespreviouslythisissurelysignificant.Butperhapsthereisaparallelwithmodernchurchesthataredeconsecratedandfindnewsecularuses.

Theotherfeaturesofnoteonthesitearethedrainageditchesthatrunawayfrombuildingthreetotheeast,withatributaryjoiningitfromthesouth.Amagnetometrysurveyoftheadjacentplotoflandtotheeastrevealedthattheditchcontinuedinamoreorlessstraightlineforapproximately70mtotheeast,andappearstostopabruptly.Withtherivertothenorthitwouldseemsensibletoallowwatertodrainthereratherthanbeingdivertedintoachannelrunningparalleltotheriver.Thissuggeststhat

Fig.25Buildingfive,lookingeast

StephenClifton

28

thewatercoursewasdivertingwateraroundsomething,suchasthetemplewithinthetemenosandperhapsthemissingbuildingfrom1838.Itisalsoconceivablethata

channelfilledwithwatermighthavehadritualsignificanceaswell.Thetributaryrunningofftothesouthwastracedfor30m,butwhereweplacedatrenchintheadjacentplotoflandin2018,65mawaytothesouth,therewasnosignofit,suggestingthatsomewherebetweenithadeitherstoppedorchangeddirection.

InthevicinityoftheEastFarleighsitetherearenumerousotherRomansiteswithaRomancemeteryandbuildingfurthertothenorthwestinBarming,(Smythe,1883),(possiblyassociatedwithavillatotheeast,(1)),andanotherverysubstantialRomanvillaatTeston,(3kmtothewest),thathasyettobefullyexcavated,(Grover,1873).TwocremationburialswerefoundineastFarleighinDecember1845,(Fig.28)oneofwhichwasapparentlyinastone-linedcistjustoffGallantsLane(5).TherewereseveralsmallpotsfoundincludingaSamianpatera,withthePottersstamp'HABICNSM',alongwithtwoRomancoins,oneidentifiedasFaustina,wifeofAntoninusPius,(2).In1841acremationburialwasfoundfurtheralongtheriverat'Bydews'onTovilHill,andin1843an‘urn’withhandleswasdiscoveredinthefrontgardenoftheParsonageonLowerRoad,(6),(Post,1848).OntheothersideoftheriveratBarmingthreecremation‘urns’werefoundbyworkmenin1979,datedtothemidsecondcenturyAD,(Detsicas,1980).

Fig.26PaintedwallplasteronbuildingfiveFig.27Drainageditchlookingwest

StephenClifton

29

Discussion

TheworkdoneatEastFarleighin2018hasbroadenedourperspectiveontheoverallsite.From2005to2017weconcentratedontheRomanbuildingsastheyrevealedthemselvesandpuzzledovertheirstyleandplacement,buttherewerecluestothebroaderpicture,withevidenceofpre-Romanactivityandpost-Romanactivity,whichweredifficulttoseparatefromtheglareoftheRomanperiodmateriality.ThedoubleditchesoflateIronAge/Romanconquestdatepointtotheearlieruseofthesite,andthelatereuseofthebuildingsforverydifferentpurposesgivingusanenddatesometimein

Fig.28MapshowingdiscoveriesaroundEastFarleigh

StephenClifton

30

thefifthcentury.Butin2018thefocusshiftedtothetwoendsoftheRomanperiodinBritain.ThetwoIronAgeditchesfoundin18Cconfirmingpre-Romanactivityinthisareatothesouthandobviouslychimedwiththedoubleditchsystemnearertotheriver.Thehearthandthefluesystem,datedtothefifthcentury,alertsustothecontinuedactivityafterthelegionshaveleftBritain,butperhapsbeforeitisrealisedthattheyarenotcomingback.Thisfeaturecouldwellbea‘corn-drier’,whichwouldechosimilarfeaturesfoundinbuildingsthreeandfive.

