Evidence of a late Iron Age/early Roman settlement and an early medieval strip field system at Shadoxhurst

hayley nicholls

Archaeological investigations on disused, overgrown agricultural land adjacent to the King’s Head, Woodchurch Road, Shadoxhurst, revealed evidence of Late Iron Age/Early Roman activity, comprising a small, possibly unenclosed settlement of short duration, specifically a ring gully along with evidence of metalworking. Following this, an abandonment of the site seems probable, with a return in the twelfth century. No evidence for settlement was recovered for this latter period, instead the data indicates a system of narrow strip fields laid out around a central spinal boundary with possible small associated agricultural structures, set some distance from the settlement core.

Archaeology South-East (UCL Institute of Archaeology) was commissioned by CgMs Consulting Ltd (now RPS Group), on behalf of their client Pentland Homes, to carry out a series of archaeological investigations in advance of residential development of a 1.4ha plot of land adjacent to the King’s Head, Woodchurch Road, Shadoxhurst (NGR TQ 971379; Figs 1 and 2). The site lies within the Low Weald, roughly equidistant from the North Downs and the High Weald, on low-lying land at around 36-38m aod. The British Geological Survey (BGS 2019), records the underlying geology of the site as Wealden Group Mudstone, siltstone and sandstone. Superficial deposits are not recorded.

Archaeological and Historical Background

The site is located just beyond a rich archaeological landscape skirting the south of Ashford, 6.5km south-west of the confluence of the East and Great Stour Rivers, and 3.5km south-west of the juncture of two major Roman roads, providing access to Canterbury, London, the coast and continental Europe. Whilst this area just south of Ashford has in recent years been identified as an important focal point of settlement, evidence for early prehistoric activity remains limited to residual finds rather than in situ deposits.

By the Bronze Age, however, particularly towards the latter stages of the Bronze Age/early Iron Age, considerable efforts to organise the landscape are evidenced by early field systems and trackways from sites to the east of Ashford in the Blind Lane area (Booth et al. 2011, 495) and to the west at Brisley Farm (Stevenson 2013, 27) (Fig. 3). There is little to suggest that this activity extended as far south as Shadoxhurst and the centre of the Low Weald, Stubbs Cross appearing to represent the southernmost edge of Bronze Age activity (KHER Ref: MKE78509).

Whilst activity is seen to extend from the Bronze Age into the Middle Iron Age in the Chalk Downlands, with extensive evidence of occupation, there is only sparse evidence for the continuity of sites in the Weald, a notable exception identified at Park Farm East (KHER Ref: MKE44591). Within the region, a comparative lack of Early Iron Age sites is currently the case, whereas there appears to have been a renewal of Wealden settlement from the Middle Iron Age with new colonisation based on population dispersal (Margetts 2018, 36-38).

Widespread occupation of the landscape is evident in the Late Iron Age with settlements recorded at Chilmington Green (KHER Ref: MKE111060), Brisley Farm (Stevenson 2013), and Park Farm East (KHER Ref: MKE44591), potential settlements recorded at Cheeseman’s Green and Blind Lane (KHER Ref: MKE44593; MKE17440) and field systems extending from Blind Lane and Mersham in the East, Stubbs Cross in the south, to Chilmington Green in the west (Booth et al. 2011, 493-495; Stevenson 2013, 8; ASE 2017). It is of note that the sites of later Iron Age date show little correlation to the locations and layouts of predecessors, and the society which emerges, one of regional ‘kings’, Caesar mentions four in Kent, and an increasing adoption of coinage is considered to be more influenced by growing contact with the Continent and Rome, than a development of Middle Iron Age society (Stevenson 2013, 6). Once again, however, there was little to suggest the later Iron Age/early Roman activity extended as far south as the Shadoxhurst site.

Roman sites are abundant in the area south of Ashford, many showing continuity from the later Iron Age, with the scheduled Roman roadside settlement of Westhawk Farm the most significant (Sched. Mon. Ref.: 1017645). Once again, however, the activity appears to extend only marginally beyond the fringes of the Low Weald, and not as far as Shadoxhurst. The only suggestion otherwise is a single findspot 60m west of the site, where a Roman copper alloy coin of second-century date is recorded (KHER Ref: MKE 78953). The Roman Road running from Benenden to Canterbury via Westhawk Farm runs from west to east approximately 450m north of the site (KHER Ref: MKE44618).

