Monkton Court Farm evaluation, 1992
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION, 1992*
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
SUMMARY
A field at Monkton Court Farm in the Isle of Thanet was revealed as holding
Late Bronze Age settlement remains after these were encountered by a pipeline
trench. The additional discovery nearby of four Late Bronze Age bronze hoards
within the space of one hectare, one in association with ash slag and midden
material, led to an archaeological evaluation of the site funded by English
Heritage. Although local geology and the results of worm action made the
location and interpretation of features difficult, hut sites, pits and ditches were
identified. A further two bronzes were found, also a perforated clay plaque.
Both the ceramic and flint assemblages from the site will prove useful in the
regional study of Late Bronze Age settlement, since they appear to have been
deposited during a fairly short period of occupation, and are in association with
Carp's Tongue hoards.
INTRODUCTION
In 1981, a small hoard of Late Bronze Age objects was found by metal
detector in a field at Monkton Court Farm, Monkton, Isle of Thanet
(Perkins and Hawkes 1984). Trenching for a pipeline down the
southern border of the field in 1987 revealed a pit and ditch containing
Late Bronze Age occupation material (Perkins 1987) and another hoard
of the same period this time containing 58 objects was found in August
1990. As an example of excellent co-operation between detectorists and
archaeologists, the finders, members of the Thanet and Wantsum Relic
Association, contacted the Trust for Thanet Archaeology at the moment
of discovery. This led to the immediate context of the hoard being
investigated (Perkins 1991). Later that year and again in 1991 more
bronzes were found. The widely separate locations of these finds allow
them to be identified as the Monkton I, II, and III hoards respectively,
see Fig. 23.
When the Monkton II find spot was examined in 1990, ash slag,
midden material and sherds were found in a recently plough-damaged
237
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
horizon. Because of the important archaeological implications and the
site's obvious vulnerability to plough attrition, the Trust for Thanet
Archaeology approached English Heritage who agreed to fund an
evaluation, which was carried out between 24th August and 2nd
October, 1992. An archive holding most of the finds and all records is
in the keeping of the Trust for Thanet Archaeology, while the bronze
hoard components are held by the Thanet and Wantsum Relic
Association.
The site topography and nearby archaeology
The site is in open fields just north of the village of Monkton, in the
Isle of Thanet, see Figs. l a, and l b, an approximate central O.S.
reference being TR 277655. It is situated on a gentle slope just below
the crest line of a chalk downland escarpment, at between 17 and 20 m.
O.D. To the south, the down drops rapidly to an alluvial plain
representing the one-time Wantsum sea channel. In the Late Bronze
Age the site was probably no more than 600 m. from the shore.
About 1500 m. east of the site the down rises to 40 m. O.D. Here,
crop-marks reveal the presence of 85 ring ditches. These cluster north
ALLUVIUM
Former Wantsum Channel
Fig. l a. sTouRMouTH
KENT
Fig.lb.
Fig. I. (I a) The immediate area of the site; (1 b) east Kent, Thanet and the alluvium
representing the former Wantsum Channel.
238
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
and south of, and align with a trackway crop-mark, raising the
possibility that it is a cursus (Kent SMR NE 108, Thanet SMR 548).
While most of the circular enclosures are probably ploughed-off
barrows, several are about 40 m. in diameter, with concentric ditches,
causeway entrances, and complex internal features. About 1200 m.
west of the site and at the same elevation, an area of Early Iron Age
settlement has been sampled by a pipeline trench (Perkins 1991 ).
Ditches and pits representing a multi-phase occupation extend for
350 m. along the crest of the escarpment, see Fig. la.
The site geology and its problems
According to the O.S. geological survey, the site area is on the Head
Brickearth, a rather general descriptive term. Subsoil throughout the
site differs in both colour and texture from the red-brown sandy soil
over most of upland Thanet, which is also described as brickearth. The
site was examined by three sondages, see 25, 26, and 27 in Fig. 2.
These gave overburdens of between 1.50 and 2.50 m. of which roughly
the upper half (subsoil 1) was a yellow-brown fine silt, and the lower
half a bright ochre-coloured silt (subsoil 2). Beneath this is a very soft
friable discoloured chalk surface, possibly resulting from periglacial
action. Comparison with sites at Ebbsfleet and Minster (Perkins 1992)
suggests that subsoil 1 may be degraded Thanet Beds material, with
subsoil 2 in situ remnants of the Thanet Beds. Intense worm activity
can be seen in these measures right down to the chalk.
This overburden does not lend itself to environmental analysis.
Molluscan analysis is not viable, as there appears to be virtually no
sell survival. Samples from ditch sections yielded only a few shells
of the ubiquitous and un-informative C. acicula. These are probably
from modern animals. The site's present land surface is not inimical
to snails and the larger species are obvious. Non-survival of sub-fossil
shells must, therefore, be due to either worm action, or to an acidic
soil, or both factors. When tested, soil-samples gave pH readings of
5-6.
Site geology created difficulties of a fundamental nature with regard
to excavation. Based on the experience of the 1990 investigation of the
Monkton II hoard context, topsoil stripping was limited to 0.25-
0.30 m., at which depth ancient horizons were exposed. The excavation
team had expected to see features defined clearly by colour changes.
This was only the case with Features 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18, these
having dark humic or burnt fills. All other features were located by
their either exhibiting a grouping of sherds, flints, etc., or by giving a
magnetic anomaly. They had no definable vertical or horizontal
boundaries and their limits were only approximated at the points where
239
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
archaeological materials were no longer found. Exceptions to this were
ditches, features 7 and 8. Their lower fills composed of subsoil 1
contrasted with subsoil 2 into which they were cut. Higher in subsoil 1,
flow-lines of burnt flints and sherds served to demonstrate the sections,
see Fig. 3.
Regarding the non-definable nature of most features, after a field
visit Mr Matthew Conti, of the Ancient Monuments Laboratory
commented: 'Essentially, the features found at Monkton Court exist
discretely and without discernible stratigraphic links. This seems to
have been caused by a mixture of the following processes:
(1) Routine ploughing/subsoiling, with possible use of the very deep
Girotillers;
(2) A very high level of earthworm activity; and
(3) Constant erosion and deposition of the silty soils'.
A Girotiller was used on the site in the 1930s. According to
eyewitness reports, it disturbed the ground to a depth of between 0.40
and 0.90 m. As a result, tractors could not work the field next spring,
and the experiment was never repeated. That the machine passed over
the bronze hoards without disturbing them indicates a massive loss of
topsoil by wind and water erosion over the last fifty years.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks must go to the farmer, Mr P. Smith, for allowing access to the
land, to English Heritage for help and advice, and for funding the
evaluation and its publication. Also, to the volunteer site workers of the
Thanet Archaeological Society, and detectorists of the Thanet and
Wantsum Relic Association, who assisted with both detector survey
and excavation.