Avaluablelessonwaslearnedaboutthenatureofthelocalgeologyandtopography.Whenweputtrialtrenchesacrosstheareain2013withamechanicaldigger,weonlysawtwoareasofarchaeologicalinterest.Subsequenthandexcavationhasshownthattherearemanymorefeaturesthatarehardtoidentifyinthesoilconditions.Wehavealsodonegeophysicalsurveys,whichhaveshownupseverallargeanomalies,butwhichmissedtheditchesthatweknewwerepresent.Andthedepthofthefeatureshasalsogivenusacontrastwiththefeaturestothenorth,thereislittleinthewayoftopsoilorhillwashfromearlierperiods,juxtaposing19thcenturylayerswitharchaeologicalfeatures.ThissuggeststhatthetopsoilhasbeencontinuallywasheddowntheslopetowardstheRomanbuildingswhereithasbeenbuildingup.ThisperhapsexplainssomeoftheresidualIronAgematerialfoundinRomancontexts.

TheritualdepositfoundinanIronAgeditchinTrench16in2013maybeacremationburialandwouldfitwellwithsimilarpracticesatothersitessuchasatAylesford,(Evans,1890),Westhampnett,(Fitzpatrick,1997)andattheFurfieldQuarrysiteclosetotheQuarryWoodOppidumatLoose,(Howell,2014,50).IndeedinthegreensandregionofKent,cremationaccountsfor85%ofexcavatedburials,and60%ofallknowncremationsare‘urned’,(Smithetal2018,216and259).AtEastFarleighweonlyhavetheonecremationsofar,soitisnotpossibletodiscernapattern,however,theotherfeaturesidentifiedonthesurveymaypointtosettlementactivitynearbyassociatedwiththeinterment.RecentworkinthevicinityofMaidstoneHospitalinBarmingonthenorthsideoftheriverhasrevealedalandscaperichinactivityfromtheNeolithicthroughtheBronzeAgetothelateIronAgeandRoman(Stevens,2014).ThenearbyOppidumatQuarryWood,Looseisafewmilestothesoutheast,wheremuchoftheglauconiticpotteryfoundatEastFarleighisthoughttooriginate(Kelly,1972;Lyne,2018).ThebloomeryatQuarryWoodisevidenceofironworkinginthisarea,togetherwithanothersitefurthertothesouth-east,withafurtherbloomeryandsixcremations,(Howell,2014),whichsupportstheimpressionofanintegratednetworkofestablishedpre-RomansettlementswhichcontinuedintotheRomanperiod.IndeedthetransitionfromLateIronAgetoRomanisbarelyperceptibleinthearchaeologicalrecordinKent,suggestingthatcertainlyfortheruraleconomy,lifewascontinuingasithadbeforeandperhapstheRomanisationprocesshadbeenintrainforseveraldecades,potentiallysinceCaesar’scampaignsintheregion,(Salway,1997;Rogers,2013).However,asyetitisdifficulttojointhedotsofthepre-conquestlateIronAgeinthearea,andperhapsthereisnosurprisethatweareseeingactivitysoclosetotheriver,whichmusthavebeenanimportantcommercialartery.

StephenClifton

31

Thefifthcenturyfeaturesaremoreelusive.Weclearlyhaveactivityonthesiteafterthefinethirdcenturybuildingshavegoneoutofuseandinsomecasesdemolished.Manysitereportsmention‘squatter’activitywheremosaicsarecutthroughbylatermore‘humble’activity,suchasatButleighVilla,inSomerset,(Gerrard,2013,158).AtEastFarleighthisactivityhasbeenconsiderable,andapparentlysustainedoveraperiodoftime,withpotteryassociatedwithdisplaysgivingusaperiodfromtheendofthethirdcenturythroughtothefifth.AparallelwouldbetheRomanbuildingatStoneRoad,Broadstairs,wherelaterovenshadcutthroughnumerousinfantburialsinanearlierRomanbuilding,(Moody,2008).ThehearthfeatureatEastFarleighunearthedin2013andlaterexploredin2018,appearstositalonewithoutanyassociatedbuildings,butthatmayjustbebecausetheyweretimberandwehavenotidentifiedthemyet,oritmaybethatthepositioningwasrelatedtoagriculturalactivityandadomesticstructurelieselsewhere.