No sites or finds of Anglo-Saxon or medieval date are recorded within the immediate vicinity of the site although once again, significant sites are recorded in the area immediately south of Ashford, including two moated sites (Sched. Mon. Ref.: 1009006, 1013948). Shadoxhurst was first mentioned in 1239 and means a ‘wooded hill’ with an uncertain first element, possibly from a personal name or older place name (Mills 1991, 413).

Chronological Narrative

Detailed analysis of the sequence of deposits at Woodchurch Road, Shadoxhurst, has led to two periods of activity being recognised, confidently assigned as:

Period 1 – Late Iron Age/early Roman (ad 10-60)

Period 2 – medieval (twelfth century ad)

Excavations in all parts of the site revealed a variable superficial head deposit ranging from a firm mottled yellow/grey/orange clay in the north-east of the site to a firm mottled mid grey-orange/orange sandy clay in the south-west. Although there was little visible disturbance to the site, other than occasional land drains, many archaeological features were very shallow, suggesting that the site had been subject to a significant degree of horizontal truncation. There is no suggestion that the site was under arable from the tithe to modern mapping, hinting at an alternative process for loss of overburden other than ploughing and subsequent wind erosion.

Just three pieces of residual worked flint were recovered, comprising a blade, a flake and a retouched flake, demonstrating only very limited activity in the vicinity during the earlier Prehistoric period. The blade is likely to be Mesolithic or Early Neolithic, but no date could be confidently attributed to the other two pieces.

Period 1: Late Iron Age/Early Roman (ad 10-60)

This first phase of visible human activity was also the more concentrated period of occupation of the site, with 280 sherds of pottery (2.72kg by weight) recovered from deposits of this date. The vast majority of the pottery was recovered from a single pit, G2, and the whole assemblage was almost entirely composed of grog-tempered wares, with just a single sherd in a fine sandy hand-made fabric. The range of forms was fairly limited and entirely in keeping with c.mid first-century ad groups from Brisley and Westhawk Farms. The very substantial size of the assemblage, together with its freshness, and the fact that it produced some large portions of individual vessels, indicated that it represents refuse from settlement activity in the immediate vicinity, being characterised by a ring gully, RG1, sat within what appears to have been an open clearing, OA1, within a wooded landscape (Fig. 4).

Open Area 1 (OA1)

Evidence from the area to the north of the site, in the South Ashford region, indicates early landscape division dating from the Bronze Age, with enclosures most likely given over to grassland with little surrounding woodland (Stevenson 2013, 27-31). However, the evidence from the Shadoxhurst excavation suggests an alternative landscape may have persisted in the central Low Weald into the first century ad, with widespread woodland clearance not occurring until considerably later.

No ditches identified within the site area could be securely dated to this period, and whilst there remained a handful of undated boundaries, their alignments were mostly in keeping with the later medieval field system and consequently the features have largely been attributed to Period 2. The Period 1 settlement is therefore considered to have most likely remained unenclosed (but see caveat entered below).

Charred plant macrofossils were absent in bulk soil samples from the ring gully, RG1, and associated internal features, whilst just a single barley caryopsis was recovered from the associated pit feature, G2. Wood charcoal fragments were present in each of the six samples taken and were moderately abundant in two. Only fragments of oak (Quercus sp.), including some roundwood were recorded in the initial assessment of both, no further analysis being deemed necessary on the basis of the limited significance of the site assemblage. Given the apparent lack of woodland margin, light-demanding tree species within the charcoal assemblage, and the very limited nature of the charred plant macrofossils, it is suggested the settlement may have been located within a largely unmodified woodland landscape. It should be noted, however, that it is also possible that they indicate a high degree of fuel selection rather than a true image of the local environment, and a further caveat should also be added to the interpretation of the settlement as unenclosed given the limited size of Mitigation Area 3.

Ring gully (RG1)

A single penannular ring gully was located towards the centre west of the site, in the northern half of Mitigation Area 3 and has been interpreted as the remains of a roundhouse. The structure had an internal diameter of 6.6m, and a break in the ring was visible in the north-east portion, most likely indicating an entrance in this location (Fig. 5). Two postholes sat internally to the ring gully, and were most likely associated with the structure; the smaller of the two, [1130], supporting one of an outer ring of structural posts, the larger, [1128], most likely supporting a larger post bearing a greater load, in keeping with a doorway.