EVALUATION
Design and methods
As a first step a general site area was decided, based on previous data
and a planned programme of field walking and metal detecting. This
area (see broken-line box in Fig. 2), was 70,180 square metres in
extent. Within this box evaluation was carried out by trenching and
small-scale area excavation. As shown in Fig. 2, topsoil was stripped in
three excavation boxes, A, B, and C, and fifteen sections. Of these E to
240
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
_,
MONKTON VILLAGE
Fig. 2. The Monkton Court Farm site, trenches and features.
H, J to N, and R, were 50 m. long, S and T were 30 m. long, X was
335 m. long, and Y was 200 m. All were 2 m. wide. The total area of
boxes and trenches was 3670 square metres, a 5 per cent sample.
Evaluation results suggest that the designated site area completely
contained the site's ancient remains, other than possibly to the south of
trench M. An additional and fortuitous check was provided to the
south-west by the cutting of a pipeline trench close to the St. Nicholas
road. This was monitored, but revealed nothing.
The section system was developed from the cutting of trenches X
and Y which intersected at the Monkton II (1990) hoard find-spot. It
will be noted from Fig. 2 that trench X was not aligned parallel to the
footpath, but obliquely, following the usual line of ploughing in that
field. This was to investigate the possibility that disturbed components
of the Monkton II hoard might be found scattered along the plough line
(as they had been in 1990), see Fig. 6. The agency capable of so
carrying and re-depositing bronzes for up to 100 m. from their point of
origin seems to be the potato harvesting machine.
After topsoil had been removed throughout the system of trenches to
a depth of 0.25-0.30 m., all exposed surfaces were explored, visually,
by metal detector, and by magnetometer (Dr A.J. Clark). A number of
241
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
features were evident as groups of pot-sherds, daub, and burnt flints.
All of these and three others were detected as magnetic anomalies. In
all, 24 features were identified, and since time and the work force
allowed, all were investigated by full excavation or sectioning.
Initial survey
The general site area (broken line box in Fig. 2) was surveyed by metal
detector and field walking. In both cases a 10 m. section system was
used as outlined in Brown (Brown 1985). No bronzes were found, and
the surface scatter consisted of worn Romano-British and postmedieval
material. When the exposed subsoil surface was examined
within the trench system, a general scatter of flint-tempered prehistoric
sherds and calcined flints was observed. This had well-defined
boundaries, being contained within the area shown in bold broken line
in Fig. 2. All features, and all but one of the bronze find-spots fall
within the area which, where it meets the A253, corresponds with the
features sectioned by the 1987 pipeline.
Three sondages were cut along the line of trench Y, see Fig. 2, 25,
26, and 27. Each measured 3 x 3 m., and was excavated to the natural
surface of the Upper Chalk, which is here covered to a depth of 0.50 m.
by what appears to be periglacial material.
The footpath (a raised way or 'lynch' of the kind common in Thanet)
was sectioned where it was crossed by trench Y. Beneath a disturbed
layer about 0.40 m. in depth and containing mixed sixteenth-century -
modern material, and at roughly the level of the surrounding field
surf ace, was antiquity of the path, it appears to have been reduced in
level to correspond with the general loss of topsoil through erosion.
Investigation of the archaeological features
The features are described below, and are numbered as shown in Fig. 2.
Most must be assumed to have been truncated by plough attrition to an
unknown degree. All depths given are from the interface of modern
plough-disturbed topsoil with subsoil. Ceramic material mentioned is
Late Bronze Age unless otherwise stated.
Trench Y
Feature 1: Apparently the fill of a small pit, perhaps 0.70 m. in
diameter, and no more than 0.25 m. deep. About 20 small sherds and a
few calcined flint nodules.
Feature 2: A sub-circular area of subsoil rich in midden material and
finds. Sections revealed its size as roughly 6.00 m. by 4.50 m. with a
depth of 0.20 m. As well as bone fragments, it yielded fragments of a
242
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
perforated ceramic plaque, see Fig. 4, 1, part of a spindle-whorl in flint
tempered fabric, see Fig. 4, 2, fragments of burnt daub with wattle
impressions, and about 100 sherds. Possibly a sunken hut floor and its
infill.
Feature 3a: A small pit or large post-hole, round with vertical sides and
a flat bottom, diameter 0.70 m., depth 0.80 m. It was filled with flint
pebbles and contained a few small sherds and a number of animal teeth
(Ovis/Capra). Adjoining this, 3b: an area about 1.20 m. across by about
0.50 m. deep containing a few sherds and a piece of slag. The fill of a
pit?
Feature 4: An area of subsoil 3.00 m. long by at least the width of the
trench, and 0.25 m. in depth. It contained about 60 sherds, calcined
flints, and fragments of burnt daub with wattle impressions. At about
the centre for 0.80 m., sherds could be followed down to 0.45 m. A
sunken hut floor infill, cut by a later pit?
Feature 5: An area of subsoil 2.50 m. long by at least the width of the
trench and 0.65 m. in depth. Several days after excavation, selective
weathering of the longitudinal sections revealed a bowl-shaped profile.
Stratigraphy in terms of pottery and bones (Bos.)1 was discernible. The
fill down to 0.25 m. was rich in midden material, with about 150
sherds, calcined flints, and slag. Below, sherds were fewer and with a
different wear pattern. This was apparently a pit which after a period of
slow infilling, suddenly attracted dumping.
Feature 6a: An area of subsoil containing sherds, burnt daub, slag,
bones and shells. Its plan could not be determined, but its maximum
extent found by section was 4.00 x 4.50 m., with a depth of 0.38 m.
Central in this was Feature 6b, consisting of a 'violin-shaped' patch of
burnt soil and ashes of about 3.00 x 2.00 m., and 0.20 m. in depth. It
yielded about 250 sherds, of which most probably belonged to a single
badly fragmented vessel, a large storage jar. Presumably these remains
represent a sunken hut floor with central hearth.
Feature 7: A ditch of truncated-V profile, running north-west to southeast,
see Figs. 3 and 5. Section la gave the width as 2.30 m. with a
depth of 1.30 m. It had been cut down through subsoils 1 and 2, and
just into the surface of periglacial deposited chalk. Stratigraphy as
shown and numbered in Fig. 3, la, was as follows:
(4) The plough truncated remains of rammed chalk foundations;
(5) A layer of soil darkened by ashes or organic material. It contained
1 A number of features yielded animal bone fragments generally in poor condition.
The species present were Bos, Sus, and Ovis/Capra, with pig bones slightly predominant.
Bearing in mind the number and condition of these remains a specialist report was not
considered worthwhile.
243
D.R.J. PERK.INS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
I. ■ ■ ■ • ■ ' 2 m.
Im.
Fig. 3. (a) (Upper) Section la of Feature 7; (b) (Lower) Section lb of Feature 8; both to
same scale as shown.
many flint nodules, these being concentrated at the base of the layer;
and
(6) Very similar to subsoil 1 except for the presence of a few sherds,
flints, and chalk nodules. At the bottom and just above the primary
silting was the complete skull of an ox.