Corn-driersandotherfeaturesfoundwithinthethirdcenturybuildingsappeartodatetothefourthcenturywithonlyasmallquestionmarkovertheirfinalcessation,sometimearoundtheendofthefourthcentury,beginningofthefifth.Thereislittlepotteryevidenceofoccupationlaterthan409,(Lyne,2018).Howeverthelastremnantsofthebuildingsappeartohavebeendemolishedaroundthistime,perhapsdisplacingtheoccupantstothesitetothesouthidentifiedin2018.CouldthisinfactpointtoaclearancebythelandownerorperhapsbysomeotherexecutiveoftheRomanstate?Whyweretheynotusedinfavourofthestructureuphilltothesouth,furtherfromtheriver?Certainlyweareseeingtheendofaprocessthatstartedintheearlyfourthcentury.TheRomanbuildingsweredemolished,walleduporabandoned,onlytobepartiallyre-usedduringthefourthcentury,butthenoccupationaroundtheRomanbuildingswasendedandthelastofthebuildingsdemolished,sometimeearlyinthefifthcentury,leavingverylittleinthewayofmaterialcluesastowhathappenednext,(EsmondeCleary,1989,173).Clearlythereisalotofinformationmissingwhichcouldhelptoanswerthesequestions.

Conclusion

TheintentionofthisinterimreportistoencapsulatetheworkdonebytheMaidstoneAreaArchaeologicalGroupclosetoaRomansitethatthegrouphasbeenworkingonsince2005butnolongerhasaccessto.TheresultsshowsignificantactivityduringtheIronAgewhichwerepreviouslyunsuspectedandhelpustobetterunderstandtheIronAgetoRomanandRomantoAnglo-Saxontransitionphasesinthispartofthecountry.AnotheraspecttotheworkisthesuspectedreligiousnatureoftheRomansiteandthepotentialforthistobeacontinuationofearlierpre-Romantraditions.Thesurveyworkdoneinadvanceofanyfutureexcavationhasgivenussometantalisingtargetsthatpotentiallybuildontheworkdonein2018.Thenextseasonofexcavationpromisestoberevealing.

StephenClifton

32

Appendix

Potterybycontext

2013 Context Fabric Form Date-range No of sherds Weight in gm Comments

410 C7A Combed jar c.50BC-AD60 1 848G Trunc crem pot

413 C29 ?5th c 2 11G

2018 Context Fabric Form Date-range No of sherds Wt in gm Comments 836 18C C2E Bead-rim jar c.25BC-AD70 1 8G Abraded

842 C16A C28

Closed form c.50-200 1

2 6 16

sl.abraded abraded

?Residual 3 22g

843

C7A C8 C9 C28 F6A Fired clay

Flagon

c.50BC-AD60 c.43-60 c.25BC-AD.80 c.50-150 c.43-250

3 5 5 2 1 1

12 16 7 14 1 1

Abraded sl abraded abraded sl abraded abraded

c.43-60 or poss all residual 16 50G

844 C2A C7A C9

Ev.rim jar necked jar

c.25BC-AD.70 c.50BC-AD60 c.25BC-AD80

1 1 2

9 6 12

Abraded fresh abraded

c.25BC-AD.80 4 27G

846 C7A c.50BC-AD60 but residual 2 8G abraded

East Farleigh Pottery Fabrics National Roman Fabric Reference Collection codings (Tomber and Dore 1998) are put in brackets after relevent East Farleigh ones. C2A. Fine 'Belgic' grog-tempered ware (SOB GT var) C2E. Handmade grog-tempered ware with siltstone grog filler C7A. Glauconitic ware C8. Handmade black fabric with profuse <0.10 mm quartz-sand filler C9. North Kent Shell-tempered ware C16A. Fine grey Thameside fabric with <0.30 quartz-sand filler C28. Miscellaneous oxidised wares C29. Handmade soft underfired black fabric with sparse chaff and<0.30mm.quartz-sand and occasional rounded vesicles