A small assemblage of pottery, a piece of smelting slag, and small quantities of fire-cracked flint were recovered across RG1 deposits, along with two pieces of fired clay exhibiting a single flat, bleached surface. The pieces probably derive from hearth lining.

Pit G2 was notable in that it contained a large assemblage of pottery and metalworking waste, along with a single general-purpose nail. The head form was obscured by corrosion product; the stem is square in section. Whilst the relationship between ring gully RG1 and the pit was uncertain, the finds assemblage, the location of the pit on the curvature of the ring – close to the potential entrance – indicated the two were most likely contemporary. Whilst the function of the pit remained uncertain, it may have been excavated to accentuate the southernmost of the ring gully’s terminals. The pit produced 16 fresh pieces (468g) of smelting waste, 3 pieces (86g) of hearth lining and one piece (184g) of undiagnostic iron slag, along with potential ore. The assemblage all appears to relate to a short-lived period of iron smelting – perhaps a single attempt. Whatever the case, the complete absence of hammerscale from any of the magnetic fractions demonstrated that no smithing activity was undertaken alongside the primary metalworking process.

Undated features

Multiple small pits and postholes were located external to RG1. Whilst their location suggested a relationship with the Period 1 settlement, their predominantly sterile fills and total absence of finds, surprising given their proximity to a domestic structure, left some significant doubt in this regard. The features could be of any date and could have been a result of any period of use of the site.

Period 2: medieval (twelfth century ad)

Following the demise of the Late Iron Age/early Roman settlement (no later than ad 60), it is possible the landscape around Shadoxhurst was once more abandoned. At the very least, the human presence surely changed to a more transient one, leaving no archaeological footprint. It is not until the twelfth century that a presence within the landscape becomes visible once more with a large assemblage of pottery recovered across 21 contexts (256 sherds in total, weighting 2.71kg), only marginally smaller than that from Period 1. Overall, early/high medieval wares totally dominate the assemblage, with a chronological range predominantly covering c.ad 1150/75-1250/75. Negligible quantities of later pottery were present. The early and high medieval assemblages can best be viewed as one relatively short-lived period of activity ending soon after the mid thirteenth century. The data suggests agricultural activity with possible small associated agricultural structures on the periphery of the settlement core.

The archaeology of this period appears to represent an organised system of enclosures bounding narrow strip fields, or selions. Four larger boundaries were identified, G3 and [8/004] (Fig. 1 and Fig. 6) orientated on north/north-east to south/south-west alignments, G4 and G8 roughly perpendicular, similar alignments to that of the surrounding existing field system, with smaller more ephemeral boundaries further sub-dividing the landscape (Fig. 6). The earliest dating from within these boundaries would indicate an inception in the second half of the twelfth century, with much of the system, particularly the smaller boundaries no longer maintained by the mid thirteenth century. The pottery assemblage from G3 is notable in its diversity of fabrics suggesting a slightly longer period of use and loss/deposition of material than for the other features, in keeping with a trackway. Although given the apparent continuation of boundary G4 through Trench 10, it is more likely that G3 functioned solely as a field boundary, and was retained in use whilst smaller boundaries were infilled to create larger fields. It also contained (broadly dated) mid fifteenth- to nineteenth-century tile from a basal fill and post-medieval floor tile from its upper fill.

The widths between the boundaries could suggest strips or selions between 4m and 6.6m, or alternatively should the perpendicular boundaries, G4-G9 not have been in use concurrently, the 9m width between G5 and G8, or the 12m width between G6 and G9 may have been closer to the reality.

No direct evidence for settlement was recovered. Three groups of postholes were located across the field system, each in separate strip fields. The postholes G14 (Fig. 5) were the largest by diameter, c.0.5m, and represent the only structural evidence certainly of this period, with a small assemblage of pottery recovered from the north-westernmost of the three. The second two groups have been assigned to this period based on their location in relation to the surrounding boundaries, and the similarity of the bulk environmental samples from G12 to those from Period 2 ditches. G12 comprised eight small postholes. Post-pipes survived intact within three, where posts had rotted in situ. No clear form was identifiable but the posts most likely supported a small structure. Two postholes were assigned to G13, and were situated parallel to and most likely associated with one of the smaller strip field boundaries. A single group of pits, G15 lay to the east of spinal boundary, G3. Their sterile fills and very limited finds retrieval, just a single small sherd of pottery across both features further indicated distance from settlement.

