A REGION ALLY IMPORTANT E ARLY IRON AGE POTTERY
GROUP: THE.MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET,
RAINHAM
MIKE SEAGER THOMAS
with Sarah Barrowman, Barry Bishop, K. Le Hegerat and Kevin Reilly
Excavations by Pre-Construct Archaeology to the rear of the former Manor Farm
pub, High Street, Rainham, have yielded a major assemblage of Early Iron Age
pottery of a type previously unknown in the region but with close analogues from
east Kent. By aiding its recognition locally and demonstrating the presence or
absence of relationships between the region and elsewhere, this will contribute
greatly to our understanding of the pen·od in the county.
The site consists of a probable post-built roundhouse, containing and surrounded
by pits, a four-post structure, and a number of other features, all bounded to one
side by a ditch - a typical Iron Age enclosure. The excavated area was a focus
of activity for an extended period of time and provides evidence for a range of
everyday domestic activities including pottery use, food preparation, the longterm
care of animals, and localized middening.
None ofus really knows how many Iron Age sites have been excavated in Kent but
it must now be well in excess of a hundred. Reliably documented sites range from
groups of postholes and pits and stray cremations, through house excavations, to
cremation cemeteries, hillforts and other huge multi-feature complexes. Pottery
from these sites can be ascribed to a variety of well known and well sequenced
traditions - post Deverel-Rimbury, the final 'decorated' phase of which is
associated with the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron
Age (Needham 1 996); early La Tene or 'Marnian', in Britain also usually dated
to the beginning of the Iron Age (Cunliffe 2005, 98); saucepan and later La Tene
pottery, conventionally dated to the Middle Iron Age (Orton and Cunliffe 1984);
Wealden pottery, likewise probably Middle Iron Age (Seager Thomas 2010, 16);
and Belgic, Atrebatic and other immediately pre-Roman forms, dated to the Late
Iron Age (Green 1980; Thompson 1982). Confusingly, the nomenclature applied
to these traditions varies in the literature, as does their precise Three Age System
dating. There is also some overlap between chronologically adjacent traditions.
Nonetheless the overall sequence is clear and should provide a secure foundation
upon which to build our knowledge of Iron Age Kent.
There are problems to be taken into account however. As recently as 2007,
Professor Tim Champion stated that pottery of the Early Iron Age, the period to
47
MIKE SEAGER THOMAS
Fig. I The location of the site.
which this Rainham site and pottery assemblage belong, was unknown in central
and western parts of the county, inferring 'a markedly regional distribution' for
contemporary traditions recognized in east Kent (Champion 2007, 297). In fact at
the time the assertion was made it was already erroneous. Probable Early Iron Age
pottery, which had not been and still has not been published, had been excavated on
the Isle of Grain in 1999, while British analogues for the east Kent material were
known from as far away as West Sussex (where they also remained unpublished)
(Seager Thomas 2008, 41). Such failure to disseminate information is endemic
in archaeology and has the unhappy result of specialist knowledge remaining
unshared bern1een professionals.
48
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
Equally problematic is the failure of specialists to agree what things are called or
to what date they belong - even while acknowledging them to belong to the same,
or related traditions! Kent has form here. As late as the 1990s Nigel MacphersonGrant
was calling Deverel-Rimbury pottery Late Bronze Age and 'developed' (as
opposed to 'decorated') post Deverel-Rimbury pottery Late Bronze Age/ Early
Iron Age (e.g. Macpherson-Grant 1992; 1994), years after the archaeological
community outside the county had revised their Three Age Sy stem dating for these
traditions baclrn1ards (to the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, respectively). Likewise
he eschewed the Early Iron Age date for early La Tene/ 'Mamian' pottery usual in
Britain, instead following the Dutch in calling it Early to Middle Iron Age (Broeke
1987, fig. 5; Macpherson-Grant 1989). When a site is fully published this is not a
problem; we can see for ourselves to what tradition it belongs and where it falls in
the foregoing sequence. But when it is not, and data reaches us in a summary fonn,
it plays havoc with our interpretations. Typical is the attribution of pottery such as
that from the present site to the Middle Iron Age, which, owing to the scarcity of
the saucepan pots, is not widely recognized locally. It might just date to the middle
of the Iron Age, but it was not Middle Iron Age, and it does not fill the gap left by
the absence or non-recognition of saucepan pottery locally.
By contrast there is nothing ambiguous about the present assemblage. Its key
features are the tradition to which it belongs: essentially the same as east Kent's
Early Iron Age pottery, which remains poorly understood regionally and - till the
excavation of the present assemblage - unrepresented locally. The presence in the
material of large, diverse, mostly well-preserved and apparently closed context
assemblages therefore contributes significantly to our understanding. This is
exactly what is required for reliable interpretation. Their reconstruction provides a
useful point of comparison with other assemblages of the same and different dates
from elsewhere, and helps place both the pottery assemblage and the site as a whole
in a wide regional context while their composition and associations as revealed
through excavation contributes to archaeology's first neA't step: understanding the
site itself. Should the analysis published here prove wrong, it is at least published,
so that colleagues can make up their own minds about it. Either way, it has the
potential to add greatly to the clarification of a range of outstanding issues related
to our understanding of the Iron Age in the county.
INTERPRETING THE SITE
Behind the former Manor Farm pub, at the junction of High Street, Rainham
(the Roman Watling Street), and Maidstone Road (TQ 81320 66040), the site lay
on gently rising ground close to the 45m contour, from where it overlooked the
Medway estuary, 2km to the north (Figs 1 and 2). Excavation showed it to be
thick with cut features (Fig. 3). Nearly all - where dateable - belonged to the
Early Iron Age. These comprised pits and probable postholes, burnt features, and
two successive ditches. There were also many undated features - postholes and
pits of course, and hundreds of stake holes. Owing to their large numbers and
a lack of clear patterning in their distribution, interpreting these is difficult, and
any inferences about the site's structure must be tempered by a recognition of the
area's extended use, which was demonstrated by the recovery from the site of a
49
MIKE SEAGER THOMAS
..... ' ---
..... ..,.
r
'\ \
----J
7Garage \ I 581310/166080 __________ _
I) + ,/ o
/, //
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
/ I I
/ I I
I I I
I I I
I I Q I
I I "(' I
/ / 0 /
I I 4: I
I I I
//
""
/
I I O I
t I I
t I C-, I
// !:? /
/ / ..T /
I I -.:::· I
,,I I I I I 11I;.. 1 1L.1J
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fig. 2 The excavated area.
( tN
, __
50m
handful of early (Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age) strnck flints (Bishop 2012a,
123-4) and small assemblages of Late Bronze Age, Middle Iron Age and Roman
pottery (Seager Thomas 2012a). Only the Early Iron Age occupants of the site,
however, demonstrably dug pits and postholes and it is our view that most of the
excavated features pertain to that date. The stake holes by contrast include several
that cut recent services and make up deposits - Barrowman 2012, 57. From their
density and the intercutting of a handful of them, we thus infer that the area was a
focus of activity during the Early Iron Age, and that this was of some time depth.