Feature 8: A ditch of open-U profile, running roughly north-west to
south-east, see Figs. 3 and 5. Section 1 b gave the width as 4.20 m. and
depth as 2.00 m. It had been cut down through subsoils 1 and 2, and for
244
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
about 0.10 m. into the periglacial deposited chalk. The stratigraphy as
shown and numbered in Fig. 3, 1 b, was as follows:
(4) Yellow-grey silty soil with many small chalk nodules, a few flints,
and yielding a piece of Roman tile and several medieval and postmedieval
brick and tile fragments;
(5) As (4) but slightly more yellow in colour with calcined flint nodules
and prehistoric sherds;
(6) As (5) but separated by a dark silty layer 0.05 m. thick; and
(7) As (6) but again separated by a similar dark silty layer and
becoming chalky for the last 0.10 m.
An attempt was made to follow the two ditches, features 7 and 8, and
to investigate their possible intersection by cutting sections 2, 3, and 4.
This is dealt with in discussion.
Feature 9a: Two shallow plough-truncated foundations of rammed
chalk running north-south, and possibly related to ( 4) in Feature 7.
Between and beside them, the subsoil held peg-tile, fragmented
ironwork, and post-Tudor sherds. Feature 9b: Beneath 9a the
subsoil contained prehistoric sherds. The feature was not further
investigated.
The following features, 10-13, were closely grouped. They were not
seen at the topsoil removal stage, but during the operation to section
and reinstate the footpath, soil was removed to 0.55 m. from ground
level, at which depth the dark fills of the features were observed.
Feature 10: A pit of sub-rectangular plan, 0.43 x 0.35 m. and 0.20 m.
deep. Its sides sloped slightly inwards to a flat base. The fill consisted
of black ash-darkened soil with red burnt patches, and contained
sherds, calcined flints, charcoal, chalk nodules, and slag. Near the
bottom was found a bronze sickle blade, see Fig. 4, 4. Several small
fragments of copper alloy were found by wet sieving a fill sample.
Three being fused with silica.
Feature 11: A pit of roughly circular plan, diameter 0.60 m., depth 0.35
m., vertical sides with a flat bottom. The fill of ash-darkened soil
contained more than a hundred calcined flint nodules, sherds, slag,
fragments of burnt bone, and a triangular stone object, presumably a
whetstone, see Fig. 4, 6. Small pieces of copper alloy were
subsequently found by wet sieving a fill sample.
Feature 12: A pit of roughly circular plan, diameter 0.60 m., depth 0.30
m., the sides vertical with a bowl-shaped base. The fill of ash-darkened
soil contained about seventy calcined flint nodules, also sherds, slag,
and burnt bone. Small fragments of copper alloy were obtained from
the fill by wet sieving, two of them fused with silica.
Feature 13: A pit of oval plan, 1.60 x 0.70 m., bowl-shaped, with a
maximum depth of 0.25 m. The fill was of soil darkened perhaps by
organic material, it contained a few sherds and waste flakes.
245
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
'
5
.11 - - - - - 10cm.
7
8
I
9--·
I
6
Fig. 4. Objects 1-6; finds from the Monkton Court Farm evaluation; objects 7 and 8, two
bronzes from the plough-disturbed Monkton III hoard. All to scale as shown.
Area Excavation Box A
Feature 14: An area of subsoil of oval plan measuring about 3 x 4 m.,
and at least 1 m. deep. Where sectioned, its fill held a few sherds and
bone fragments. Into this had been cut three smaller features detected
as magnetic anomalies. These were:
(14a): A pit or post-hole 0.70 m. in diameter and 0.50 m. deep
with vertical sides. Its fill was slightly darker than the surrounding
soil, and contained sherds, small calcined flint fragments, and waste
flakes.
Feature 15: A pit or post-hole 0.75 m. in diameter and 0.50 m. deep
246
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
with vertical sides. Its slightly darker fill held sherds, small calcined
flint fragments, and daub.
Feature 16: A pit or post-hole 0.60 m. in diameter and 0.50 m. deep,
with vertical sides and a flat bottom. Finds as in 14 and 15.
Feature 17: A pit of oval plan, 2.50 x 3.00 m., its sides sloping inwards
at about 50° to a depth of about 0.80 m., then becoming vertical. The
feature could not be excavated to a depth greater than 1.50 m. for
reasons of safety and practicality. It was detected as a magnetic
anomaly, but trowelling down a few centimetres revealed a dark fill
containing sherds, animal bones, daub and slag.
Feature 18: A pit of oval plan visible in the subsoil surface by its darker
fill. It was 0.80 m. x 0.50 m., and 0.10 m. deep with a flat bottom. Only
a small nodule of calcined flint found.
Feature 19: This was a dense patch of daub fragments, calcined flints
and sherds exposed in the subsoil surface. No shape could be
distinguished, but the total area was about 4 x 3 m. with a depth of
0.20 m. Presumably the plough-damaged remains of a hut floor.
Area Excavation Box C
Feature 20: An oval patch of closely packed calcined flint nodules
measuring about 1.80 x 1.50 m. with a maximum depth of 0.15 m.
Sherds were lying on and between the flints.
Feature 21: A bowl-shaped pit of oval plan, measuring 2.50 x 1.80 m.
with a maximum depth of 0.30 m. It was first detected as a magnetic
anomaly, and on trowelling down a slightly darker fill was observed.
This contained midden material in the form of animal bones and teeth,
and shells of oysters and whelks, also daub, slag, large stone fragments
(Lower Greensand), chalk, and about 200 sherds.
Area Excavation Box B
Feature 22: An area of subsoil exhibiting small sherds and calcined
flints. It was at least 3 x 2 m. in extent, and about 0.20 m. in depth.
Within this, (22a) was a dense mass of large flint nodules about 1.20 m.
across. Close to this was:
Feature 23: A mass of burnt daub fragments about 2.50 m. long, and
0.90 m. wide. A sample of this weighing about 54 kg. (120 lbs.), was
taken, and when processed, more than 60 fragments were found to bear
wattle impressions, mostly about 2 cm. in diameter.
Trench M
Feature 24: An area of subsoil rich in sherds, flints, animal bones, and
oyster shells. Cruciform sectioning revealed it to be at least 6 x 3 m. in
extent, with a depth of 0.42 m. Central in this were adjoining patches of
close-packed flint nodules about 1 m. across, and having the
247
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
appearance of being deliberately laid as a floor or hearth. One patch
was cut by what can be best described as a 'fire pit'. This was bowlshaped,
0.50 m. in diameter, and 0.20 m. deep. It had been carefully
lined and bordered with flint nodules and fragments from a greensand
saddle quern. Central at the bottom was a quern fragment surrounded
by a ring of eight hammer-stones. Just above this in the fill of ashdarkened
soil was a mass of large sherds, probably representing the
breakage in situ of a large coarseware jar.
Sondage B
Feature 26: At 0.40 m. from the modern land surface an horizon
containing sherds was encountered. It appeared to be no more than
0.20 m. in depth.
D.R.J. PERKINS
THE POTTERY
N. Macpherson-Grant
Introduction and Assemblage Value
It is a truism, but worth re-stating here, that each assemblage
excavated/recovered is (relatively) unique, with its own contribution to
add to an emergent picture. It can be stated from the outset that this
particularly applies to the material from Monkton Court Farm. Its value
may well be superseded in the future, but it has arrived at a rather
crucial period in the study of Kentish first millennium B.C. ceramics -
until recently poorly served by academic study. W hen the postexcavation
assessment for this site was submitted it was noted that
between 10-12 sites of roughly comparable date were known (as of
September 1992). The actual site/assemblage quantity is almost
certainly higher (under-studied museum/excavation collections or
under-represented site material). It has certainly grown: there are now
approximately 16-1 8 eastern Kentish sites of broadly LBA/EIA
transition date, with the latest addition (June 1993) being recorded from
Chislet (Fig. 19, Site 17).1 With the exception of Monkton Court Farm
and to a lesser extent Highstead (Macpherson-Grant, forthcoming),
most of the known sites represent assemblages recovered during small-
1 Sampled d uring an evaluation in advance of con s t ruc tion work on the Herne
Bay-Stour Watermain (HBWB 93; Canterbury Museums code: 1993-45.)
248
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
scale rescue, watching-brief or limited evaluation circumstances,
generally lacking in modern recovery /recording techniques and
frequently from locations providing evidence for multi-period
occupation. With the further exceptions of Kingston Down (Cunliffe
1980), East Northdown (Smith 1987) and Canterbury,2 all are in urgent
need of re-assessment against the growing regional set of trends and
implications for this period.
The Highstead multi-period sequence is good, since it has provided
an initial badly needed ceramic/chronological framework for the period
c. 950/850-400 B.C. Its classic Period 2 assemblages come from a
relatively uncontaminated enclosure and contexts producing clear
evidence for bronze metallurgy and the dating proposed for these,
c. 850/750-600 B.C., can (with some discussion) be essentially applied
to the Monkton pottery. But, however good the Highstead sequence is,
or relatively pure some contexts are in themselves, there are
qualifications: the site's earlier phases are entirely ceramically dated,
principally based on Continental, and a limited range of published
regional, parallels. Further, a key aspect of the site is its apparent
continuous occupation throughout its LBA-EIA phases; in addition, it
has few reliable stratified sequences. These two points together tend to
cloud clear comprehension of the transition from one ceramic phase to
the next. Whilst the chronological and associated ceramic-attribute
framework proposed for Highstead's sequence appears to be holding
together remarkably well, the framework needs to be tested against
good single-period assemblages and, particularly, linked into other nonceramic
chronological schemes.
Ceramically, Monkton contains an essentially single-period
assemblage. Quite apart from the attributes that link it unquestionably
into the Highstead Period 2-type ceramic package, even superficial
assessment confirmed many formal parallels with other contemporary
regional assemblages (e.g. Northdown 1971 and Canterbury). This
alone is invaluable, since Monkton's relative purity will considerably
crystallise the known/likely formal range associated with Highstead
Period 2.
In addition there is unexpected confirmation of a minor Highstead
trend: the presence of a small quantity of probably non-local wares.
One or two red-finished (haematite-coated) fine wares are present and
there are some new forms. However, the site's main contribution is the
evidence for metallurgy: metalworking slag, copper alloy sickle in situ
2 A Canterbury Archaeological Trust Archive Report: 'A Re-Appraisal of the
Prehistoric Pottery from 10-11 Castle Street, Canterbury', N. Macpherson-Grant 1991.
Copies available on request; see note 3 below.
249
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
in a contemporary context, and parts of 3 bronze hoards in close
topographic association to the settlement. There can be no doubt of
inter-relationships here. All the metalwork falls within the bracket
c. 900/800-600 B.C. Though future more detailed study/information
may modify this slightly - the broad dating is precisely that
independently proposed for Highstead's Period 2 ceramic phase. The
linkage here is excellent and unavoidable, and precisely what was
required in the first instance to begin stabilising the initial ceramic
dating for Highstead Period 2. Much more important this dating can
now be extended to all those sites sharing the ceramic attributes
detailed below.
Whilst there are the usual provisos of potting conservatism and style
longevity to remember, the attributes mentioned reflect a remarkable
degree of manufacturing/qualitative consistency over a wide regional
area. There are variations, but underlying these is a strongly unified
sense of ability and skill which has far wider implications than ceramic
studies alone. In the interim, we now have a clearly identified,
consistently occurring, artefactual package with mutually re-inforcing
dating.
Presentation
This section is followed by an overview of all-period ceramics
recovered during the excavation, together with any comments pertinent
to site interpretation. The remainder of the report is confined entirely to
the LBA/EIA assemblage which, for the moment, is best treated as a
single-period entity. Comprehensive context-based presentation would
obscure the main assemblage trends; this is contained within the
archive report.3 Here, only the pottery from Ditch F8 is treated in this
manner; the remainder from all other contexts, is presented
synthetically, by ware type and vessel type. However, a figured pottery
and context concordance is provided in Appendix II (p. 288).
The graphic treatment of figured pottery is self-explanatory with the
proviso that the line treatment for plain undecorated fine wares is
essentially technical: line orientation indicates the angle of burnish
recorded (e.g., Fig. 5, 5; Fig. 2, 53). Similarly pots exhibiting profuse
basal gritting are provided with a bar key to emphasise this trait.
Though Section 2 (p. 260) is specifically a discussion of regional
parallels, these are too numerous to quote comprehensively. Again a
synthetic list of figured pottery and inter-assemblage parallels is
3 Available on request from the author: Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 92A Broad
Street, Canterbury, Kent, CT l 2LV, or D. Perkins, Trust for Thanet Archae ology,
Crampton Tower Yard, High Street, Broadstairs, Kent, CT lO 2AB.
250
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
presented in Appendix I (p. 287) to be used in conjunction with the
distribution map Fig. 19. For reasons of clarity the latter is basically
confined to north-east Kent where the majority of the sites occur. Three
sections highlighting non-regional parallels, chronology and regional
trends follow the above, with specific reference to the broader issues
than can now ( or should) be raised.
Ceramic quantities
The excavation produced an overall total of 2651 sherds (weighing:
25 kg. 2 gr.). The following tabulation simplistically divides this total
into the period groups present:
1. Late Bronze/Iron Age transition fabrics:
Total count : 2644 sherds
Total weight: 24 kg. 935 gr.
2. 'Belgic' fabrics:
Total count : 4 sherds
Total weight: 49 gr.
3. Medieval fabrics:
Total count : 2 sherds
Total weight: 16 gr.
4. Post-medieval fabrics:
Total count: 1 sherd
Total weight: 2 gr.
It should be noted that during initial assessment the possibility was
raised that small quantities of Beaker and Late Bronze Age DeverelRimbury-
type wares might be present as residual elements. T he
possible Beaker base is illustrated (Fig. 18) but is now considered an
understandable but probably erroneous attribution. Its base diameter,
firing, filler characteristics and degree of wear would not be
inappropriate; but it came from the lower fill of Ditch F7 accompanied
by recognisable LBA/EIA transition elements and, since its fabric is
similar to a minority ware of the latter date a non-Beaker allocation is
more likely.
The same minority ware, together with a small very coarse-gritted
element, accounted for the earlier possibility of LBA DeverelRimbury-
type material. All the sherds are small, and the minority ware
in particular is more sparsely gritted and does not survive well. Again a
later LBA/EIA transition date is now preferred - but with caution.
251
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
Fig. 18 also illustrates a putative Late Iron Age/'Belgic' grog-and-flinttempered
bead-rim type jar. Though markedly different in its context,
form, fabric and wear characteristics could occur in LBA/EIA
assemblages. An LBA/EIA attribution is reasonable but with
reservations.
'Belgic' pottery is present from Floor F2 and Ditch F7 and a jar base is
illustrated (Fig. 18). The material is variably worn and indicates a
settlement of broadly first-century A.O. date in the vicinity; most of the
material should represent field-manuring scatters.
Roman ceramics are represented solely by tile fragments ( quite large,
but worn). They indicate occupation with continued agricultural usage
of the site area (though no other Roman pottery was recorded). One
'Belgic' sherd and at least one piece of Roman tile from the upper fill
of Ditch F8 have interpretative implications for the landscape during
the Late Iron Age/Roman periods; their presence and position should
also indirectly affect landscape interpretation in the intervening period
following cessation of the LBA/EIA settlement.
Medieval pottery suggests renewed field-manuring from the later
thirteenth century (if not earlier).
The Post-medieval pottery from the excavation is probably derived
from the occupation/activity associated with the chalk foundations in
Ditch F7. Observed material of mostly sixteenth- to later eighteenthcentury
date was recorded elsewhere on the site (p. 245).
The above tabulation and notes make it abundantly clear that in the
area of the excavation the only significant phase of occupation took
place during the earlier first millennium B.C. How long this occupation
lasted is discussed in Section 4a, (p. 276), but the presence of two,
possibly intercutting, ditches (F7 and F8,) means that whilst the
broader ceramic dating indicates a single-period settlement, the latter
itself may be of at least two-phase duration.
THE LBA/EIA TRANSITION ASSEMBLAGE
l . Summary of assemblage trends
Here, comparative quantitative statements are confined to the fabrics
only; comments derived from the statistical analysis of categories, as
(b )-( d) below, are qualified by the sample nature of the excavation -
and ultimately only meaningful via inter-assemblage studies. For the
same reason spatial distribution studies of fabric, vessel and decoration
types have not been undertaken though obvious examples will be
252
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
mentioned below. Wear distribution patterns and useful vessel
frequency patterns are similarly qualified; the latter in particular are
further compromised since they reflect interesting technological/
survival characteristics ( ( e) below).
(a) Fabric types.
A total of 15 fabric types have been identified macroscopically (backedup
by low-power x 20 magnification). Some, with varying frequencies of
deliberately added fillers or naturally occurring inclusions such as quartz
sand and vegetal matter, are likely to represent points along the same
spectrum. This total condenses into five broad classes: moderate to
(normally) heavily flint-tempered, grogged/essentially grogged with
sparse flint, purely organic-tempered/filled, sandy/essentially sandy with
sparse flint or grog, and fine sandy. The flint-tempered wares are
numerically and visually dominant: 2558 sherds within the overall
recovered total of 2651. There are no purely flint-tempered fabrics (i.e.,
without visually detectable natural or accidentally/deliberately occurring
inclusions). The last four classes are minority wares represented by only
93 sherds of which 73 come from a single purely sandy ware jar (Ditch
F7, Fig. SA). For these minority wares no more than 3--4 (mostly fewer)
individual vessels per fabric type are involved and are likely to represent
'one-offs' reflecting sporadic selection of alternative (? local) clay
sources. But some may not, and the sandy ware jar appears to be a
genuine outsider in a dominantly flint-tempered assemblage. This jar and
possibly the fine sandy class are fabric types worth noting for the future.
Within the main flint-tempered group, there are a further four subdivisions:
flint and moderate-profusely grog-tempered, flint-tempered
with a moderate-profuse organic content, and two types (which may be
internally related) with only sparse-moderate flint - one containing
sparse angular ironstone inclusions. None of these are major fabric
types: only 308 sherds overall. Those with visually obvious quantities
of grog or organic inclusions represent deliberately produced mixedtemper
wares. Some of the sherds with only a fairly sparse coarse flint
content are the cause of the putative LBA Deverel-Rimbury element
originally suggested.
(b) Manufacturing attributes.
Most of the specifically productional attributes that epitomize regional
Highstead Period 2-type assemblages are present:
(i) Both fine and coarse ware bowls and jars with (underside) a
visually obvious basal 'skin' of profuse flint grits from being
made on beds of burnt and crushed flint temper (Plates I and II,
253
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
PLATE I
Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery. Vessel bases with
profuse flint-temper 'skin'; typical medium-fine grade examples. (Scale in centimetres).
(Photo.: A. Savage)
Figs. 5, 7, 12-13 17-18). The grits often, but not always correspond
with the temper grade used in an individual pot's construction;4
(ii) Thin-walled fine ware bowls generally typified b y the fairly
profuse addition of finely-ground flint temper;
(iii) Very large, very thin-walled storage jars (as Fig. 1 6) , some of
which exhibit remnant coil-pinch finger-presses only superficially
smoothed over (similar to Fig. 15, 90). This rather haphazard trait
is present on storage jar sherds within the assemblage and
frequently accompanies rim and base types similar to Figs. 16-17.
There are also one or two new features, isolated quirks probably,
rather than significant traits. The fine ware jar base 52 (Fig. 12) has its
body atypica11y loaded with flint filler. Technically this is a variant of
attribute (ii), but with most fine wares, though the grits are profuse,
they generally have room to 'breathe' - here the body is packed with
fine-medium grade temper. Usually the basal 'skin' of grits (attribute
4 An alternative explanation for the presence of these basal 'skins' is that pots were
left to dry on beds of crushed flint (O'Connell 1986, 62).
254
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
PLATE 11
Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery. Storage jar base
with typical coarse-grade profuse flint-temper 'skin'. (Scale in centimetres).
(Photo.: A. Savage)
(i)) is confined neatly to the base underside, any overlap onto lower
body walls either rarely occurring or being subsequently smoothed off;
on bowl/jar base 114 (Fig. 18) the 'skin' overlaps, perhaps precisely
because the body wall is low-angled (or the vessel was pushed rather
firmly down into the bed of grits). The angular-shouldered coarse ware
jar (Fig. 13, 70) is a classic example of remnant coil-pinching -
unusual on a small vessel, though there is an isolated Period 3A
example from Highstead.
(c) Form types.
The assemblage is characterised by generally high-shouldered fine and
coarse wares with simple mostly curving upright or everted rims,
typically flaring on fine wares, often stiffer, but not always, on coarse
wares. Even technically closed forms such as 8 (Fig. 5) and 95-97
(Fig. 16) have this flared finish. For coarse ware rims alone, simplicity
predominates both these and a wide range of finishes: flat-topped (69),
internally cupped and beaded (65, 94), neatly flat-topped or internally
smoothed and bevelled (often as a surface ready for decoration -
255
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
PLATE 111
Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery. Fine ware jar 8 -
detail of fine irregular combed decoration. (Scale in centimetres).
(Pho10.: A. Savage)
81-82, 95, 97), thickened and rounded/beaked finishes (88, 91 ). Some
shoulders are topped with short straight-angled eversions (96) -
essentially bevelled; these are a consistent but generally rather rare
component of larger regional assemblages. Thickened, carefully moulded
rims with internal bevelling are mostly the province of fine ware or larger
sub-fine ware types: fortunately present here (on 28 - poorly; on 44 -
well) and by implication on 3 (see also Fig. 20). Very flaring graceful
rims/profiles are somewhat rarer (12 and 45); an extreme coarse ware
example is 86 which, at Highstead, would not be out of place on
Monkton 90. Rounded lower-body, almost bowl-form, profiles on coarse
wares appear to be regionally rare. The standard fine ware/coarse ware
profile is for high-shouldered angular, mostly sub-angular/sub-rounded
forms, moulded to a fairly consistent I :2, 1 :3 shoulder-body ratio. Where
detectable, base diameters are again apparently constructed according to
a fairly standard ratio: approximately half the rim diameter. A rarer form
(but probably regionally more frequently occurring than the evidence has
allowed) is the almost biconical (or here, 8, bi-globular) jar form, with a
near I: 1 upper-lower body ratio. The major formal exception, but still
elegantly simple is the class of wide-mouthed bowls with neat incurved
256
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
rims (Fig. 17) - and bowl 46 is a truly exceptional vessel; Nos. 47-9 are
much more typical.
There are one or two new forms: the perforated flaring-rimmed jar
45 (Fig. 10), the globular vessel 66, the small angular 70. Not new, but
better represented here, are the large essentially fine ware jars 50-51;
these two almost reach storage-jar proportions, at least in diameter.
(d) Decoration and surface treatment.
Decoration types simply and neatly divide into two classes: combed or
incised linear decoration on fine wares, finger-tip/thumb-pressed and
moulded-applied on coarse wares. Decoration on fine ware bowls and
jars is entirely above-shoulder, principally consisting of a single band
of incised lines, mostly 3-4 (Nos. 25-27), or a single band of combing
(Nos. 1, 8-9) at or generally just above the shoulder. Two bands of
incised or combed lines occur less frequently (No. 24 and (probably),
10) placed between shoulder and base of the neck flare. Groups of
single spaced incised lines are also fairly rare (e.g., 4). Rarer still but
diagnostically important, are above-shoulder combed (No. 3) or incised
(No. 28) chevrons, generally bordered above and below by horizontal
lines. A much rarer type is 36 with single diagonal spaced lines in
association with horizontal lines. A new type is the diagonal spaced
combed decoration on 8. Quality of execution varies enormously: neat
on 24 (and probably 4), roughly efficient short combed strokes on 1,
crude irregular light combing on 8 (see also Plate III). The difference in
quality may be due to the tools employed: incised lines seem generally
better executed than combed examples, which consistently (at least at
Monkton) give the impression of a rough-and-ready approach, in part
possibly due to differential comb-tooth lengths.
Another regionally rare type but consistently occurring in single/low
quantities are red-finished (haematite-coated) bowls (No. 33); a second
was recorded from the same context (Floor F2). No. 33 is highly
unusual in having traces of red-finish on both surfaces (external
application is the recorded norm). Plastic decoration on fine ware
vessels is also fairly rare (34), and the rim position here, rarer still. The
finish of 12 is essentially of sub-coarse ware standard, but the form and
neatly moulded, incised and impressed combination of decorative
elements are really that accorded to fine wares.
At Monkton applied and decorated cordons, principally on large
storage jars, occur fairly frequently, with impressed decoration the
commonest technique employed (20, 93-94); some (92, 95) are incised
decorated. Plain cordons are rare. Application quality varies: neat on
93, crude on 94-95. The clumsy angled application on 94 is epitomised
elsewhere, e.g. Highstead 188 (inset Fig. 16). Here, as with jars, the
decoration is entirely above-shoulder, which in the latter is commonest
257
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
on rim sides, tops and inner-rim bevels (Figs. 14-16), fairly frequent on
shoulders (89-90), less frequently in neck hollows (88). Again quality
varies, mostly fairly rough, but occasionally very neat, as with the
'cable' impressed rim of 81. There is nothing new here: the types are
regionally standard for the period.
Surface treatment categories are fairly standard: burnishing,
tooled/finger smoothing, rougher scoriated wiping. There is again an
above-shoulder emphasis, whatever the technique: less apparent on the
fine wares but apparent all the same. For these, a smoothed surface is
then burnished, mostly horizontally, but occasionally vertically (5, 62),
sometimes multi-directional (e.g., jar base 3). The degree of burnish
varies considerably. At Monkton it is rather poor, but this may be due
to wear/soil factors. Even so, LBA/EIA fine ware burnishes rarely
achieve the sometimes highly glossy finish apparent on some Iron Age
bowls. Some Monkton fine ware burnishes are extremely superficial:
on no. 10 treatment has barely suppressed formative finger-work along
the rim overhang. Conversely, the large bowl 46, though only quite
moderately burnished is an excellent and evenly-finished product. On
coarse wares there is a generally consistent tendency for 'better'
horizontal above-shoulder smoothing, with variably rough-crude
vertical or diagonal finishes below the shoulder. The rim treatment on
jar 13 is extremely minimal; the lower body finish of 90 is
exceptionally coarse and the vertical grit-drag scoriation on 76, 98-100
essentially standard. Not unexpectedly internal finishes on most coarse
wares are better, but sometimes only marginally. Conversely, the
internal finishes of some storage jars are considerably better, with often
quite high quality horizontal tooled burnishing almost down to the
base. The almost fluted finger-pulls on 76, 79 and behind the cordon of
94 are very marked and regionally quite common. Cruder base finishes
are epitomised by 21, but some smaller diameter jar bases are
consistently neatly formed and finished, e.g., nos. 111 and 116.
A new category, noted at Highstead but not initially considered to be
a likely regional characteristic, is the occurrence on some storage jars
of a wet slurried finish. It is most marked on Monkton 95 and its
Highstead equivalent 188. On the latter the slurried appearance
coincides with the condition of the applied cordon which has definitely
slumped downward from its intended position. The impression received
is of a roughly applied rather wet, fairly thick almost creamconsistency
slip, followed by minimal smoothing. Interestingly both
Monkton 95 and Highstead 188 have the same pale buff-pink oxidised
firing colours. Sherds from another similar vessel at Monkton have the
same firing tones and a ? 'slipped' external finish. In this instance the
surface 'slip' or skin is rich in bright red iron oxide grains, which are
not apparent in the fabric. It is tempting to see this as not only
258
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
indicative of slip application but, possibly, using one that is deliberately
iron rich. It may be coincidence, but it remains a little odd that there
should be at least three similar vessels, with a similar likely function,
two of which are topographically distinctly separate, all with similar
firing colours and exhibiting the appearance of being slipped, of which
one does appear to have a perhaps deliberately selected clay type,
apparently different from that used for the vessel itself.
( e) Assemblage condition.
Any implications arising from wear-pattern studies are important
particularly where potentially intercutting features such as Ditches F7
and F8 are concerned (Fig. 31, p. 307), and from the deeper pits. There
are several qualifications that apply in this instance which are discussed
in relation to the pottery from these ditches in Section 4a
(p. 276). Here it is sufficient to note that the material from Ditch F8,
Section 3 and the adjacent portion of ditch in Trench YY, containing
the large dump of pottery published here as Key Group LBA/EIA 16,
shows clear evidence of fairly long-term static exposure and partial
burial, with a number of sherds exhibiting either unifacial wear or
basically fresh sherds with only one edge markedly worn round.
For the rest of the site many features show evidence of disturbance
due to agricultural or other factors (pp. 239-40), so that wear-pattern
data is rather qualified. However, a number of these do contain small
quantities of markedly more worn sherds. Whilst these are mostly in
the fabric type mentioned above that might abrade more quickly
because of its reduced flint content, interestingly a similar sherd
accompanies much fresher material from Layer 2 of Ditch F8. The
wear pattern is very different from the bulk of pottery from both
ditches, with all edges and faces worn, suggesting movement and
relatively long-term exposure. More-or-less the same pattern of wear is
shared by all these sherds - so that whilst interpretation is marginally
qualified by the fabric type, it is possible that they are genuine
indicators of fairly long-term occupation.
LBA/EIA material tends to fragment and abrade in a particular way
which is primarily a technological factor, with the production of
principally thin-walled vessels. The resultant higher fragmentation rate
coupled with variable rim profiles can make vessel frequency estimates
difficult in mostly heavily flint-loaded fabrics together with either,
firing temperatures that result in an extremely thin skin of surface
coloration or possibly slipped finishes for some vessels, resulting in a
highly distinctive wear appearance. The Monkton material is no
exception, and when the first handful of body sherds were recovered in
1990, allowed for the confident period attribution given then
(irrespective of the associated hoard material).
259
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
2. Inter-assemblage parallels
As noted in the Introduction parallels within the region are too
numerous to quote at length. It is important to note that, quite apart
from those listed in Appendix I, there is a whole range of minor
characteristics and variations as well, that firmly link Monkton to
Highstead and other assemblages. Here only some key examples are
highlighted.
(a) The pottery from Ditch F8 (Figs. 5-8).
No. 1 is a variation of a simple bow type present in the Period 2
assemblage from Enclosure A24 at Highstead (Fig. 20) and in most
regional assemblages. No. 3 is only the second example from the
region known to the author, the combination of likely vessel size and
combed decoration links it firmly to Highstead 33 (Fig. 20) from
Enclosure B70. The Highstead context is slightly difficult, but there is a
similar type of decoration on a smaller bowl from a Highstead Period 2
key pit group (B317, no. 231). The decorated fine ware jar 8 is,
superficially, a new type, but is related to a class of large fine ware
jars/bowls that occur elsewhere: Hacklinge 11 (Parfitt, forthcoming)
and less closely at Highstead (Enclosure A24, No. 214). Monkton 10
should be from the same class of vessel and the type of decoration is
closer to the parallels quoted. The elegant no. 12 is again superficially
new but its decoration and quality of finish are a combination of
elements found on Highstead 180, 189 and the bowl form is equivalent
to a plain version, Hacklinge 13.
(b) Pottery from other contexts (Figs. 9-18).
The style of decoration on Monkton 24, but less closely the form, is
paralleled across the region at Hacklinge and Folkestone (Fig. 20), and
also from the Mill Hill enclosure, Deal (Champion 1980, Fig. 6, 8).
Again from Mill Hill a rather larger fine ware jar figured by Champion
has a similar profile to Monkton 8. Monkton 28 is another second-only,
and nicely linked by a combination of decoration and form to two
vessels in the Highstead pit group B317 (nos. 230, 231). For the plain
fine ware bowls some parallels are given in Fig. 20, but Monkton 44 is
important: its markedly bevelled rim links it to a number of bevelledrim
jars from Period 2 contexts at Highstead, but here specifically is
akin to decorated Monkton 28 and thus to Highstead 230 and 33. If the
perforated jar 45 is equivalent to East Northdown P31 (Smith 1987,
Fig. 11), then the pottery from this site is slightly less isolated from the
range of Highstead Period 2-type assemblages in the region. The coarse
ware jar 76 can be linked to Canterbury (see footnote 1) and to
Hacklinge 16. Monkton 86 is an extreme form paralleled well from
260
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
MONKTON COURT FARM 1992 (MCF.92) : DITCH 8
KEY GROUP LBA/EIA 16 :
, . ·,
... ... ..........
. \ ,- '.
\ ' \
\·
' \ \
. . ' - ...
\ . ' . }., :
:::: _ .. -· -
6
8
3 - - --,ms
I I
7
; I I /
I • • ,
! . ' ' ' / ;
r , ., / : ,
\ J ' . ' :i I I
I ... r- I , , • / . '. , : r I , '
Fig. 5. Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery - Key
Group(¼).
261
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
MCF.92: DITCH B. KEY GROUP LBA/EIA 16:
9
10
11
12
13
Fig. 6. Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery - Key
Group(¼).
262
MONKTON COURT FA RM EVALUATION 1992
MCF.92: DITCH 8: KEY GROUP LBA/EIA 16
14
F.
-=-,;,--,-- = .•·- --,·
•/, .·:,...,
-: -::r-".r:;:.·
16
15
I
18
21
19
j
l7f Jir 'ft?
17
20
►\! 23 . . ·1 ...... - ":'i·
Fig. 7. Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron A ge pottery - Key
Group(¼).
Highstead Enclosure B70 (no. 118 - but the precise contextual
evidence is rather weak). Amongst the storage jars, 95 is much closer
to Highstead 188 than the drawing suggests, particularly in terms of
finish - and there is a close variant at Eddington Farm. Highstead 205
is an identical undecorated version of Monkton 96.
Returning briefly to East Northdown - the pottery from this site is
essentially different (albeit a small assemblage). Pot P31 could possibly
equal Monkton 45, but otherwise there are no genuine linkages unless
internally bevelled forms like Monkton 28 and Highstead 230 are
decorated fine ware equivalents of East Northdown PIO and possibly,
P ll. The assemblage of this site is essentially closer to Kingston Down,
particularly with reference to the last two vessels (e.g., MacphersonGrant
1980, Fig. 11, 58). For Monkton, the bevelled rim of Kingston 93
could be equated with Monkton 96; Kingston 66 is close to Monkton
47 and Monkton 17 is identical to Kingston Down 56. This site also
had several red-finished fine ware bowl sherds and Monkton 33 is
shouldered, as is red-finished Highstead 32 (though the profile
evidence is limited in each instance).
263
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
&r-::.::1::.::·.··· .. :•:.:,.: .... :··.·.1
MCF. 92 : DITCH 8
KEY GROUP
LBA/EIA 16
?NON-LOCAL
SANDY WARE
Fig. 8. Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery - Key
Group, ? non-local coarse ware (¼).
3. Non-regional parallels
This is not a comprehensive survey, but is limited to a few key Thames
Valley sites, principally to provide some formal and chronological
parameters for the dating proposed for Monkton. A full survey coupled
with a search of Continental parallels is crucial but beyond the scope of
the present project, and also aspects that better serve a more synthetic
overview of regional assemblages.
Parallels with the first millennium B.C. 'plainware' assemblage at
Runnymede are relatively few and not very close, but some elements
find echoes at Monkton. For instance the sharp-shouldered concave
neck of Monkton 41 could be equated with some fine ware bowl/jar
forms, etc., Runnymede 48-50. Also the use of specifically combed
decoration (rather than incised) in wavy lines or chevrons as on
Runnymede 376-378 is broadly similar to Highstead 230 and thus
indirectly Monkton, but technically the style is more curvilinear and
body position different. In addition the Monkton storage jars 96-97
264
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
MCF. 92 1 OTHER CONTEXTS : DECORATED FINEWARES
SMALL and MEDIUM DIAMETER
BOW LS and JARS
J IVl
25
Il0jJ )
26
r e )
27
\ .J
LARGE DIAMETER EXAMPLES
L __
33
' - -
r _ _:: ,._ -___ ,:- -.;.
- - - - -- --=- - -- -'
......=- --=- --
-
-
_ __ - __ - --
t
24
f:;,--
28
29
1
32
Red - finished
17
31
I. :,:. w
=-
t-
'
35
34
OTHER
TYPES
36
Fig. 9. Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery - fine
wares(¼).
265
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
MCF.92: OTHER CONTEXTS:
FINEWARES:
BOWLS
\
PROFILES
OTHER
TYPES
38
41
42
44
,. , .. ,
>
40
43 )
)
Fig. I 0. Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery - fine
wares(¼).
N
0\
--.J
MCF.92: OTHER
CONTEXTS:
FINEWARES:
INCURVED-RIM
BOWLS
r
47
F
48
LARGE DIAMETER JARS
/J""""-m
'=-
f-
50
46
lllr )
49
\
Fig. 11. Monkton Court Fann: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery - fine wares (¼).
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
'
'
0
;
()
g
tI1
e
-
\0
\0
N
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
MCF. 92 : OTHER CONTEXTS : FINEWARES :
As No.SO
51
'":.
BASE TYPES:
JARS and BOWLS
52
'
'-.,
--Z?
•
59
57
58
lrl1l
I
--..--.:
60
,...:_
61
\,,,
\c
"-- '=-
62 63
,
,
'
,
,
/
54
55
56
,
,
'
,
,
,
,
,
///
,
'
,
Fig. 12. Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery - fine
wares(¼).
268
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
MCF.92: OTHER CONTEXTS: COARSEWARES 1
l
:-. i.JL1'-gf'/ " ·,. i..;_.,,.,,,
64 1:r-¥/./,\J,:'.;K{{;,_ft!,i11
65
iy (--·--·
& FLINT
66
MEDIUM DIAMETER
JARS
72
73
SMALL DIAMETER
JARS
t--- , (
67
68
J;;:-
69
rr
C
If
70
71
r0--- ·:.:.-.i,•\c .
. · 71 - .. ·
I,
-7:--... ,.
,. - .
_."'7 . :.
' ...... ... .. r-·-·...) - '-
i;tJ;JY
l
,.17
75 I
Fig. 13. Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery - coarse
wares(¼).
D.R.J. PERKINS, N. MACPHERSON-GRANT AND E. HEALEY
MCF. 92 : OTHER CONTEXTS 1
'\I
--
78
76
::
:a:z:zi:
[--·,.:·-
j'
80
V 82
77
79
RIM DECORATED as
Nos. 79 and 81
COARSEWARES:
MEDIUM DIAMETER
JARS
--:
-. .-
.... -,;:,,-;,•·
81
--
17
Fig. 14. Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery - coarse
wares(¼).
270
MONKTON COURT FARM EVALUATION 1992
MCF. 92 : OTHER CONTEXTS :
COARSEWARES
MEDIUM- LARGE
DIAMETER
JARS
F
85
.. -:,.,-.,.
r.l"".--.-
F.- ·'F
.
,
.,; r ,-
·.
..-•. .88
DECORATED STORAGE
JAR CORDONS
84
87
91
'
92
I
83
(
7
86
89
?
93
Fig. 15. Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery - coarse
wares(¼).
·L. HIGHSTEAD 188
-
---~ 11 : If! ..
MCF.92:
OTHER CONTEXTS: I!-"'" --
94
,
. --
-
.
95
COARSEWARES:
STORAGE JARS
:1;00:11z:c
97 \
Fig. 16. Monkton Court Farm: Transitional Late Bronze/Early Iron Age pottery- coarse wares. Monkton 95 and Highstead 188 (inset) with
similar finishes (¼).
tI1
;z:
i
tI1
tI1
N
-.J
VJ
MCF.92:
OTHER CONTEXTS :
COARSEWARES
STORAGE JARS:
PROFILE
99
\:-
BASE TYPES
'.
'\ I:.·\\ ; ;, •, , . . .
I 1 · · • I • 1·, ·, · ./ l1 / , .
\ ' ·. \ - " .
. .... ,,, ·'/. ,
\ : I I' . :,, f ,,, ,· I
• \
I I •l • ,,,,. •
1\ I \ l \ i ; , , '/ .;,,;/1.t'(·.''--I,
l
. ' . ' /
t• I !:. ' ! ,/ I
' \ · :j> : tl·•·/:-f; 'l,l't'irtl i
\ . i ' I .t-> /I; ,,,f.''" ,/.
,,\\\!\;, '· _'1-I i!·Uditl¾l.
1 n
, ,,, 1·1'1'·',,,.,f'.•·•· I/
: ., ,· ii': ,. !. _''I/ 1¼t '· /·ii/:;.