The bulk soil samples taken from deposits of Period 2 date contained a small quantity of charred plant macrofossils. These included infrequent cereal caryopses of oat (Avena sp.) and wheat (Triticum sp.), caryopses and seeds/fruits of stinking chamomile and wild radish (Anthemis cotula; Raphanus raphanistrum), and poorly preserved unidentifiable cereals and grass seed. A poorly preserved probable oat grain retaining some adhering chaff, was also recovered. Unfortunately, it was too poorly preserved to determine whether it was of a wild or cultivated variety. Wood charcoal fragments were moderately abundant with a much wider selection of species evident than for Period 1, including oak, field maple (Acer campestre), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), beech (Fagus sylvatica), willow/poplar (Salix/Populus sp.), birch (Betula sp.) and possible privet (cf. Ligustrum sp.). Many of the hornbeam and willow/poplar fragments were from small roundwood with up to 15 growth rings displayed.

discussion

Period 1

Whilst the site is located close to the significant South Ashford region, an area with abundant evidence of a later Iron Age expansion in activity, much of which continued into the Roman era, the southern edge of this activity lies some distance away, roughly 1.5km to the north-east in the region of Stubb’s Cross. Inversely, the Shadoxhurst settlement identified as part of this project, is currently isolated within the central Low Weald with no known similarly dated sites in the vicinity. As such, it is tempting to suggest that the site supports the historic image of the Wealden landscape, certainly that of the inner Low Weald as a largely untouched and unoccupied wooded landscape at this point in history. However, when considering recently published works on the western Weald, which illustrate how the growth of developer-funded excavations have led to an everincreasing number of Late Iron Age and Roman rural Wealden settlement sites being identified (Margetts 2018), a similar situation is surely likely to be the case at the Weald’s eastern end. Certainly, the correlation of identified sites and monuments to the extent of archaeological events recorded within the Kent HER in the region south of Ashford is striking. This strongly suggests that the current distribution of known sites relates to recent development, rather than providing a good overall image of the landscape (Fig. 6). Interpretation of the density of rural settlement within the Low Weald and its dispersal in relation to sites such as Brisley and Westhawk Farm must surely wait until further investigation and fieldwork has been undertaken in the vicinity.

The short duration of the settlement at Shadoxhurst is interesting, and ties into similar data from Brisley Farm, specifically Period 4, phases 1 and 2. At Brisley, the end of this period of activity, concluding in the second and last warrior burial shortly after the Roman Conquest, was considered to link with the inception of the Westhawk Farm site, highlighting a change in the focal point in activity, quite possibly as a result of the creation of at least one of the known Roman roads in the area, joining Benenden and Canterbury (KHER Ref: MKE44618; Stevenson 2013, 211). How this catalyst affected the Shadoxhurst settlement is unclear. It might be assumed that small, isolated settlements would be little affected by a change of focal point from Brisley to Westhawk Farm. It is evident however, that whilst some settlements south of Ashford declined shortly before or after the Roman invasion, others endured into the second and third centuries, Park Farm East being an example of one which endured, Stubbs Cross one which did not.

It could be assumed that the construction of the Roman road (KHER Ref: MKE44618), which passes the Shadoxhurst site at a distance of 400m to the north, would have led to the expansion of the settlement, or at least it’s continuity as the road opened up access to the interior of the Low Weald. As this was not the case, it seems compelling that it was perhaps the construction of the road that led to the demise of the settlement, with its residents moving on to find a more remote or alternative location. This must remain a very tentative suggestion, however, given the still very limited data for settlements of this type and period in the region. An alternative view could be the effect of Romanisation – that is people abandoning their old way of life and moving to more Romanised settlements (such as roadside settlements, e.g. Westhawk Farm).

Period 2

The return of visible activity within the site in the twelfth century accords well with current understanding of the Weald as becoming much more widely colonised in the mid 11th and 12th centuries (Margetts 2018). The nearest settlement recorded in the 1086 Domesday Survey lies c.3.8km to the north from the study site (Great Chart), whilst the historic core of Shadoxhurst village and the church is known to date from the thirteenth century (CgMs 2017). However, the evidence from this site, combined with that of similar strip field systems to the south in the region of Shadoxhurst village clearly visible on current LIDAR data (Fig. 7), surely suggests the village or at least the church originated earlier. This is perhaps unsurprising, as noted by Margetts (2018) in his work on the Weald, evidence from Domesday Book can be misleading. The very sparsely settled perception is not corroborated by documents such as the Domesday Monachorum or Textus Roffensis which indicate that some Kent and Sussex churches did in fact exist at that time (ibid.).

The LIDAR demonstrates that some of the medieval landscape remains extant today, if only barely. It similarly identifies that much of the current field system in the Shadoxhurst area most likely dates back to the twelfth century, given how the strip fields relate to and respect current boundaries. The medieval decision to cultivate this area may have been encouraged by the lighter nature of the revealed geology in comparison to the surrounding Weald Clay. The head deposits may have favoured for the growing of crops in the region where early arable cultivation is known to have been difficult.

In regard to the dimensions of the strips or selions identified within the site, there is no standardised extent for the great fields of the medieval open-field systems, the furlongs within, or the strips internal to those. Both furlong size and shape varied across the UK and also varied at a local scale. The furlongs of open fields can be as long as 700m in length, whilst the width of individual ridges may reach as much as 20m, with more recent ridge-and-furrow rarely exceeding 5m (Historic England 2018, 8). Consequently, both the smaller and larger internal widths between the perpendicular boundaries at Shadoxhurst could be representative of strip width, with the larger the earlier, and the narrower the later. In general, a striking contrast has been evident in Kent between the small irregularly-shaped blocks of conjoined strips of the Weald and the larger, more rectangular, examples in east Kent (Historic England 2018, 8). However, the LIDAR data in the region of Shadoxhurst suggests at least localised exceptions to this rule exist.

acknowledgements

Archaeology South-East (ASE) would like to thank CgMs Consulting Ltd. (now RPS Group) for commissioning the work and Wendy Rogers of Kent County Council for her guidance throughout the project. At ASE, Paul Mason, Jim Stevenson, Dan Swift and Andrew Margetts provided site and post-excavation management. Hayley Nicholls directed the excavation with assistance from Sophie Austin, Nick Lawrence, Hannah O’Loughlin-Tapp and Gemma Ward (Archaeologists) and Naomi Humphreys and Rob Kaleta (Surveyors). Lucy Allott, Luke Barber, Isa Benedetti-Whitton, Trista Clifford, Anna Doherty, Karine Le Hégarat, and Emily Johnson carried out initial specialist assessments contributing to this publication, whilst Fiona Griffin prepared the illustrations. Andrew Margetts edited the report for publication.

bibliography

ASE, 2017, ‘Archaeological Evaluation Report: Land at Chilmington Green, Ashford, Kent’, Archaeology South-East unpubl. report no. 2017017.

BGS 2019, Geology of Britain viewer, Accessed on 08/08/19.

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html.

Booth, P., Champion, T., Foreman, S., Garwood, P., Glass, H., Munby, J., Reynolds, A. (ed. Smith, A.), 2011, On Track: The Archaeology of High Speed I Section I in Kent, Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monograph No. 4.

CgMs, 2017, ‘Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Land adjacent to The King’s Head Woodchurch Road Shadoxhurst Kent’.

Historic England, 2018, Field Systems: Introduction to Heritage Assets, Swindon.

Margetts, A., 2018, Wealdbaera; Excavations at Wickhurst Green, Broadbridge Heath and the landscape of the West Central Weald, Spoilheap Monograph Series No. 18.

Mills, A.D., 1991, A dictionary of British place names, Oxford: OUP.

Stevenson, J., 2013, Living by the Sword; The Archaeology of Brisley Farm, Ashford, Kent, Spoilheap Monograph Series No. 6.

Fig. 1 Site location, plan of evaluation trenches and subsequent Mitigation Areas

Fig. 2 Photograph of Mitigation Area 3 looking east

Fig. 3 Archaeological sites and the Roman road network in the south Ashford area.

Fig. 4 Period 1 plan; Late Iron Age/Early Roman.

Fig. 5 Photograph of ring gully RG1 looking east. Feature highlighted for clarity.

Fig. 6 Period 2 plan; medieval.

Fig. 7 Lidar Model: Sky View Factor showing probable strip fields to the south-east of the site. Public sector information under the Open Government Licence v3.0.