We also suggest that the ditches bounded this activity or these activities. Most
likely, therefore, we are looking at an Early Iron Age enclosure.
Amongst the excavated features it is possible to distinguish three or four probable
strnctural groups. Out of a cluster of features in the south-west corner of the main
excavation can be reconstrncted a fairly small (5m diameter) post-built roundhouse,
containing and surrounded by pits, and demarcated to the north and east (the west
was not excavated) by an area with few features (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; Tables 1 and
2). Most of the pottery came from the vicinity of this cluster of features, as did
all of the larger conte}!.1: assemblages. A pit inside of the post-ring filled with burnt
flint had characteristics of a Polynesian-type oven or a storage heater (pit 279) (cf.
Seager Thomas 2005, 95-6). Also noteworthy are four postholes, two related by
cross-joining sherds, which form a perfect rectangle close to the centre of the main
50
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
/f-:t, enc'.osure ditch 1
/ /;JjJ' - 7 --=-- ---.,,pt [322]
/ // .. ;-r ' ' ,, 1. I I ' • - --. I <.. ·w ry /o o • ,
t
<
-:.
':· - 'sl If, , • ;p:[287] )
'--
-
)Z:..
/ ,y ,
- 1ence1ine / \R ,# I ..... I I enclosure ditch 2 r- ' ;;' ·7 / • o , '°', f ,-... ,
t- }
' ,,, , 4
• • ./' rectangular '• • } ,-
"' f ,. lj' 1/91t • ..,,.., structure •
/
'
/
' --..:-,. , 1 • .
...
... ., ----.:::--... I
/•
:.::::,-...:::::-.. - ,. • ',... , • . ,I ,, ·-..:-.'
/2/(• I -- • 1/
', J ,1·_ , tj' - • 11 ' ., '4-: C' •• , 1' r--
1 I . • ,. • ',, , --,
_ "-
, 'i, r- . ....roundhouse ft I f • 1'
0
I -I I - • • ' I, '
-
-
, / / F,;Jure 4 / i
'JI I ----- . f/I i' ' /; l J ,r----;l.J --------.' .// -,· • /
l ,_ - 1.---...r-...., -- !..J ----1 ,____ ) - ,_ ,,
--:--:-,.---.J l 'k: ---=- ,II If'
.pit
• posthole
O pit or posthole
------- --.;;;:.-'· '-, ,_ ·7. 7 '-::::::-- , ' - --:---1 ------
-::::::::._ r---
--•-.
I ,.:::-,,
20m
- '- I I ---- --::::::-, ' ' ----- ·-:✓, ,I
Fig. 3 The possible roundhouse and rectangular structure. The shallow depth of
the postholes to the north of the post ring (Table 1), and the gap in it to the northwest,
cast some doubt upon its identification as a roundhouse. Probably, however,
this - upslope - part of the site was more deeply truncated than the rest.
excavation (a third feature, in line with one of the rectangle's short sides, yielded
another sherd from the same pot) (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; Table 1) a WNWIESE linear
alignment - or fence line - across the north of the trench (Fig. 3), and three widely
spaced clay-lined pits (Figs 3 and 4; Table 2).
As for how the site was used we have two further clues. We will return to the
distribution of the pottery below, but it should be emphasised here that as a group
the finds comprise a typical domestic assemblage and do not appear to reflect
any particular activity, ritual industrial or othervvise, of the type occasionally
associated with contemporary sites (but see Conclusion). The assemblage includes
a wide range of pottery fabrics and types, part of a triangular loom weight, a few
struck flints, charred cereals, the bones of cattle, sheep/goat, horse and pig, and
large quantities of burnt flint. Absent was evidence for on-site metalworking
(indeed the site yielded hardly any metal) and pottery making, and quems or quern
51
MIKE SEAGER TIIOMAS
TABLE 1. POSTHOLES AND OTHER FEATURES DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE
POSSIBLE ROUNDHOUSE AND THE RECTANGULAR STRUCTURE
Cut Fill Sides Base Size (cm) Depth
(cm)*
Roundhouse
219 216-8 Vertical; straight Flat 30 X 28 33
241 240 Vertical Flat, round break 48 x42 35
249 248,252,257 Steep Flat, gradual break 53x46 28
281 280,267,273 Steep Flat, curved break 52 x43 23
292 288,320 Steep Stepped;gradualbreak 60 x60 40
333 332 Vertical Flat; sharp break 26 X 26 8
361 350-1, 358, Steep to vertical Flat, sharp break 80 x67 32
360
379 378 Steep, concave Flat, gradual break 38 x20 3
399 398 Steep; concave Concave; gradual break 30 X 30 9
418 417 Near vertical; straight Flat, sharp break 40x40 33
Rectangular setting in roundhouse
270 263,266 Steep Flat 40 X 32 16
355 354 Very steep Concave; gradual break 27 X 27 9
416 415 Near vertical; straight Flat, sharp break 30 X 30 16
Rectangular stnJcture
294 Steep; slightly Concave 45x44 45
(pit) irregular
347 345--6 Steep Flat, sharp break 61 X 55 61
368 367 Vertical Near flat; sharp break 60 x49 70
395 394 Steep Flat, sharp break 55x24 52
404 401-3 Near vertical Very slightly concave 52 X 50 57
428 426-7 Near vertical Flat 58 X 54 67
*Add 18-57cm+ of developed/agricultural soil machine-stripped prior to excavation.
fragments, which would have been used in processing the foregoing cereals. Of
these, only the stones filling the 'Polynesian oven' gave any indication of being in
functional situ. Comprising 50 per cent of the fill, these were apparently unmixed
with unburned material (except for a single small sherd) and must have been at
least partly clast-supported. (In a Polynesian oven, stones are heated in a pit,
the food placed upon them, and the pit backfilled. Unless they are deliberately
cleared out afterwards, the stones underlying the food remain in the pit - where
there are sufficient stones, in a clast-supported layer. Characteristically these are
soot-soaked. Where stones are to be used for saw1as or boiling water, they are
not normally heated in a pit). Otherwise different categories of find tended to be
mixed, very often in distinguishable layers or dumps within features (Table 3).
Three successive layers in one pit [199] can be related by the presence in them
of cross-joining sherds; but otherwise the impression is of repeated episodes of
rubbish disposal into opportunistically used pit features.
52
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
Cut
192
199
209
256
277
279
287
294
301
322
336
374
[200] .... .... t /
/ .
..
..
, fenceline
',,,
,.. @) "(294l
p
•
I • ,
/,
• [395 rectangular
921 ,.. t tJ.
/, QJ[224J •
,, s rL.JC ae
•
•
..
....
I [404]
0[256]
"(3471 .. .... [3E8] .,
/. 0 .... , , [279)
...
1.[3791
/
'Polynesianoven' •14281
- j p 1""f v..
I . 13"' · '4t[•1s1
[219] I ,, \
I ' ,, 16] •[3"'] •
!
•
' [270W' - 12711 -..,1] e
[241]
• -W 'Wf()
[374]
•
•
•
.. ..
.., ....
• I
.J
0 I'
.. ' I I
I /
( I I / I I
I
j ,I I
I I -. • : J. I 7:)[30
1
] I [249 , .['92]
I .... - 'hammerhead' rim Deal 39 Kooigem 18
18, 11, 18, 30, 33 Hawkinge A'drome 1
Highstead 373, 429, (?)451
!wade 11
Weakly shouldered Jar Cby Road, Hawkinge 2, 20 Park Brow 12 Houplin-Ancoisne (?)21.3
>-open Highstead 372, 502 Neuville-sur-Escaut 6, 9
1, 29, 40, 43 Hawkinge A'drome 2
Kimrnnorth 13
56
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
ottery fonn Kent S.E. England France/Low Countries
Weakly shouldered jar· Cby Road, Hawkinge 132 North Shoebury 94 Kooigem 4
closed Highstead 400
34
Rustication - clay Cby Road, Hawkinge 126 Angme.ring Fretl1un
'{;parter Castle Hill 59 Houplin-Ancoisne
8 Deal 37, 41 Oss Ussen
Dolland's Moor
Hawkinge A'drome 32, 51
Highstead 388, 454, 456
Kin QSnorth 19
IR.usn·cation -finger Cby Road, Hawkinge 2
gooved Castle Hill 37
20.27 Hie:hstead 365
Rustication - combed Dollands Moor Patcham-Fawcett Bailleu[ 11
142 Hawkinge A'drome 29, 47 Frethun 10.17
Worth 5 Houplin-Ancoisne 22.8-1.0
Neuville-sur-Escaut 2
Oss Ussen
'Onion shaped'jar Barl1am Downs 8 Eastboume I, 5
6,45 Cby Road, Hawk.inge 153 Ford 47, 52
Hawkinge A'drome 176 SlonkHill 2
Fawlev. Hants. context 6042
'fJi-partite bowl Cliffe 91 Han1 381.11
upright neck/ fait.
•mernally expanded
lri/11
17
!Round shouldered bowl Highstead 461 North Shoebury 87 Genainville
upright neck/ simple
irim
14
?) Angular bi- or tri- Dolland's Moor Hawk's Hill 12. 50, 51 Frethun l 0.1
'Pa rtite bowl North Shoebury 82, 99, 104 Houplin-Ancoisne 13.l
31
Pedestal/ footring base Barl1an1 Downs 8, 13 Bishopstone 17, 22 etc.
141 Hawk.inge A'drome 176 Ford 58
Highstead 380, 446 North Shoebury 81, 92. 98
Worth 6 etc.
Park Brow 8
!Painted decoralion Barl1am Downs 8 Eastboume I
6 Castle Hill
Dolland's Moor
Hi,,hstead 368
Note: the numbers alongside the sites are a shorthand reference to the particular vessel type noted.
References
Angmering (Seager Thomas 2008, 41),
Bailleu! (Hurtrelle et al. 1989),
Barham Downs (Macpherson-Grant 1980),
Bishopstoue (Hamilton 1977),
Canterbury Road, Hawkinge (Hamilton & Seager
Thomas unpubl.),
Castle Hill, Folkstone (Couldrey unpubl.),
Cliffe (Kinnes et al. 1998),
Deal (Parfitt 1985),
Dolland's Moor (Macpherson-Grant 1989),
Green Lane, Eastbourne (Hodson 1962),
Fawley (Seager Thomas unpubl.),
Ford (Hamilton 2004),
Fretlmn (Blancquaert 1998).
Genainville (Lardy 1983),
Ham (Barbel and Buchez 2005),
Hawkinge Aerodrome (Seager Thomas & Hamilton
unpubl.),
Hawk's Hill (Cunliffe 1965),
Highstead (Couldrey 2007),
Houplin-Ancoisne (Bourgeoise et al. 2003),
lwade (Hamilton and, Seager Thomas 2005),
Kingsnorth, Isle of Grain (Seager Thomas unpubl.),
Kooigem (Van Doorselaer 1989),
Neuville-sur-Escaut (Hurtrelle e1 al. 1989),
North Shoebury (Wymer and Brown 1995),
Oss Ussen (Van den Broeke 1987),
Park Brow (Wolseley and Smith 1924),
Patcham-Fawcett (Seager Thomas 2008, 41 ),
Worth (Hawkes 1940).
57
MIKE SEAGER TIIOMAS
different roles or are of different dates. On the other hand, the assemblage as a whole
displays characteristics that elsewhere have been taken as signs of redeposition
(cf. Davey and Macpherson Grant 1996, 67; Seager Thomas 2008, 46; 2010 22),
the frequent burning of pots (including sherds from a minimum of 31 of the 45
reconstructable pots), their mixing with finds of other categories (Table 3) and
the small numbers of sherds by which individual pot are represented - despite the
l 00 percent sampling of surviving feature fills - as well as the presence of sherds
from the same pot in different features (pit 294 and postholes 347 and 428; Fig.
3). It is also notable that the ratio of fine to coarse fabrics is lower than that of
distinguishable fine to coarse ware pots, a likely consequence of the disturbance
of fragile fine wares.
So, what are we to make of the assemblage? While there is good evidence for the
deposition of disused pottery prior to its burial in the features from which it was
recovered, it remains our view that this was not centralized, that there was no single
homogenizing deposit, and that therefore individual context assemblages might
well reflect functionally and/or chronologically discrete episodes of activity. The
implications of this for our understanding of the assemblage are two-fold. On the one
hand, we can probably assume a close functional and/or chronological relationship
between the sherds comprising any single conte:\'t. assemblage. Even, for example,
where large sherds belonging to apparently different pottery traditions are found
together (as in pits 294 and 322), we have to assume they were in use more or less
concurrently. On the other hand, we cannot know what escaped redeposition, and it
is probably safest therefore to assume that these same conte:\'t. assemblages are only
incompletely representative of pottery and pottery-using activity on site.
Pottery Typology (Figs 5-10 showing Pots 1-45)
Form: owing to the variable quality of the site's coarse wares (roughly finished,
coarsely tempered, mostly thick-bodied pots) and the poor preservation and
incompleteness of some context assemblages, it is not possible to reconstruct
every pot form represented in the assemblage with complete confidence. For
the most pa.rt, however, enough of each pot survives both to distinguish it as
an individual pot and to place it within a broad typological grouping, which
can be paralleled elsewhere (Table 4), and thereby to situate the assemblage
as a whole. In terms of distinguishable pots, the ratio of coarse to fine wares
(burnished, finely tempered, mostly thin bodied pots) is about 4: 1. The
assemblage as a whole, however, is dominated by the upright jar form and
incorporates very few bowl types.
Most representative of the assemblage is a coarse ware form shaped something
like a wonky flowerpot, individual examples of which have, or appear
to have, straight (pots 4 and 27), convex (pots 1, 19 and 21), or straight and
convex sides (e.g. pots 3 and 5), and are either open or closed, the latter
profile occasionally displaying a pronow1ced hooked rim (pots 1 and 3).
This form has mostly very roughly executed rounded (pots 4 and 21), bead
(pot 44), plain-squared (pots 9 and 25), cabled (pots 3 and 5) and fingertipimpressed
rims (pot 6). Rim diameters range in size from about 15cm (pot
19) to 32cm (pot 21).
58
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
PIT[i2'I]/@
,-v 'Pol I MF (F)
Pot 3 FCF (F)
-[l- : :- ·0-
• -- - ,p. - ''
• ✓ -
I r::::7·
' . :_ . - .-. -. : . . ' .
'' Pot 4DSF(F)
burnt
Pot 6MCP(F) burn!
Pot5DSF burnt
Ip . . . . . ..
' \
Pol 7DSF (R)
burnt
0 10cm
_____
Fig. 5 Pots 1-7.
Possibly also belonging to a 'flower pot' is a tiny sherd that best reconstructs
as a bord festonne or festooned rim (from pit 224 - not illustrated), a rare
form in Britain, in which the lip of the rim, which is wavy or cog-like, hangs
down in front of the pot.
59
MIKE SEAGER TIIOMAS
PITII22)/@) ,--
--- :;; Pot 9 MCF (R)
jT .. Jo
-\,
, Pot8Ml' (B)
Prrli22]/@)
J•j,, PlfCF(F)
".. • burnt
PIT!i22)/(@p I
-,;
Pot 11 FF (B)
burnt
.
,,
PIT li22]/@) Pot l4FP(B)
, burnt {
.·-...; -
'tf,::,'. Pot 15MCF(FJ
\.:, burnt
}-j,r
.
•t ring/coil Join
!,
Fig. 6 Pots 8-11, 13-15.
PITIIfil/<@)
/7!:1-
,' Potl3MF(RB)
burnt
0 10cm
_____
Otherwise coarse wares on site are represented by three essentially
different but nonetheless overlapping shouldered jar variants (once again
exact morphological characterization is impossible). These range from
more or less tripartite, with an upright (pots 24 and 28) or out-turned neck
60
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
PITllli)/@
Pol 16 SMCF (RB & ?AR)
burnt
·. ·-..., ,:.:...:... ..
0 10cm
-----·
Fig. 7 Pot 16.
(pots 15 and 35), through strongly bipartite, with a long (pot 30) or a very
short shoulder (pots 16, 20 and 32). Lying between this and the previous
form is a chronologically important variant with a short upright/vestigial
neck (pots 10 and 13 ), to what are really variants of the convex-sided jar
with a weakly-moulded shoulder/neck, which are either open (pots 1, 29
and 40) or closed (pot 34). The tripartite variants have plain squared (pots
15 and 24), cabled (pot 28) and cabled, internally and externally expanded
'hammerhead' rims (pot 35) (pot 28 is also notable for its markedly angular
shoulder), the long shouldered bipartite, 'hammerhead' rims (pots 30 and,
probably, 8), the short necked bipartite, slightly expanded, rounded (pot 32)
and/ or internally bevelled rims (pots 16 and 20), and the weakly shouldered,
internally bevelled (pots 1 and 29), slightly externally expanded (pot 34 and
43) and simple rounded rims (pot 40). Another very 'wonky' pot, which we
reckon bipartite (note the slight out-tum at the bottom of the reconstruction
drawing), but which one colleague prefers to see reconstmcted as upright
(pot 22) (S. Hamilton pers. comm.), has an internally bevelled rim.
With the exception of pot 34, a weakly shouldered jar, the smallest of these,
perhaps predictably, are the complicated tripartite forms, with rim diameters
ranging from 14cm (pot 28) to 24 cm (pot 15). The largest variants, the
bipartite and weakly shouldered, have rim diameters ranging from 22 (pot 20)
to over 30 and most probably in excess of 40cm (pots 38 and 43). This size
distribution contrasts with that of the simplest form on site, the 'flower pot'.
Amongst the reconstructable fine ware forms, finally, there are five jars,
three bases - one certainly from a jar - and three bowls. Of the former,
two recall coarse wares from the site - pot 37, a tripartite jar with an outturned
neck and rounded rim, and pot 11, a long shouldered bipartite jar
with a 'hammerhead' rim. Both have rim diameters of about 22cm. Two are
smaller (18cm diameter) onion-shaped jars. These comprise a bulbous body
sherd with painted decoration (pot 26), which would very likely have had
61
MIKE SEAGER THOMAS
---·
:• Pot 17 FF(B)
0
'!,J:'· ,,
..-
.. -.
•.,- • ' ·POi 21 FCF (RF)
\.:, burnt "..C-.
::_
:t.
......./ .
-'::" ''
.t2SMCF (F & ?AR)
•, • •.} burnt
i
.. ,
; .K. 1 _,
PITllli)/@
10cm
'.- - Po &\1CF (RF) burnt
-----· '-, , ,
I I
Fig. 8 Pots 17-25.
pedestal bases like that represented in pot 41, and a rounded shoulder with
a pronounced flared neck (pot 45). The pots to which the other fine ware
bases, pot 36 and an un-illustrated foot ring fow1d with pots 28-30, belong
cannot be reconstructed but the base fonns themselves are to be expected of
62
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
'
.
,"':" Pt28MP
..t, ••
.
_,
''
PIT !ill]/@)
-:--4 ":C.,.,... ",,....;... , .,
_
•.. •: -:"ot 29 FCF (R)
\.· - .
burnt
I
D red
PIT@
■ black
t• '.•rit ;M-MCP
...... . t·• '-:. (RF) , -
'
,. .
.
;'I•
I•
' I -
PIT(ill]/@
'':,, Pot31 FF(J',)
'--:-" burnt 0
PITlill]/@)
PITllli)/@)
Pot33QC('IB) }-fft.1
I ,
--- -
)
{. Pot3°5M-MCP 'ii.·,.;'.·,.;;) ' '
'
burnt
• -'./\:
·
' . : ::
I I
0 LOcm
_____
Fig. 9 Pots 26, 28-38.
a fine ware assemblage of this sort. The last jar, by contrast, cannot easily be
placed (pot 39). Consisting of a massively expanded rim, an upright neck,
and a rounded body (which does not join the neck), it is currently without
parallel in Britain or on the near continent and, accordingly, it is impossible
to be confident when suggesting a reconstruction.
63
MIKE SEAGER TIIOMAS
PIT!ill]/@)
1--. --- -=- ·-.--=-: f .. l... . --: .- .
, , '
PH428/@
CD
Pot41 FF(J',.)
burnt
Pol 42 FMFS (C)
burnt
PITllli]/@
Pot 27 FMF-FCF (R)
burnt
1:" = £1/CF(R)
j·J - . burnt
t>·,
:•..tl ..,
' . •n . . .
.
I
PH778/@
0 10cm
_____
)-'·"
, 1
1 I
Fig. 10 Pots 27, 39-45.
The bowls - all of quite large size (20-22cm diameter) - are round
shouldered with an upright or slightly flared rim (pot 14), bipartite with an
upright shoulder/ neck and, unusually for a bowl, an internally expanded rim
(pot 17), and, probably, tripartite with a sharply angular shoulder (the pot is
64
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
represented by a single tiny sherd with neither rim nor neck but the upper
part of the shoulder bends out slightly -pot 31).
Finish: three or four coarse ware finishes are distinguishable in the Manor
Farm pub assemblage -rough burnish (RB on the reconstmction drawings)
(pots 16 and 30), simple fingering (Fin the figures) (pots 4, 15 and 43), and
deliberate roughening (known locally as rustication - R), using either the
fingers (pots 2 and 27), some kind of coarse wipe or a comb (C) (pot 42),
and/ or applied clay slurry (AR) (pot 38). (On the reconstrnction drawings,
where incidental fingering cannot be distinguished with certainty from
deliberate fingering, it is marked RF -e.g. pot 21). Typically on 'flower pots'
roughening/ rnstication extends to the rim (pot 19), while on shouldered pots
it extends to the shoulder angle, the shoulder itself being roughly burnished
(pots 20 and, possibly, 16).
The fine wares here are by definition burnished, sometimes highly. Pot
14, for example, has a very high burnish both inside and outside, while
both pots 11 and 17 retain a high burnish on the exterior. In addition pot
26 was painted with three wide horizontal bands of red, probably hematite
paint, and in the gaps between these, which remained unoxidized, marginal
lines, zigzags and multiple chevrons, in what was probably white but is now
orange paint. Two other unillustrated sherds in a rare sandy fabric (RFFQ),
one associated with pots 9, 10, 11 and 13, also have maroon hematite coats,
while pots 11 and 39, which incorporate visible siderite nodules may have
been intended to oxidize to a similar vivid red.
Pottery Fabrics: initially full fabric analysis of the assemblage seemed a good
idea, the apparent integrity of the assemblage holding out the rare promise of
an unambiguous fabric series for the period against which pottery from the
more usual, chronologically mixed assemblages could be usefully compared.
Indeed most of the bigger context groups are divisible into eight and ten,
mostly clearly divisible fabrics, with an overall ratio of coarse to fine wares
of about 11:2, noticeably different from that of distinguishable coarse to
fine ware pots (Table 3 and Table 5). By the time the analysis was finished,
however, most of these had resolved themselves into a continuum of fine to
coarse, mostly flint-tempered fabrics typical of the earlier first millennium
BC locally, with its usual interpretatively troubling overlaps with -from the
perspective of the Early Iron Age koine -both earlier, Late Bronze Age post
Deverel-Rimbury and much later, Iron Age traditions. Accordingly, for the
assemblage as a whole, details of this analysis have been reserved for the
archive (Seager Thomas 2012b). It's worth mentioning a handful of features
of it, however, which are apparently diagnostic of Early Iron Age traditions
locally, and, in some cases, further afield.
Overall the assemblage is dominated by sherds the surfaces of which are
oxidized red, often vividly so. In large part this is attributable to secondary
firing, in many cases the red colouration continuing across the broken edges
of sherds, which have dark grey unoxidized cores. This vividness of colour,
which is most striking, would only have been possible had the clay comprising
65
MIKE SEAGER TIIOMAS
TABLE 5. THE EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY FABRICS
Fabric Description Comments Illustrated
code pots
A typical earlier first millennimn BC flint-
11, 14, 17,
FF
tempered fine ware. 5-7% burnt flint of
26, 31, 36,
31nm and frequently much finished. Occasionally
21, (?)27, 29,
larger size (slivers and flakes up to I 0mm). grading down into
32,43
FMF.
Another typical earlier first millennimn BC 6, 9, 10, 15,
MCF flint-tempered coarse ware. c .5-7% burnt 24, 30, (?)34
flint of between <0.5% and c.4mm. & 35, 38,40
CF As MCF but with burnt flint up to 5mm.
Probably several related fabrics. c.3-10% Restricted to
DSF
platy voids (decalci..fied shell) with a very 'flowerpots'.
4,5, 7
variable burnt flint fraction ranging from
c.3% at <0.5-2mm to <1 % at >5mm.
them been iron-rich, a view confirmed for the fabrics of some pots by the
visible presence in them of small siderite concretions (pots 11, 35 and 39).
In addition, in fabrics for which natural clay matrices are distinguishable
from the inclusions deliberately added to them, these are sandy, a feature,
66
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
which though a function of clay source(s), is nonetheless recurrent in late
post Deverel-Rimbury and Early Iron Age pottery from South-East England
as a whole (e.g. O'Connor 1986, 61-2; Seager Thomas 2001, 36; 2008, 41).
Sherds give a false impression of friability, while original surfaces that are
unbumished and free of deliberately added inclusions have a texture similar
to that of fine grade sandpaper. Finally, two of the better defined fabric types
stand out, FCF, tempered with fine and coarse burnt flint (as opposed to fine
to coarse burnt flint), and DSF, a coarse decalcified shelly fabric with widely
varying quantities of fine and/or coarse burnt flint, used only in 'flowerpots'
(pots 4 and 5). When found together, these features, which reoccur through
the assemblage, can probably be taken as characteristic of Early Iron Age
pottery locally.
Pottery dating
Unusually in South-East England, the dating of much Kent earlier first-millennium
BC pottery remains open, due in large part to the absence from the county of
significant assemblages belonging to two key 'marker' traditions, very late post
Deverel-Rimbury, characterized in particular by angular, often highly decorated
pots, associated with the very beginning of the Iron Age, c.700 BC (Needham
1996, 134-7), and the saucepan pot continuum, characterized in particular by the
saucepan pot, which dates at its earliest from the beginning of the MIA, c.400 ea!
BC (Orton and Cunliffe 1984, fig_ 5). Instead, what we have - at least in the east of
the county - is France and the Low Countries' 'Marni an' or early La Tene pottery
(e.g. Hawkes 1940; Macpherson-Grant 1989), which on the continent emerges out
of their equivalent angular, decorated horizon, but whose end point cannot yet be
closely correlated with any clearly established British Iron Age pottery tradition.
In the absence of precise radiocarbon dating (which is not possible for the period
owing to its coincidence with the earlier first millennium BC radiocarbon plateau
- Pearson and Stuiver 1986, fig. l a), the placing and dating of middle and west
Kent assemblages, such as this one, which are neither strictly Marnian/ La Tene
or any other currently clearly and completely defined tradition, rests on analogy
with a range of very different, and sometimes themselves imprecisely dated
assemblages.
In Kent the assemblage as a whole is best paralleled by groups from Barham
Downs and Highstead, and in 'Marnian' /early La Tene assemblages from the east
of the county (Table 4 ), and it can be assumed therefore to belong to a related
tradition. Of the forms - and fabrics - comprising it, however, a handful are of
some longevity, complicating the chronological attribution of the assemblage. In
Sussex, for example, rustication, one of the present tradition's principal diagnostic
traits, is associated with its latest post Deverel-Rimbury (Seager Thomas 2008,
41), while at Holland's Oss Ussen, it first appeared, albeit in small quantities, in its
earliest (Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age) phases growing in significance through
its Early and Early to Middle Iron Age ( our Early Iron Age) (Van den Broeke
1987, table 5). Likewise it is occasionally present in later French post DeverelRimbury-
like assemblages, although it is also widely associated with immediately
succeeding traditions (e.g. at Coquelles and Frethun outside Calais - Blancquaert
67
MIKE SEAGER THOMAS
1989, figs 5 and 12). Similarly the hooked rim convex-sided jar is associated in
particular with early post Deverel-Rimbury traditions (e.g. Bradley and Ellison
1975) and 'flowerpots' generally and forms similar to some of the site's weakly
tripartite shouldered jar variants, with both post Deverel-Rimbury (Seager Thomas
2008, fig. 9) and later, saucepan pottery (e.g. at Norton in East Sussex, and Little
Waltham in Essex - Dmry 1978, figs 44.59 and 48.208; Seager Thomas 2005,
figs 15 and 16). Indeed, examples of the latter (pots 28 and 37), tend - at least by
some specialists - exclusively to be associated with later post Deverel-Rimbury
traditions.
To exactly what period then does this assemblage belong? While we cannot
categorically exclude the possibility that it incorporates pottery belonging to the
Late Bronze Age, the Early Iron Age and the Middle Iron Age, there is strong
evidence that it does not, but rather that it falls between the two extremes.
Firstly, one of the post Deverel-Rimbury tradition's principal defining
characteristics is its thin-bodied coarse wares, something largely absent from the
Manor Farm pub material; though it incorporates some post Deverel-Rimbury
traits, it is not a post Deverel-Rimbury assemblage. Secondly, while there are
overlaps with other pottery traditions, the tradition represented by the assemblage
as a whole has occasionally been found isolated from other ceramics - notably
at sites like Barham Downs and Highstead (Table 4), at the latter of which it was
stratified above an earlier post Deverel-Rimbury assemblage (Couldrey 2007,
figs 56-62). If there are, as there appear to be, late post Deverel-Rimbury sherds
in it, and our inferences above regarding pottery deposition on site are correct,
this might suggest continuity between the two traditions and a date within the
Early Iron Age soon after the demise of post Deverel-Rimbury proper. Thirdly,
it incorporates a number of features - such as the bipartite shouldered bowl (pot
17), deliberated roughening/ rnstication (pot 28), the angular bowl (pot 31) and
the 'hammerhead' rim (pot 33), which, in surrounding regions where Middle Iron
Age pottery is distinguishable, are present in earlier Iron Age but not Middle Iron
Age assemblages (sites where both Early and Middle Iron Age assemblages occur
side by side include, for example, Hawk's Hill in Surrey, and Came's Seat, Park
Brow and Slonk Hill in Sussex - Cunliffe 1965; Hamilton 1986; Hartridge 1978;
Wolseley and Smith 1924; Wolseley et al. 1927). Finally, Kent forms and fabrics,
which are associated with the Middle Iron Age such as the Wealden S-shaped jar
and glauconitic wares (Champion 2007, 297; Couldrey 1984, 38-40 and fig. 15;
Seager Thomas 2010, 6 and 15) are conspicuous for their scarcity. Two sherds only
fall into this group, both from the ditch.
Other Finds from the Site
In order fully to contextualize the pottery assemblage, we must say a few words
about the finds with which it was associated - if only to show their relative
proportions. In terms of numbers, the most common type of find was pottery. Next
most common was burnt flint, of which 903 pieces, weighing 53kg were found,
most from just ten features, four in or close to the roundhouse and the rest spread
widely across the site (Bishop 2012b, 226). As noted in only one case was it found
in functional situ, but it is clear that several flint burnings were represented.
68
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
Compared to pottery and burnt flint, all other finds categories were poorly
represented. There were just 105 pieces of strnck flint pieces. Most ofthese comprised
crndely strnck flakes and minimally reduced cores typical of late prehistoric flint
working traditions in Britain (Young and Humphrey 1999). Their principal interest
here is their Iron Age associations, which suggest that flint working and use, albeit
of an ad hoe nature, continued into that period. Struck flint too came from all over
the site, although one of the largest individual assemblages was from pit 199, just
outside the house (Bishop 2012a, 123-4).
Charred remains included unidentified charcoal, barley (Hordeum sp.) and wheat
(Triticum sp.) grains, wheat chaff (Triticum spelta and Triticum sp.), weed seeds,
a single hazelnut shell and some indeterminate fruit stones. These were most
abundant in pit 199, which contained several layers that were thick with charred
material; which otherwise was poorly represented. A less than 2g flot from the
'Polynesian oven' yielded between 50 and 250 pieces of charcoal of less than 2mm
in size (Le Hegerat 2012).
Animal remains comprised 50 bones and teeth recovered by hand with a few
more added from sample residues. The animals identified were mostly adults and
included cattle, sheep and/or goat, horse and pig. Amongst these were the teeth of
a horse of more than 19 years old, indicating a notable level of care, a group of
semi-articulated cattle-sized vertebrae (from pit 199 again) and a sheep or goat
humerus with defleshing cuts. The lack of small and younger animals, the small
number of bones overall, and a disproportionately high proportion of head parts
and teeth, is attributed to poor preservation conditions on site and is not considered
interpretatively important (Reilly 2012).
The Site's Place in the World
Perusing Table 4 with its references to typological parallels from sites in West
Sussex, the other side of the Thames estuary and in France and the Low Cow1tries,
the reader would be forgiven for thinking the pottery from the Manor Farm pub
site belonged to far-ranging cultural continuum. Up to a point of course, this is true.
There are good individual parallels; but there are very few group parallels (none
at all beyond Kent), while key fine ware types present at Manor Farm are more or
less unknown off-site and visa versa. Pot 39 is a good case in point; currently our
best guess is that it is aping something Mediterranean, but this is so far fetched that
independent development seems much more likely. The same is true of the site's
fabrics. The present writer is unable to comment on the wider distribution of fabric
FCF, but the oilier Manor Farm pub fabric to stand out, DSF, though paralleled
locally (in an unpublished assemblage from the Isle of Grain) and on the Essex
coast (Wymer and Brown 1995, 83), is untypical of Kent sites further east, while
grog-tempering, present to the east of the county (in unpublished assemblages
from Castle Hill, Folkestone, Hawkinge and Highstead 1 ) and common across the
channel (e.g. Bailleu! and Ham - Barbet and Buchez 2005, 34; Hurtrelle 1989),
and glauconitic fabrics, common in East Sussex through both the Early and Middle
Iron Ages (Seager Thomas 2005, table 2; 2008, 41), are represented in the Manor
Farm pub assemblage by a handful of sherds only, most of them arguably belonging
to later traditions. Although not a ceramic island, therefore, tlle assemblage and the
69
MIKE SEAGER TIIOMAS
tradition to which it belongs stand out regionally. This should be contrasted, on the
one hand, with preceding post Deverel-Rimbury traditions, which were present
more completely over a wide area including much of southern Britain and the near
continent (e.g. Burgess 1987, fig. 4), and, on the other, with the Middle Iron Age
saucepan pot continuum, which although interconnected regionally (Morris 1994,
figs 3 and 4; Seager Thomas 2010, 21), is largely absent from Kent (Champion
2007, 297) and completely absent from the rest of Europe.
CONCLUSIONS
To summarize: we have an Iron Age enclosure with a roundhouse, albeit rather a
small one, a rectangular structure, a fence and some storage pits, about which were
carried out a range of everyday activities. Culturally the site had connections across
South-East England and beyond, which were adapted locally. Except perhaps for
the absence of quern, a typical Early Iron Age site, showing the Early Iron Age in
this part of Kent to have been similar to the same period elsewhere in the SouthEast.
As such the pottery assemblage from it is peculiarly useful, since we can
take it as representative, and so use it as a yardstick against which to compare
assemblages from other sites and periods._
There are always alternative interpretations in archaeology and this is no less
true of the Manor Farm pub site than anywhere else. Excavations upslope of the
enclosure ditches were more limited than downslope of it, and may not accurately
reflect the distribution offeatures there (Barrowman 2012, 65). Indeed a glauconitic
sherd from the earlier of the two might just be from a 'Wealden' jar, thus placing it
and the postulated enclosure in the Middle Iron Age, tens if not hw1dreds of years
later than most of the dated pits and postholes. The house may not be a house at
all. It certainly was not recognized as such in the field. On analogy with Wessex
structured deposits comprising 'individual layers dominated by a single category
of find' (Hill 1994, 4), the group of articulated vertebrae and some pottery groups
might likewise be interpreted as strnctured deposits (Barrowman 2012, 65) and
therefore not reliably representative of everyday life during the period. The same
could apply if the occupants of the site had a peculiarly conservative taste in pottery,
and/or carefully curated pottery belonging to earlier traditions. On reflection we
have discarded all these possibilities, but as is always the case in archaeology, we
will certainly have got some things wrong, and we might have to reconsider.
In the final analysis howevernone of this is important. As noted in the introduction,
so long as we present our data, and present it honestly, the reader can make up his
or her own mind about it. However it is interpreted, the Manor Farm pub pottery
is important, and with other seminal pottery groups from the county, such as those
from the Bridge bypass excavations, Bigberry, Monkton Court Farm and Worth,
and will be referred to again and again in the literature by specialists inside and
outside the county. Let us hope that the many unpublished assemblages referred to
above (and most of them are still unpublished) join it soon.
ACKN'OWLEDGEMENTS
Pre-Construct Archaeology would like to thank Walsingham Planning and the
Whitbread Group PLC group for commissioning these important excavations, and
70
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
all those involved in the excavations and subsequent post-excavation work for
their invaluable contributions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barbet, P. and Buchez, N., 2005, 'Les habitats protohistoriques de Ham "Le Bois a Cailloux" ,
Revue Archeologique de Picardie, 1/2, 25-50.
Barrowman, S., 2012, An Assessment of an Archaeological Evaluation, Eccavation and
Watching Brief at the Manor Farm Public House, High Street, Rainham, Gillingham,
Kent, MEB 7JE, unpubl. report: P re-Construct Archaeology Ltd.
Bishop, B., 2012a, 'The lithic assessment', in S. Barrowman.
Bishop, B., 2012b, 'The burnt stone assessment', in S. Barrowman.
Blancquaert, G., 1998, 'L'ilge du fer a Coquelles et Frethun (Pas-de-Calais)', Revue du
Nord, 328, 109-37.
Bourgeois, I., Leman-Delerive, G. and Revillion, S., 2003, 'Houplin-Ancoisne: un amenagement
d'acces a la riviere pendant l'epoque gauloise?', Revue du Nord, 85, 51-88.
Bradley, R. and Ellison, A., 1975, Rams Hill: a Bronze Age Defended Enclosure and its
Landscape, 99-118, Oxford: BAR
Broeke, P. van den, 1987a, 'De dateringsmiddelen voor de ijzertijd van Zuid-Nederland,' in
W. van der Sanden and P van den Broeke (eds), Getekendzand. Tien Jaar Archaeologisch
Onderzoek in Oss-Ussen, Waalre, 22-43, Bijdragen tot de Studie van het Brabantse
heem, 31.
Burgess, C., 1987, 'Les rapports entre la France et La Grande-Bretagne pendant I' Age du
Bronze: problemes de poterie et d'habitats', in J-C. Blanchet (ed.), Les Relations entre
le Continent et Les lies Britanniques a !'Age du Bronze, 307-18, Actes du Colloque de
Bronze de Lille. Amiens: Revue Archeologique de Picardie.
Champion, T., 2007, Settlement in Kent from 1500 to 300 BC', in C. Haselgrove and R.
Pope (eds), The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the Near Continent, 239-305, Oxford:
Oxbow.
Couldrey P., 1984, 'The Iron Age pottery', in B. Philp Excm,ations in the Darent Valley,
Kent, 30-70, Dover: KARU.
Couldrey, P., 2007, 'The Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pottery', in P. Bennett, P. Couldrey
and N. Macpherson-Grant, Highstead, near Chislet, Kent: Excavations 1975-1977, 101-
175, Canterbury: CAT.
Cunliffe, B., 1965, 'The Pottery', in F. Hastings, 'Excavation of an Iron Age farmstead at
Hawk's Hill, Leatherhead', Surrey Archaeological Collections, 62, 13-39.
Cunliffe, B., 2005, Iron Age Communities in Britain. An Account of England, Scotland and
Wales from the Seventh Century BC until the Roman Conquest, 4th edition, Routledge:
Abingdon.
Cunliffe, B. and Orton, C., 1984, 'Radiocarbon age assessment', in B. Cunliffe, Danebury:
an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire. Volume 1. The excavations, 1969-1978: the excavations,
180-90 CBA Research Report, 52, London.
Davey, M. and Macpherson-Grant, N., 1996, 'The ceramics from tl1e Whidield-Eastry
Bypass, Site 2', Canterbury'5·Archaeology 1995-96, 67-9.
Doorselaer A. Van, 1989, 'Un site forti:fie de l'ilge du Fer avec enclos cultuel a Kooigem
commune de Courtrai (Fland.re Occidentale)', in M. Otte and M. Ulrix-Closset (eds) La
Civilisation de Hallstatt, 357-66, Rencontre Internationale Liege.
Green, C., 1980, 'Handmade pottel)' and society in Late Iron Age and Roman East Sussex',
Sussex Archaeological Collections, 118, 69-86.
Hamilton, S., 1977, 'The Iron Age pottery', in M. Bell, 'Excavations at Bishopstone',
Sussex Archaeological Collections, 115, 83-117.
71
MIKE SEAGER TIIOMAS
Hamilton, S., 1986, 'Late Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery', in R Holgate, 'Excavations at
the late prehistoric and Romano-British enclosure complex at Carne's Seat Goodwood,
West Sussex, 1984', Sussex Archaeological Collections, 124, 43-4.
Hamilton, S., 2004 'Early first millennium pottery of the West Sussex Coastal Plain', in
C. Place, fa:cavations at Ford Airfield, Yapton, West Sussex, 1999, 18-38, Kings Lynn:
Heritage.
Hamilton, S. and Seager Thomas, M., 2005, 'The nature and importance of the lwade
earlier prehistoric pottery', in B. Bishop and M. Bagwell, !wade: the Occupation of a
North Kent Village ft-orn the Mesolithic to the Medieval Period, 20-38, Pre-Constrnct
Archaeology Monograph, 3 London.
Hawkes, C., 1940, 'The Marnian pottery and La Tene 1 brooch from Worth, Kent' ,Antiquaries
Journal, 20, 117-21.
Hill, J., 1994, 'Why we should not take the data from Iron Age settlements for granted:
recent studies of intra-settlement patterning', in A. Fitzpatrick and E. Morris ( eds), The
Iron Age in Wessex: Recent Work, 4-9, Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology.
Hodson.. F., 1962. 'Some pottery from Eastbourne the "Marnians" and the pre-Roman Iron
Age in southern England'. PPS, 7. 140-55.
Hartridge, R., 1978 'Excavations at the prehistoric and Romano-British site on Slonk Hill,
Shoreham, Sussex'. Sussex Archaeological Collections, ll6, 69-141.
Hurtrelle, J., Monchy, E., Roger, S., Rossignol, P. and Villes, A., 1989, Les debuts du
second age du fer dans le Nord de la France, Les Dossiers de Gauheria, 1.
Kinnes, I., Cameron F., Trow, S. and Thomson, D., 1998, Excavations at Cliffe, Kent,
British Museum Occasional Paper, 69. London.
Lardy, J-M., 1983, 'Les Gauloise du Val d'Oise', Les Dossiers Histoire et Archaeologie,
76, 34-45.
Le Hegerat, K., 2012, 'The charred plant macrofossil and wood charcoal assessment
report', in S. Barrowman
Macpherson-Grant, N., 1980, 'ArchaeologicaJ work aJoug theA2: 1966-1974' ,Archaeologia
Cantiana, 96, 133-83.
Macpherson-Grant, N. 1989, 'The pottery from the 1987-1989 Channel Twmel excavations',
Canterbwy'sArchaeology 1988-89. 60-3.
Macpherson-Grant, N., 1991, 'A re-appraisal of prehistoric pottery from Canterbury',
Canterbury s Archaeology 1990-91, 38-48.
Macpherson-Grant, N., 1992, 'A review of Late Bronze Age pottery from east Kent',
CanterburysArchaeology 1991-92, 55-63, CAT: Canterbury.
Macpherson-Grant, N., 1994, 'The Pottery', in D. Perkins, N. Macpherson-Grant and E.
Healey, 'Monkton Court Farm evaluation, 1992', Archaeologia Cantiana, 114, 248-
88.
Morris. E .. 1994. 'Production and distribution of pottery and salt in Iron Age Britain: a
review', PPS, 60, 371-93.
Needham., S., 1996 'Chronology and periodisation in the British Bronze Age, Acta
Archaeologica, 67, 121-40.
O'Connell, M. 1986, Petters Sports Field, Egham. Excavations ofa Late BronzeA gel Early
Iron Age Site, Research Volume of the Surrey Archaeological Society, 10, Guildford.
Parfitt, K., 1985, 'Some Iron Age sites in the Deal area', Kent Archaeological Review, 79,
206-19.
Pearson., G. and Stuiver, M., 1986, 'High-precision calibration of the radiocarbon time
scale, 500-2500 BC', Radiocarbon, 28 (2B), 839-62.
Reilly, K., 2012, 'Assessment of animal bone', in S. Barrowman.
Seager Thomas, M., 2001, 'Two early first millennium BC wells at Selsey, West Sussex
and their wider signifi.cance',Antiquaries Journal, 81, 15-51.
72
EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY GROUP: MANOR FARM PUB SITE, HIGH STREET, RAINHAM
Seager Thomas, M., 2005, 'Understanding Iron Age Norton', Sussex Archaeological
Collections, 143, 83-117.
Seager Thomas, M., 2006, 'The Iron Age pottery', in T. Carew, B. Bishop. F. Meddens and
V. Ridgeway, Unlocking the Landscape: Archaeological Excavations at Ashford Prison,
Middlesex, 56-68 Pre-Construct Archaeology monograph, 5, London.
Seager Thomas, M., 2008, 'From potsherds, to people. Sussex prehistoric pottery: Collared
Urns to post Deverel-Rirnbury', Sussex Archaeological Collections, 146, 19-51.
Seager Thomas, M., 2010, 'Are-conte::1..1:ualization ofthe prehistoric pottery from the Surrey
hillforts of Hascombe, Holmbury and Anstiebwy', Surrey Archaeological Collections,
95, 1-33.
Seager Thomas, M., 2012a, 'Assessment of the Roman pottery', in S. Barrowman.
Seager Thomas, M., 2012b, 'Pottery data table', in S. Barrowman.
Thompson, I., 1982, Grog-tempered 'Belgic 'Pottery of S outh-Eastern England, BAR, 108,
Oxford.
Wolesley G. and Smith R. 1924, 'Discoveries near Cissbury' Antiquaries Journal 4,
347-59.
Wolseley, G., Smith. R. and Hawley, W., 1927, 'Prehistoric and Roman remains on Park
Brow'.Archaeologia, 76, 1-40.
Wymer, J. and Brown, N., 1995. Excavations at North Shoebury: Settlement and Economy
in S outh-East Essex, 1500BC-ADJ 500, East Anglian Archaeology, 75, Colchester: Essex
County Council.
Young, R. and Humphrey, J., 1999, 'Flint Use in England after the Bronze Age: time for a
re-evaluation?', PPS, 65, 231-42.
ENDNOTES
I The published material from Highstead did not incorporate grog - Couldrey 2007.
73