StephenClifton

33

F6A. North Kent Fineware (UPC FR) Harris Matrix for Trench 18C

StephenClifton

34

Context register sheet from 18C for 2018 Context Detail (831) - Orangey brown clay soil fill, believed to be ‘hillwash’, of variable depth from 400mm – 600mm, beneath modern topsoil layer (101), extends across excavated area. [835] - Linear cut of the ‘flue’ structure associated with [413] oven-like feature cutting through the natural to the south as well as through the hillwash layer (831), as well as potentially (842) and (843). Feature observed and partially excavated in 2013. Filled by (836). Extends to the east and appears to continue past the extent of the edge of the trench, observed for 3.27m. (836) - Fill of [835]. Dark orangey brown clay soil with frequent stone inclusions (no finds). Overlain by (831).

StephenClifton

35

[837] - Cut of a discrete area of charcoal rich orangey brown soil, in roughly square shape of approximately 1m2, cuts (842). Appears to be associated with [412], no datable evidence recovered. (838) - Fill of [837]. Charcoal rich orangey brown grey soil, to an average depth of 10mm. [839] - Cut of ditch, running south east, observed for 5.42m, filled by (840) and (844). Profile has defined linear ‘slot’ at the base of approximately 320mm x 320mm. Cuts [845]. (840) - One of the fills of [839], orangey brown clay soil fill with charcoal flecks. Appears to be a tip of fill into the ditch. (842) - General deposit beneath hillwash layer (831). Contained some early Roman material and a piece of very abraded roof tile (tegula). Orangey brown clay layer with frequent stones. (843) - General deposit beneath (842), and maybe indistinguishable. Mid orangey brown with occasional charcoal flecks and frequent stones. (844) - Fill of [839]. Orangey mid/light brown clay soil. Overlain by (842)/(843). [845] - Cut of linear ditch running east, cut by ditch [839]. Observed for 5m. shallow at western end, 150mm - 200mm, with a flat base. Deeper at the eastern extent, 320mm in depth, with concave base. (846) - Fill of linear ditch [845]. Mid brown orange clay soil, fairly loose. [847] - Cut of small ovoid feature, (later reassessed to be part of a slightly larger feature incorporating [848]), possibly a post hole. Roughly 100mm in diameter, filled with grey charcoal soil. Approximately 100mm deep with two large stones. [848] - Cut of small feature, later reassessed to be part of [847]. Possible post hole. (849)/(850) - Fill of [847]/[848]. Orangey grey brown loose fill with charcoal inclusions, and two large stones. [851], [853], [855] and [857] are all features that were treated as possible steak holes, but on investigation appear to be natural phenomenon, possibly tree root, or solution hollows. (859) - Dark red orange brown clay soil, very firm and sticky. Residual make up layer beneath hillwash (831). Cut by [845].

StephenClifton

36

References

ExemplarArchaeologicalSiteReports:

Dunwoodie,L.,Harwood,C.,andPitt,K.,(2015).“AnearlyRomanfortandurbandevelopmentonLondinium’seasternhill.”MuseumofLondonArchaeology.Proctor,J.(2009).“PegswoodMoor,Morpeth:alaterIronAgeandRomano-Britishfarmsteadsettlement.”Pre-ConstructArchaeologyLimited,London.MonographNo.11.Willis,S.(2013).“TheRomanRoadsideSettlementandMulti-PeriodRitualComplexatNettletonandRothwell,Lincolnshire.”TheCentralLincolnshireWoldsResearchProject,1.Pre-ConstructArchaeologyLimitedandUniversityofKent.

ComparisonArchaeologicalSiteReports:

Atkinson,M.andPreston,S.J.(1998).“TheLateIronAgeandRomanSettlementatElmsFarm,Heybridge,Essex,Excavations1993–5:AnInterimReport.”Britannia.CambridgeUniversityPress,29,pp.85–110.doi:10.2307/526814.Evans,A.J.(1890).‘OnaLate-CelticUrnfieldatAylesford,Kent,andontheGaulish,Illyro-Italic,andClassicalConnexionsoftheFormsofPotteryandBronze-workthereDiscovered.’Arch.,LII,pp.317–88.Fitzpatrick,A.P.(1997).“ArchaeologicalExcavationsontheRouteoftheA27WesthampnettBypass,WestSussex,1992,Vol.2:TheCemeteries.”WessexArchaeologicalReport12(Salisbury).Lodwick,L.(2014).“AnarchaeobotanicalanalysisofSilchesterandthewiderregionacrossthelateIronAge-Romantransition.”(PhDthesis).Perkins,J.B.W.(1944)“IV.ExcavationsontheIronAgeHill-fortofOldbury,NearIghtham,Kent.”Archaeologia.CambridgeUniversityPress,90,pp.127–176.doi:10.1017/S0261340900009772.ArchaeologiaCantiana,(1939),137–81Pitts,M.,&Perring,D.(2006).“TheMakingofBritain'sFirstUrbanLandscapes:TheCaseofLateIronAgeandRomanEssex.”Britannia,37,189-212.Retrievedfromhttp://www.jstor.org.chain.kent.ac.uk/stable/30030519.Rogers,A.(2013)“RuralSettlementinLateIronAgeandRomanBritain:aReviewofThreeRecentArchaeologicalFieldworkReportsandtheirWiderImplications.”Britannia.CambridgeUniversityPress,44,pp.397–400.doi:10.1017/S0068113X13000019.

StephenClifton

37

Schofield,J.(Ed.).(2011).“GreatExcavations:ShapingtheArchaeologicalProfession.”Oxford;Oakville:OxbowBooks.Retrievedfromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cd0nz2

vanderVeen,M.,(1989).“CharredGrainAssemblagesfromRoman-PeriodCornDriersinBritain.”ArchaeologicalJournal,146:1,302-319,DOI:10.1080/00665983.1989.11021292

LocalInformativeArchaeologicalSitesandAnalysis:

ArchaeologySouthEast,(2009),“AnArchaeologicalExcavationatMaidstoneHospital,NewRenalUnit.”ASEReportNo.2009093.

Blanning,E.,(2014).“Landscape,SettlementandMateriality:AspectsofRuralLifeinKentduringtheRomanPeriod.”DoctorofPhilosophy(PhD)thesis,UniversityofKent.

CanterburyArchaeologicalTrust,(1998),“AnArchaeologicalEvaluationofLandatHermitageLane,Barming.”(unpublishedClientReport).

Detsicas,AP.,(1980),“AGraveGroupfromBarming.”ArchaeologiaCantiana,Vol.96,p.396.

Feakes,L(2008),“Hollingbourne,RomanFinds.”InDiscoveringAncientLenhamVol1,Edition2,pp.18–20.

Houliston,M.(1999).“ExcavationsatTheMountRomanVilla,Maidstone,1994.”ArchaeologiaCantiana,Vol.119,71-172.

Howell,I,(2014)“ContinuityandChangeintheLateIronAge-RomanTransitionwithintheEnvironsofQuarryWoodOppidum:ExcavationsatFurfieldQuarry,BoughtonMonchelsea.”ArchaeologiaCantiana,Vol134.37–64.

Grover,J.W.(1873).“NotesontheFoundationsofaRomanVillaatTeston,Kent.”JournaloftheBritishArchaeologicalAssociation,29,245-247.

Millett,M.(2007).“RomanKent.”InJ.H.Williams(ed.),TheArchaeologyofKenttoAD800,135-186.Woodbridge:BoydellforKentCountyCouncil.

Parfitt,K.(2006).“TheRomanVillaatMinster-in-Thanet.Part3:theCorridorHouse,Building4.”ArchaeologiaCantianaVol.126,115–135.

StephenClifton

38

Kelly,D.B.(1972).“QuarryWoodCamp,Loose:ABelgicOppidum.”ArchaeologiaCantiana,Vol86,pp.55-84.

Smythe,C.T.(1883).“AWalledRomanCemeteryinJoyWood,Lockham,nearMaidstone.”ArchaeologiaCantianaVol.15,81-88.

Stevens,S.,(2014).“ArchaeologicalInvestigationsatMaidstoneHospital,HermitageLane,Barming.”ArchaeologiaCantiana,Vol134.

PeriodSynthesis:

Collis,J.(2007).“ThepolitiesofGaul,Britain,andIrelandintheLateIronAge.”InC.HaselgroveandT.Moore(eds.),TheLaterIronAgeinBritainandBeyond,523-528.Oxford:Oxbow.

Cunliffe,B.,(1976).“IronAgesitesincentralsouthernEngland.”CouncilforBritishArchaeologyResearchReports.

Cunliffe,B.W.(1982).“SocialandeconomicdevelopmentinKentinthepre-RomanIronAge.”ArchaeologyinKenttoAD1500(ed.P.E.Leach),CBARes.Rep.,48,40–50,London.

Cunliffe,B.,(2005).“IronAgeCommunitiesinBritain.”4thEdition,Routledge,London.

Detsicas,A.P.,(1983).“TheCantiaci.”Gloucester:A.Sutton.

EsmondeCleary,A.S.(1989).“TheEndingofRomanBritain.”Routledge,Oxon.179-184

Gerrard,J.,(2013).“TheRuinofRomanBritain.”CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Hingley,R.,(1989).“RuralsettlementinRomanBritain.”Seaby,London.

Hutton,R.,(2013).“PaganBritain.”YaleUniversityPress.161–226.

Moody,G.,(2008).“TheIsleofThanet–FromPrehistorytotheNormanConquest.”TempusPublishing,Stroud.116–138.

Prior,F.,(2003).“BritainBC.”HarperCollinsPublishers,London.368–428.

Salway,P.,(1993).“AHistoryofRomanBritain.”OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.pp.3–52.

StephenClifton

39

Smith,etal.,(2018).“LifeandDeathintheCountrysideofRomanBritain.”SocietyforthepromotionofRomanStudies,London.

Smith,J.T.,(1997).“RomanVillas–AstudyinSocialStructure.”Routledge,Abingdon,Oxon.pp.219-232and244–245.

Methodology

Harris,E.(1979).“PrinciplesofArchaeologicalStratigraphy.”AcademicPressInc.,London.

MOLAS,(1995).“ArchaeologicalSiteManual.”ThirdEdition.MuseumofLondon.

Specialistreports

Broadley,R.(2019).“EastFarleighGlassReport.”UnpublishedReport.

Holman,D.(2019).“EastFarleighCoinReport.”UnpublishedReport.

Lyne,M.(2018).“EastFarleighPotteryReport.”UnpublishedReport.

GeologyandTopography

Blagg,T.F.C.,(1990).“BuildingstoneinRomanBritain.”inStone,QuarryingandbuildinginEnglandAD43–1525,51-82ed.DavidParsons.33-50.

Blows,J.(2017).“StrategicStoneStudy-BuildingStoneAtlasofKent.”HistoricEngland

Hall,A.D.,andRussell,E.J.(1911).“Agricultureandsoils:Kent,SurreyandSussex.”HMSO,London.

Middlemiss,F.A.,(1975).“StudiesinthesedimentationoftheLowerGreensandoftheWeald:areviewandcommentary.”Proc.Geol.Assoc.vol.86pt.4.457-473.

Worssam,B.C.,&Tatton-Brown,T.(1993).“KentishRagandotherKentbuildingstones.”ArchaeologiaCantiana,112,93-125.

SiteHistory:

Beale-Post,Revd.(1848).“AncientSepulchralRemainsatBarming,Kent.”InC.RoachSmith,CollectaneaAntiqua:Etchingsandnoticesofancientremains,illustrativeofthehabits,customs,andhistoryofpastages.1,183-204.London:J.R.Smith.

StephenClifton

40

Daniels,A,(2018),“TheRomanBuildingsatEastFarleigh,Maidstone-Part1:Bone,IvoryandMetalPinsandNeedles.”(unpublishedreport).

Smith,J.(1839).“TopographyofMaidstoneanditsEnvirons.”PrintedandpublishedbyJ.Smith,pp.56and57.

Smith,J.R.(1857).“Etchingsandnoticesofancientremains,illustrativeofthehabits,customs,andhistoryofpastages.”CollectaneaAntiqua1,183-204.London: