A Prehistoric Monumental landscape at The Meads, Sittingbourne

ArticlesVolume 144

25 Jun

Written By Jacob Scott

PDF

archaeologia-cantiana-144-04_the_meads_sittingbourne

A prehistoric monumental landscape at The Meads, Sittingbourne

tania wilson

In 1962 aerial photography of the Sittingbourne area recorded cropmarks of a group of four annular features situated just to the north-west of the town. This area, now known as The Meads, was agricultural land at the time and it remained as such up until the 1990s. Since then, the area has seen the establishment of the B2006 Staplehurst Road and, to the north of the cropmarks, housing development during 2000 and 2001. The road development bisected the group of monuments. Archaeological monitoring undertaken during these road and housing developments recorded an absence of archaeological features, but a scatter of late Neolithic to early Bronze Age worked flint was noted in both areas (Stevens 1996; Hutchings 2001, 2). During 2008 and 2012-13, the parcel of land (centred NGR 589352 164771) occupied by the northern two cropmarks was developed, providing an opportunity for Canterbury Archaeological Trust to examine these features archaeologically. The southern cropmarks have since been the subject of archaeological investigation (Kent Historic Environment Record (KHER) MKE114414). The combined results of these investigations confirmed that the cropmarks formed elements of a Neolithic and Bronze Age monumental landscape.

Situated between the villages of Bobbing and Milton Regis (Fig. 1), the four cropmarks occupy an area of relatively flat land within an elbow of higher ground to the north-west and south-west. The fourteenth-century church of St Bartholomew at Bobbing, to the north-west, marks the highest point nearby, at 39m above Ordnance Datum (aod). The cropmark features currently stand at approximately 17.5m aod, with the land giving way gently to the north-east and east towards the Swale, the Isle of Sheppey and Milton Creek. The monuments lie on a north-east to south-west alignment which mirrors the course of a small stream that once ran 150m to the south-east. Based on the First Edition Ordnance Survey (OS) 25-inch map of the area, the stream appears to originate from a point (a spring?) less than 0.5km to the south-west of the monument complex.

The underlying geology within the immediate area of the monuments is mapped as Head deposits of clay and silt overlying Thanet Sand Formation (BGS on-line). Excavation revealed the local sequence to be clay and silt deposits (‘brickearth’) overlying gravel. During the nineteenth century this area, as with much of north Kent, was given over to brickearth extraction. Early OS maps suggested that at least part of the area occupied by the northern pair of cropmarks had been ‘brickearthed’, and excavation confirmed this to be the case. Across the excavation area, quarrying had removed almost all the brickearth, exposing the underlying gravel. It was not possible to gauge the depth of brickearth that had been removed, and therefore the extent to which the monuments had been truncated is unknown. However, based upon the surviving depth of some later features, as much as 1m may have been lost in places.

Until relatively recently, finds of prehistoric date in this area of north Kent were sparse, being represented by a scatter of chance discoveries largely made during the nineteenth century. Perhaps one of the better-known discoveries is the Neolithic site at Grovehurst (Payne 1880, 122-6), which lies approximately 2.5km north-east of The Meads. Here, several large pits were recorded as containing flint implements, pottery, quern-stone and animal bone. Elsewhere, a crouched inhumation, accompanied by a bronze dagger, a stone wrist-guard and a bone object, is recorded from Bell Road, Sittingbourne (Payne 1893, 12), and two ‘urns’ containing bronze artefacts were found in the Crown Quay area (ibid., 13). To the east of The Meads, at Milton Regis, human remains were found in association with a group of bronze axes during brickearth digging in 1864 (KHER TQ96 NW3). Notably, a polished stone axe, found in the Sittingbourne area, is recorded in the ‘First Report of the Sub-Committee of the South-Western Group of Museums and Art Galleries on the Petrological Identification of Stone Axes’, wherein petrological analysis showed the axe to be made of porcellanite, the source of which is Tievebullaigh Hill in County Antrim (Keiller et al. 1941, 64).

Recent development-led archaeological investigations made in the wider area are beginning to shed light on Neolithic and Bronze Age activity in this part of north Kent. Of particular note are the discoveries of significant monuments on the Isle of Sheppey and at Iwade. At Kingsborough on Sheppey, some 11km north-east of The Meads, investigations revealed two adjacent hilltop causewayed enclosures which were probably constructed in the thirty-seventh century cal bc (Allen et al. 2008, 268). Excavations at the village of Iwade, located 2.5km north of The Meads and just west of Grovehurst, revealed evidence for a large double ring-ditched monument accompanied by a smaller double ring-ditch. A Neolithic to early Bronze Age date has been suggested for these monuments (SWAT 2019, 36-9). In addition to these discoveries, a possible prehistoric ring ditch was recorded c.1km south-east of The Meads in 2002-2003 (Jeffery et al. 2014, 279). The site of a middle to late Bronze Age settlement (Diack 2006, vi) lies 2.2km to the north-east.

At The Meads, excavation did not just reveal evidence for prehistoric activity, however. The investigations also encountered a hitherto unknown Anglo-Saxon cemetery (Fig. 1). The cemetery was extensive, comprising more than 200 graves dating to around the mid sixth to late seventh century ad. It seems that the prehistoric earthworks at The Meads acted as a focus for the cemetery, as earlier monuments and structures, particularly prehistoric round barrows, were often favoured as locations for Anglo-Saxon burial sites (Williams 1997, 6).

This report presents an overview of the prehistoric archaeology at The Meads. The Anglo-Saxon cemetery is not reported on here but it is hoped that it will be published separately in due course.

results of the excavation

The earliest activity within the area of The Meads was represented by a small assemblage of worked flint dating to the Mesolithic period. The finds were all residual in later contexts but this group, which includes microliths, one microburin and a tranchet axe, probably represents low-level activity in the area. The assemblage complements a previous discovery made nearby, at Milton Regis, which comprised axes, cores and waste flakes of similar date (Wymer 1977, 158).

Early to middle Neolithic

An increased interest in the area appears to have developed during the early to middle Neolithic period (c.4000-2800 bc), and a number of features have been tentatively attributed to this activity (Fig. 2). Six lengths of interrupted ditch situated between the two cropmarks, may comprise the earliest features. A sinuous north-west to south-east ditch alignment (ditches 51, 540, 819 and 823) produced small quantities of worked and burnt flint, and pottery of early to middle Neolithic date. Just to the west, two sections of a possible east to west aligned ditch were also recorded (447 and 591). This feature produced a similar range of artefacts. Fragments of rims belonging to plain or carinated pottery bowls were recovered from both ditches (McNee 2011a, 3; ditch sections 447 and 823).

Extending across the southern area of the site were a series of pits and possible post-holes, some of which cut these ditches. The features were all filled with a very similar and often quite sterile deposit. Just over half produced no artefacts and many produced only small quantities of worked and burnt flint. Some notable pit assemblages were identified, however, and these produced early to middle Neolithic pottery in addition to larger quantities of worked and burnt flint. One pit produced pottery, burnt flint and eighteen worked flints including three cores, a hammerstone fragment and an incomplete laurel leaf (267). Another pit included pottery and an end-on-blade scraper (556).

Late Neolithic to early Bronze Age

Establishing a firm chronology for the features at The Meads was problematic due to a lack of stratigraphic relationships and a paucity of datable material. However, it is thought that two groups of post-holes situated to the north-east of the earlier features may represent the next principal phase of activity (Fig. 3). These features, representing upright timbers set in two concentric horseshoe arrangements, were situated central to a large circular enclosure ditch (Fig. 3a). Similar examples from across Britain show that, where phasing could be determined, these timber structures generally represent the earliest element of the monument (Gibson 1998, 31). It is on this basis, therefore, that this chronology is suggested.

The timber horseshoe features: these were arranged with the long axis on a north-north-west to south-south-east alignment, with an opening positioned to the south-south-east. The inner horseshoe comprised five evenly spaced post-settings forming an arc which enclosed an area measuring 2m north-north-west to south-south-east, by 3.45m north-east to south-west. The post-holes ranged in size between 0.26m and 0.60m in diameter, with surviving depths of 0.14m to 0.30m. The features produced a small assemblage of worked flint flakes. Notably, the north-north-west post-setting (1177), positioned central to the arc, also produced one oblique arrowhead made on a patinated flake (Fig. 4 (SF3)).

Three post-settings (1171, 1175 and 1210) produced small traces of hazelnut shell (Corylus avellana). Post-hole 1175 also yielded an unidentified wheat grain (Triticum sp.), a possible emmer glume base (cf. Triticum cf. dicoccum) and weed seeds comprising small-seeded vetch/tare (Vicia/Lathyrus sp.), black bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus), dock (Rumex sp.) and lesser stitchwort (Stellaria graminea). Two grains of emmer/spelt wheat (Triticum dicoccum/spelta), a cultivated flax seed (Linum cf. usitatissimum), a vetch/tare seed and an orache seed (Atriplex patula/prostrata) were recovered from post-hole 1210 (Carruthers 2017, 3).

The outer horseshoe comprised fifteen post-settings enclosing an area measuring 7.5m north-north-west to south-south-east by 7m north-east to south-west. The diameter of the post-holes ranged from 0.23m to 0.60m, and the surviving depths between 0.05m and 0.36m. Artefactual material was sparse, no pottery and no identifiable charred plant remains being recovered from this group. However, two flint blades and a double-ended scraper were recovered from one post setting, situated midway along the western limb (1188; Fig. 4 (BF164)).

A further group of four features (1088, 1208, 1228, 1230) may also be associated with the timber structure as they extended across the open end of the outer horseshoe. Each feature yielded small quantities of worked flint and one produced a disc scraper (1208; Fig. 4 (SF6)).

Central to the horseshoes was a roughly subrectangular pit with a flat base (1186), measuring 0.86 x 0.64m. No artefactual material was recovered from this feature, and it remains uncertain whether it was contemporary with the structure.

Nearby, a larger post-setting (1217), measuring 0.76m in diameter and 0.30m deep, was situated at the south-eastern end of the eastern limb of the inner circuit. A single sherd of early Bronze Age pottery was recovered from this feature, alongside a high concentration of charred plant remains including hulled barley (Hordeum sp.), a wide range of weed seeds, sloe stones and hazelnut shell. The weeds included chickweed (Stellaria media), grasses (various small-seeded Poaceae), black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and black bindweed (Carruthers 2017, 3). Fragments of hazelnut shell returned a radiocarbon date of 1768-1611 cal bc (at 2 sigma 95.4% probability; UBA-34597; 3385 +/- 34 bp; intcal13.14c (Reimer et al. 2013)). Given its position, this post-hole could be contemporary with the inner timber circuit but, given its dimensions, and the lack of symmetry this would give to the circuit, a cautious approach to this interpretation is suggested.

One small post-hole (1166), situated a short distance to the south-south-east of the structure and on the alignment of the horseshoe axis, is perhaps contemporary with the timber circuits. This feature, measuring 0.38m in diameter and 0.21m deep, produced a chisel arrowhead (Fig. 4; SF2).

Probable tree throw: this was situated immediately south-west of the timber structure. This large irregular feature (1292) measured 1.86m by 1.76m and 0.24m deep, it produced two flint chips and a single blade.

The curvilinear ditch: to the east of the timber horseshoes, a curvilinear ditch was recorded, extending beyond the limit of excavation to the north-east. This ditch (1029) was U-shaped in profile, with a maximum surviving width of 1.4m and a surviving depth of 0.6m. It is unknown how this feature relates to the timber structure, however this ditch certainly pre-dates the circular enclosure ditch as it was cut by this to the west. There was no evidence to suggest that the curvilinear ditch continued towards the west, raising the possibility that it terminated at the point where it was cut by the later ditch. Burnt and worked flint were recovered from this feature, including a flint rod, which could indicate that it became infilled sometime from the late Neolithic period onwards.

Two post-alignments: these were also identified, situated to the north and north-west of the timber horseshoes. The northern post-alignment comprised five equally spaced post-settings, orientated north-west to south-east, covering a distance of 8.5m. The diameter of these post-holes ranged between 0.30m and 0.35m, with a surviving depth of between 0.11m and 0.20m. One flint flake was recovered from the post-hole situated at the north-west end of the alignment (1387), whilst the post-hole at the south-east end (1395) produced one sherd of pottery which was, unfortunately, too small to be confidently dated.

The north-western post-alignment, measuring 8m in length, also comprised five equally spaced post-settings. These lay on a slightly different alignment from the first, north-north-west to south-south-east, which broadly corresponded with the axis of the timber structure. The post-holes ranged between 0.22m and 0.52m in diameter and were 0.22m to 0.35m in depth. One post-hole (1082) produced one flint flake, the remainder were devoid of finds.

Positioned just to the north-east of this alignment was a large post-pit (1271). The post-pipe suggested that this feature housed a substantial post, with a diameter of around 0.65m.

The dating of the post-alignments is uncertain. However, the proximity of the north-western alignment with the circular enclosure ditch could suggest that the post-alignment is the earlier element. Had the ditch been the earlier feature, it may have impeded the erection of the south-eastern post (1275) and, if the ditch had an external bank, this may have necessitated erecting the post through the bank.

The enclosure ditch: encircling the timber horseshoes was a large annular ditch (1017), with an external diameter of 30m. It was this feature that gave rise to the northernmost cropmark. The surviving dimensions of the ditch measured between 1.0m and 1.7m wide and up to 1.0m deep. The ditch profile was not consistent: in some areas the base was quite narrow, in others broad. Any bank that may have been associated with the ditch had been lost as a result of the brickearth quarrying. The south-eastern section of the ditch extended beyond the site limit and the full circuit was, therefore, not investigated. Thus, if there was an entrance gap in this part of the ditch, it remains unknown.

Around the circuit of the ditch the primary fills were consistent in nature, comprising sterile pale brown silty-clay containing gravel. These deposits probably derived from erosion of the sides of the feature and, perhaps, bank material. Analysis of monolith samples, taken throughout the sequence of ditch fills, confirm that the ditch gradually infilled through the process of muddy silting accompanied by in situ bioworking (Macphail and Crowther 2017, 5). Artefactual material was scarce, comprising a scatter of burnt and worked flint including an end- and side-retouched scraper, a keeled core (Fig. 4; BF85), and pottery. One fragment of hazelnut shell was recovered from these deposits but attempts to establish a radiocarbon date were unsuccessful. Of the small pottery assemblage only three sherds were datable, providing a middle Neolithic date (c.3350-2800 bc). This group included a Peterborough Ware rim sherd with herringbone decoration (McNee 2015, 3).

An early recut into these primary deposits was evident, suggesting the ditch was maintained. Similar processes of erosion and silting gradually infilled this recut. Artefacts were sparse in the latter’s fill, generally comprising a thin scatter of flint debitage around the circuit of the ditch. Towards the north of the circuit, nine small sherds of pottery were scattered, and two flint scrapers and one keeled core were recovered. Unfortunately, the pottery was too small to date confidently. Two discrete and notable groups of artefacts were recorded, however, which may represent structured deposits. The first, situated within the west section of the ditch, comprised a small group of worked flint which included a backed knife, a microlith and a keeled core. At the north-west of the ditch circuit, and in-line with the axis of the timber horseshoe, the second deposit comprised a quantity of burnt unworked flint (45 pieces weighing 522g), flint debitage, one side-retouched scraper, a possible unfinished arrowhead, a fragment of a ground and polished axe (Fig. 4; BF343) and three sherds of comb-decorated Beaker pottery. The ditch was recut again sometime after these deposits were made, and this appears to have begun infilling during the middle Bronze Age (see below).

The burials: further evidence of activity during the Beaker period was recorded to the exterior of the circular enclosure, approximately 60m to the south-west, where a group of burials were discovered. The soil conditions at The Meads were such that the survival of bone was poor to non-existent; however, the evidence to suggest that these features were burials is compelling.

One grave (377) comprised a large subrectangular pit with a flat base, measuring 1.95m by 1.1m with a surviving depth of 0.4m. The pit was aligned north-east to south-west. Situated on the base of the grave at the south-west was a complete (but crushed) Beaker vessel (Plate I) decorated with zones of combed horizontal bands and filled triangles (McNee 2011b, 4). No human remains survived.

Inserted into the upper deposits of the backfilled grave was a second Beaker vessel. This was decorated with comb-impressed zoned horizontal bands, filled triangles and a diagonal ladder motif (ibid.): it contained cremated human bone.

Situated immediately north-east of these burials, lay a large, roughly subrectangular feature, with a flat base, which measured 2.6m in length, 1.95m wide and 0.55m deep. This grave (449) was aligned east to west, but it had been heavily disturbed by a later Anglo-Saxon grave. On the base of the earlier grave, towards the south-west, lay the partial remains of a highly fragmented small Beaker and, nearby, a barbed and tanged arrowhead. The Beaker had opposed oblique decoration which had also been applied to the interior edge of the rim (McNee 2011a, 4). Any traces of human remains were absent.

A circular pit (390), measuring 1.38m by 1.36m wide and 0.35m deep, was situated adjacent to these graves. A barbed and tanged arrowhead and the incomplete remains of a small comb-decorated Beaker were positioned towards its eastern side. It is possible that this small feature represents a child burial but, equally, it may be a memorial deposit.

There was no evidence to suggest that this closely-set group of burials was enclosed by a ditch. It is possible that they represent flat graves, or they may have been covered by a scraped-up barrow mound.

Situated within the circular enclosure and positioned to the north and north-west of the timber horseshoes were two further probable burials. North of the timber horseshoes, one burial (1354) comprised a large, roughly subrectangular pit with a flat base, measuring 2.10m by 1.32m, with a surviving depth of 0.74m. The pit was aligned east to west. At the base of the feature, a slight ‘gully’ had been cut around the edges. The function of this gully is unclear, but it could indicate that the grave was lined with timber. In each corner of the pit, vertical areas of dense carbon-rich deposits were recorded, suggesting that the material had fallen between the side of the pit and such a lining. No evidence for human remains was found, although the feature was certainly large enough to accommodate a burial. On the base of the pit, at the north-east end, lay a probable grave-object, a lump of unworked amber. The feature was infilled by a series of deposits which produced just a few worked flints.

This pit was encompassed to the north and east by a curvilinear feature (1249) measuring 3.7m long, 0.6m wide and 0.4m deep: a post-hole was situated at the north-west terminus. The ditch or gully certainly appears to respect the burial, and on this basis, it is assumed to be contemporary. Given the degree of truncation in this area, it is possible that the feature was originally more extensive, perhaps even fully encircling the putative grave.

The second burial (1213), located at the north-west of the timber horseshoes, comprised an oval pit with a flat base, measuring 1.94m by 1.47 with a surviving depth of 0.73m. The long axis of the pit was aligned north-north-east to south-south-west. Traces of highly degraded bone lay on the base of the feature at the northern end. Unfortunately, these were too fragmentary to identify or recover. Silty deposits with localised areas of carbon-rich soil sealed the bone. A fragment of a possible hawthorn stone (Crataegus sp.) was recovered from one of these deposits (Carruthers 2017, 4). Small quantities of worked flint and late Neolithic pottery were recovered from the upper fills of the grave.

The backfilled grave was later cut by a small pit located towards its south-east side. The pit (1219) measured 0.36m by 0.32m and 0.36m deep. A small, inverted collared urn was deposited in the pit. Unfortunately, due to the truncation of the site, only the upper section of the urn survived (Fig. 5) and there was no evidence to indicate the contents of the vessel. The urn was not decorated and was made with a very soft fabric, suggesting that it had been made to function as a grave offering rather than serving a utilitarian purpose (McNee 2015, 3). In style, the urn is similar to an example from Winterbourne in East Sussex (ibid., 4).

The ring-ditch: to the north-west of the Beaker burials lay a ring-ditch (73), almost certainly representing the remains of a round barrow. The ditch, which had given rise to the second cropmark, was significantly smaller than the circular enclosure ditch to its east, with an external diameter of approximately 15m. The ring-ditch had a variable profile with a surviving width between 0.5m and 1.05m and a surviving depth between 0.3m and 0.65m. The primary silting of the ditch produced burnt and worked flint, including a single platform flake core and a serrated flake, alongside a small quantity of abraded early to middle Neolithic pottery.

Situated within the compass of the ring-ditch, towards its north-western margin, was a large feature which could, potentially, represent a grave (339). This feature comprised a subrectangular pit with a flat base, measuring 1.95m by 0.94m and with a surviving depth of 0.22m. Unfortunately, no artefactual or skeletal material was present.

The ring-ditch was recut, and it seems that this cut infilled gradually. Initial silt deposits were sealed by gravelly deposits, likely derived from erosion of the sides and, perhaps, of a mound. Small quantities of artefacts were recovered from around the ditch circuit, comprising pottery, burnt and worked flint: the majority of the finds were probably residual. Early to middle Neolithic material, including scrapers, serrated pieces, two leaf-shaped arrowheads and a quantity of pottery of this date forms the bulk of this group. However, perhaps more indicative of a later date for this monument, a small quantity of early Bronze Age pottery was also recovered.

Other features: two clusters of features are also worthy of note. Situated to the north-west of the circular enclosure ditch, and at the north end of the post-alignment, lay a group of five irregular elongated features and one post-hole. Small quantities of struck and burnt flint were recovered from each of the large features. The decorated base of a small Beaker vessel, two Beaker sherds and thirty-seven pieces of flint debitage were recovered from one feature (1057), whilst another (1063) produced three sherds of pottery of indeterminate prehistoric date and twenty-four pieces of flint debitage.

About 50m to the south-east of the ring-ditch, and cutting the eastern end of ditch (823), was a short curvilinear feature (773). This measured approximately 4m long, 0.8m wide and up to 0.38m deep. The sides of this feature were scorched, suggesting in situ burning, and the very dark fill produced a wide variety of artefacts: worked and burnt flint, pottery, traces of calcined bone, oyster, mussel and cockle shell, fish bone, hazelnut and charred cereal grain. Just over a kilogram of burnt flint was collected from this feature and the fifty-four worked flints included a fabricator. Only four sherds of pottery, dated to the early to middle Neolithic, were present.

The curvilinear feature was subsequently cut by an oval pit (760), measuring 1.65m by 1.3m and 0.41m deep. The primary fill produced a small quantity of burnt flint and twenty-one worked flints, including two cores, two serrated pieces and a leaf-shaped arrowhead. The subsequent deposit also produced a small assemblage. The upper fill, however, produced some forty-four pieces of worked flint, including four cores and one end-retouched scraper, alongside one sherd of early to middle Neolithic pottery and three sherds of early Bronze Age pottery.

Mid to late Bronze Age

The final recut of the circular enclosure ditch started to infill during the middle Bronze Age. In contrast to the earlier phases of the ditch, which had infilled gradually, the fills of the final recut indicated different processes, represented by a varied sequence of deposits, comprising sterile erosion material, bands of gravel, and dark carbon-rich dumps. Analysis of one of the latter deposits showed the presence of fine charcoal associated with two fragments of fine calcined bone: relatively high levels of organic phosphate were also recorded. It has been hypothesised that this deposit included soils associated with a cremation, in addition to small inputs of dung or humic topsoil (Macphail and Crowther 2017, 5). It appears that episodes of gradual silting and erosion of upcast gravel were punctuated by periodic dumping of material derived, presumably, from nearby occupation.

Artefacts were evenly distributed around the circuit of the recut ditch, recovered from silt, gravel and dark deposits alike. Worked and burnt flint, pottery and small quantities of daub fragments were recovered, in addition to three fragments of ceramic loomweights. Some 980 pieces of worked flint included twenty-three cores and thirty-six retouched pieces including a chisel arrowhead (Fig. 4; BF304), a backed knife, a fabricator and twenty-two scrapers. An assemblage of 152 sherds of pottery was also recovered, spanning the Neolithic period through to the late Bronze Age. Pottery of early to mid Bronze Age date forms the majority, which includes a small number of Beaker and Collared Urn sherds.

The primary fills of the recut produced the full range of artefacts including the chisel arrowhead and the backed knife, along with pottery dated up to the early to mid Bronze Age. Poorly preserved cereal grains (wheat and barley) and hazelnut shell were recovered, although weed seeds were notably scarce (Carruthers 2017, 8). A fragment of hazelnut shell returned a radiocarbon date of 1636-1497 and 1472-1463 cal bc (at 2 sigma 95.4% probability; UBA-34600; 3282 +/- 33 bp; intcal 13.14c (Reimer et al. 2013)). The upper surviving fills produced similar assemblages, with the addition of mid to late Bronze Age pottery.

The cremation burial: despite the enclosure ditch becoming gradually infilled, it probably continued to act as an important feature in the landscape. During this period, a single cremation burial was made, central to the enclosure (Fig. 6; 1169). The grave was heavily truncated but circular in plan, with a diameter of approximately 0.6m and a surviving depth of 0.15m. Central to the grave was an inverted vessel which contained the cremated remains of a juvenile, perhaps 9 to 10 years in age (Gearey 2015, 5).

The vessel was decorated with fingertip impressed cordons, possibly defining rectangular panels, and a middle to late Bronze Age transition date for the vessel has been suggested (1300-1100 bc; McNee 2015 3-4). Wheat and barley (Hordeum vulgare cf. var. nudum) grains, chaff, fragments of sloe stones, hazelnut shell and weed seeds were recovered from below and around the vessel. It has been suggested that the food items were burned separately, and the ash scattered into the grave (Carruthers 2017, 8).

Other features associated with the enclosure: a small number of pits and post-holes were also recorded in the area of the enclosure. However, the dating of these features is tentative as they yielded very little in the way of artefactual material. Some of these features have stratigraphic relationships which has led to the current phasing of these features, others may be subject to a different interpretation.

Four features (1007, 1159, 1239 and 1363) cut the fills of the enclosure ditch recut. Of these, only pit (1007), situated to the south-west, produced any artefacts. The carbon-rich fill yielded small fragments of daub and burnt bone, and five flint flakes. A range of plant remains were also represented which included wild plants; mallow (Malva sp.), woundwort (Stachys sp.), elderberry (Sambucus nigra) and sedge (Carex sp.), in addition to weed seeds, wheat (Triticum sp.) and two emmer/spelt grains (Carruthers 2017, 5). The last returned a radiocarbon date of 1740-1712 cal bc, 1698-1595 cal bc and 1589-1531 cal bc (at 2 sigma 95.4% probability; UBA-34599; 3351 +/- 36 bp; intcal 13.14c (Reimer et al. 2013)).

A post-hole (1269) and a pit (1365) cut burial 1354 (Fig. 3a). No artefacts were recovered from the post-hole and only a very small quantity of burnt and worked flint came from the pit.

Ditches and a hollow-way: a short distance to the north and east of the circular enclosure, a series of ditches and a hollow-way lay on a north-west to south-east alignment. The earliest ditch (1041) in the sequence measured 1.28m wide, with a surviving depth of 0.33m. It had a single silty fill, which produced a small assemblage of worked and burnt flint and three sherds of undatable pottery. The ditch probably filled in gradually. However, in one location, the remains of an articulated young cow were discovered. The animal was not entirely complete, the cranium and the tail were absent, but it is possible that these parts were lost during modern truncation. It seems that the cow was buried shortly after death. There was no evidence for butchery or skinning although the legs seem to have been broken prior to burial (Kausmally 2015, 2).

Situated immediately to the north-east of this ditch, and on a similar alignment, was a hollow-way (1027). This linear feature measured 3.3m wide with a surviving depth of 0.32m. In places flint, including worked and burnt pieces, had been pressed into its base. Whilst this material was not densely packed, it survived in sufficient quantity to suggest that this was deliberately deposited to provide hardstanding.

The hollow-way gradually infilled and was subsequently cut by a gully (1025) on the same alignment. This feature measured 0.82m wide with a surviving depth of 0.4m deep. The gully had a single fill which produced worked flint and pottery dated mid to late Bronze Age. This was in turn cut by a later ditch (1002) which measured 1.6m wide with a surviving depth of 0.5m, with a rounded terminus to the north-west. The ditch had a single silty fill suggesting that it gradually filled up.

Just to the north-east of this sequence of ditches, and on the same alignment, lay one further ditch (1004), measuring 1.38m wide and with a surviving depth of 0.6m. It was filled with a single deposit of silty material which produced small quantities of worked flint and pottery dated to the late Bronze Age period.

To the west, south of the ring-ditch, the partial remains of what may represent a co-axial field system were recorded. These features comprised a series of ditches (305) aligned north-east to south-west and north-west to south-east. The ditches survived for a maximum distance of 35m, with a surviving depth of 0.21m. No doubt once more extensive, the ditches appear to respect the position of the ring-ditch. No dateable evidence was recovered from them.

Later use of the monument complex

There appears to have been a hiatus in activity following the Bronze Age period. One possible late Iron Age to early Roman ditch (Fig. 7) bisected the study area and lay on a north-west to south-east alignment. A small assemblage of residual Roman pottery and tile was also recovered.

By the Anglo-Saxon period, the circular enclosure ditch may have been completely infilled. However, the burial mound associated with the ring-ditch, and probable mounds related to the cropmarks to the south, no doubt survived as landscape features. During the sixth century ad the mounds acted as foci for the development of a large cemetery.

There was little evidence for subsequent activity in the area until the post-medieval period, when the land was quarried for raw material for brick production. A number of features associated with these activities were identified, including a north-west to south-east aligned gully which cut the north-eastern edge of the enclosure ditch.

discussion

This area has attracted people since the Mesolithic period, when groups of hunter-gatherers visited or passed through. It was during the early to middle Neolithic period, however, that the location began to take on a greater significance. Pottery and worked flint dating to this period suggest increased activity in the area, and features comprising ditches and pits may be associated.

At present, the nature of this activity is unclear, but the relatively small quantities of artefacts of this date could suggest that the site was visited periodically rather than functioning as a permanent settlement. Whether the area was open grassland or a woodland clearing at this point we do not know. To the north-east, at Kingsborough on the Isle of Sheppey, environmental evidence suggested that, when the enclosures there were constructed, the area was open grassland and that woodland had been cleared many centuries earlier (Allen et al. 2008, 278-279). Whilst this site lies some distance from The Meads it certainly suggests that areas of woodland in the region were becoming cleared during the early Neolithic period. At the site of Ringlemere in east Kent, a site which shares many similarities with The Meads, analysis of buried topsoil sealed by a mound constructed during the early Bronze Age indicated woodland clearance followed by long-term pasture (Parfitt and Needham 2019, 17).

The relationship between the early Neolithic occupation at The Meads and the causewayed enclosures at Kingsborough is equally unclear. It is possible that the sites are contemporary, but only the broadest of date ranges is available for The Meads (c.4000-2800 bc). The construction and use of the enclosures at Kingsborough have been dated to c.3700-3500 cal bc (ibid., 268). Although at some distance, activities at The Meads could have been visible from Kingsborough, as the mainland site would have fallen within the viewshed of the southern enclosure (see Allen et al. 2008, fig. 17).

Following an apparent hiatus, perhaps for as much as a millennium, occupation at The Meads resumed during the later Neolithic/early Bronze Age period. A range of factors may have played a part in the selection of this location as a favoured place. The situation, within an arc of slightly higher ground and close to a stream, may have played a role, or perhaps an earlier woodland clearing had endured. Reoccupation of certain locations has been recorded at a number of sites (Field 2004, 155-6), in some cases with activity dated to the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age periods. At Ringlemere, Mesolithic flintwork and an early Neolithic structure were succeeded by late Neolithic occupation and monument building (Parfitt and Needham 2019, 269-70). It has been suggested that factors comprising a combination of the local environment, perhaps an overgrown clearing with flora different from the surrounding area, and the presence of ‘ancestral’ artefacts on the ground may have imbued the locality with a special significance (Field 2004, 155-6).

Activities at this time turned towards monument building, perhaps commencing with the construction of the timber horseshoes. These can be compared broadly to the larger, single circuit example of late Neolithic date recorded at Ringlemere, which shares a similar alignment, with an opening towards the south-east (Parfitt and Needham 2019, 31). At both sites, the timber horseshoes were encompassed by circular ditches. Evidence from similar sites suggests that timber circles/horseshoes generally pre-date enclosure ditches (Gibson 1998, 31), although this is not exclusively so. At Ringlemere, the timber horseshoe was encircled by an enclosure ditch which is thought to have been constructed later (Parfitt and Needham 2019, 281) and, in the absence of firm dating, it is suggested that this was also the case for The Meads.

At The Meads, paucity of datable material makes it difficult to understand the construction sequence. An oblique arrowhead was recovered from the inner horseshoe and, assuming the item was introduced to the feature when it was cut, rather than following removal or decay of the post, this could indicate a late Neolithic date for the construction of the structure. There is no certainty that the concentric horseshoes are contemporary, and one circuit could represent a replacement of, or a later addition to, the other. It is notable that fewer finds, particularly plant remains, were present within the post-settings for the outer horseshoe. This could indicate different treatment or activities associated with each of the timber circuits. However, it is not clear whether the material associated with the inner circuit became incorporated into the feature before the installation of the posts or after they were removed or decayed.

The earliest phase of enclosure ditch at Ringlemere probably had an external bank, bearing the characteristics of a henge-type monument (Parfitt and Needham 2019, 95). The use of the ‘henge’ classification is currently the subject of some discussion, as the range of monuments placed under this category is becoming increasingly diverse (Gibson 2012, 17). However, this term essentially describes an enclosure with a ditch inside a bank which, in some instances, encircled timber or stone circles. The north-eastern monument at The Meads might have shared similar characteristics, but evidence to support this is lacking: truncation has removed any indication of the location of a putative bank, and no entrance has been identified. It is possible, however, that an entrance was situated in the unexcavated section of the ditch, to the south-east, in line with the axis of the timber horseshoes.

The north-west post-alignment lies along the line of the north-north-west to south-south-east axis of the horseshoes suggesting that, if not contemporary, the earliest structure was still extant to inform the orientation of the latter. The contemporaneity of the second post-alignment is unclear. Similar post-alignments have been recorded elsewhere in Kent, on the Isle of Thanet. However there, the alignments were on a larger scale. In Thanet, just west of Mount Pleasant roundabout on the A253, one alignment of post-holes covered a distance of 23m and contained a placed deposit of Neolithic date. Near Monkton, a post-pit alignment was traced for a distance of 100m: the relationship between this alignment and nearby Beaker burials suggested that the posts were visible during the Beaker period (Bennett et al. 2008, 91-92).

The supposition at The Meads, then, is that the enclosure ditch post-dates the timber structures. Had the ditch been constructed first, this feature would have formed a physical barrier, potentially hindering the erection of the timber horseshoe. Further, erection of the north-western post-alignment would, potentially, have necessitated excavation through an outer bank had the ditch been earlier. That the enclosure ditch and the timber horseshoes were broadly contemporary must, however, be the case as the positioning of the timber structure central to the ditch surely indicate that one was visible to inform the position of the other.

The inclusion of a placed deposit containing Beaker pottery within the fills of a recut of the enclosure ditch may provide a terminus ante quem for the ditch construction. Sherds of Beaker pottery were recovered from a small number of features across the site. However, the group of Beaker burials located south-west of the timber horseshoes are particularly notable. The Beakers recovered from the larger graves share similarities with Clarke’s European Group, which may suggest an early phase of Beaker activity (McNee 2011a, 5; McNee 2011b, 5). At present our understanding of these burials is limited but it is tempting to suggest that this represents a family group.

Perhaps slightly later in date, based on the absence of Beaker vessels, are the two graves located within the ambit of the enclosure ditch. One of these may have been timber-lined, and it contained a lump of unworked amber as a probable grave offering. This find represents only the fourth discovery of amber from an early Bronze Age context in Kent. The other examples being an amber necklace from Longfield, fragments of a pommel and a pendant from Ringlemere (Needham et al. 2006, 39-41), and an amber necklace at Thanet Earth (Rady and Holman 2019, 79). The survival of an arc of ditch around this burial suggests it was encompassed with a ring-ditch and covered with a mound. The second grave had no evidence of ditch or mound and did not have any grave goods. It was, however, notable for the later insertion of an inverted Collared Urn into the upper fills of the burial.

Development of the round barrows to the south of the monument may also have occurred around this time. Unfortunately, dateable material from the excavated ring-ditch was sparse and a suggested date for construction during the early Bronze Age is based largely on morphology. The results of fieldwork undertaken more recently in the area of the southern pair of cropmarks have also suggested a Bronze Age date for these monuments (KHER MKE114414). At Ringlemere, late Neolithic to early Bronze Age activity, including the timber horseshoe, was succeeded by the construction of a mound around the turn of the third to second millennium bc (Parfitt and Needham 2019, 282-3). A group of ring-ditches identified at Ringlemere represent a barrow cemetery which developed alongside this (ibid., fig. 1.4), portraying a similar monument complex to that at The Meads.

We know that the enclosure ditch and the barrow ditch were both recut, this implying that the ceremonial landscape was maintained for some time. However, by the middle Bronze Age, attitudes towards the monuments appear to change. The northern enclosure ditch was left to silt-up and, periodically, other material was deliberately deposited within the cut. These deposits contained charcoal, early to mid Bronze Age pottery, fragments of loomweights, plant remains including cereals, and phosphate-rich material. This suite of artefactual and environmental material would suggest that the material for deposition was brought to the site from a nearby settlement. Some evidence suggests that these deposits comprised or included midden material, as eroded plant remains, residual flintwork and trampled pottery were present.

The duration of these periodic visits is uncertain, but they were punctuated by episodes of silting, so it is possible that this practise endured for some time. Middle to late Bronze Age pottery is represented within the latest of these deposits. Around this time, the cremated remains of a juvenile, perhaps 9 to 10 years in age, was interred within an inverted vessel in a central position within the enclosure. Single burials of this date are poorly represented in current archaeological data (Caswell and Roberts 2018, 344). However, a ring-ditch encompassing a single unurned cremation burial, dated 1505-1315 cal bc, is recorded 2.5km to the north-east, at Kemsley (Dawkes 2019, 11). Two small cremation cemeteries, dated 1430-1260 cal bc and 1260-970 cal bc, were recorded at Kingsborough (Allen et al. 2008, 282), and recent excavation at Iwade recorded two pits containing cremated human remains dated 1300-1030 cal bc (Bishop and Bagwell 2005, 15). Recent assessment of middle Bronze Age cremation burials in Britain has suggested that only a minority of the population would have been buried in this manner (Caswell and Roberts 2018, 343).

Certainly then, more-or-less local occupation at this time seems likely. Settlement is recorded to the north-east at Kemsley, where round-houses, pits and enclosure ditches were observed (Diack 2006, 9). However, other settlement activity nearer to The Meads cannot be ruled out. Associated with settlement, agricultural field systems have been recorded at Kemsley and at Iwade, where a late Bronze Age trackway was also discovered (Bishop and Bagwell 2005, 16). At The Meads, a hollow-way with associated ditches to the north of the monument group, and traces of a co-axial field system, are indicative of agriculture and movement of both people and animals across this landscape.

We do not know how this monumental landscape was perceived by the later Bronze Age population. The periodic dumping of deposits in the enclosure ditch may have been a ceremonial act or simply the disposal of rubbish. However, this visibly humanly modified landscape must have held some significance and, perhaps, was mentioned in oral histories and traditions. The burial of the individual within the enclosure, and the placing of the cow in the ditch nearby, may have been an act of memorial or recognition of the ancestors.

Centuries later, this landscape of round barrows must have resonated with the local Anglo-Saxon population. The latter’s cemetery appears to follow a broad north-east to south-west alignment echoing that of the barrows, but it does not extend as far as the north-eastern enclosure. This could suggest that, by this time, this earthwork was no longer visible and, further, infer an absence of a mound within this monument. The round barrows, however, must have been extant and whilst we cannot fully understand the reasons for selecting this site as a location for the burial of the dead, there seems a clear desire to maintain a relationship with these features.

During the nineteenth century, brick-production was underway on an industrial-scale in the Sittingbourne area. Societal views changed towards looking to the future rather than maintaining links with the past. The barrows were levelled during brick-earth extraction and the ‘place’ was lost to industry and progress.

Postscript

In response to the discoveries made at The Meads, Canterbury Archaeological Trust, in partnership with Woodland Wildlife Hidden Histories and local volunteers, created a new ‘place’. Situated in The Meads Community Woodland, located just south of the site, a new timber horseshoe and a post-alignment were erected using the plan of the original footprint of the structures (Plate II). Some families chose to erect their own ‘family post’ perhaps repeating ancient practices – we do not and cannot know. The site provides a place to visit and revisit, re-establishing a link with the former use of this landscape.

acknowledgements

This report includes contributions by Wendy Carruthers, John Crowther, Sarah Gearey, Tania Kausmally, Richard Macphail and Barbara McNee. Elements of the archaeological programme were commissioned and funded by Abbey Homes, Marshgate Developments and Marston’s Inns and Taverns. CgMs Consulting acted as archaeological consultants. The project was monitored by Simon Mason and Adam Single on behalf of Heritage Conservation Group, Kent County Council.

Over the three phases of fieldwork, the excavation was directed by Tania Wilson with the assistance of a large body of staff and volunteers too numerous to mention in person. Thanks are due to all for their enthusiasm and hard work. Digital survey was conducted by Crispin Jarman, and Emma Boast and Paul Hart of Trust for Thanet Archaeology. Environmental archaeology and radiocarbon dating co-ordination was the responsibility of Enid Allison. Finds processing was undertaken by Rose Broadley, Michele Johnson, Jacqui Matthews, Andrew Richardson and Helen Swaffer. Dana Goodburn-Brown provided on-site conservation services and advice. Subsequently, she conceived and led the ‘CSI Sittingbourne’ project, in partnership with Canterbury Archaeological Trust and Sittingbourne Heritage Museum. The figures in this report were prepared by Peter Atkinson. The project was managed by Richard Helm and Andrew Richardson.

bibliography

Allen, M.J., Leivers, M. and Ellis, C., 2008, ‘Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures and Later Prehistoric Farming: duality, imposition and the role of predecessors at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, UK’, PPS, 74, 235-322.

Bennett, P., Clark, P., Hicks, A., Rady, J. and Riddler, I., 2008, At the Great Crossroads: prehistoric, Roman and medieval discoveries on the Isle of Thanet 1994–95, Canterbury Archaeological Trust Occasional Paper 4.

BGS on-line, Geology of Britain Viewer, British Geological Survey (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/mapViewers/home.html).

Bishop, B. and Bagwell, M., 2005, Iwade: occupation of a North Kent village from the Mesolithic to the medieval period, Pre-Construct Archaeology Monograph 3.

Carruthers, W. J., 2017, ‘The Meads, Sittingbourne: the charred plant remains’, unpublished specialist report produced for Canterbury Archaeological Trust

Caswell, E., and Roberts, B.W., 2018, ‘Reassessing Community Cemeteries: cremation burials in Britain during the Middle Bronze Age (c 1600-1150 cal BC)’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 84, 329-357

Dawkes, G., 2019, Living by the creek: excavations at Kemsley, Sittingbourne, Kent, SpoilHeap Publications Occasional Paper 10.

Diack, M., 2006, A Bronze Age settlement at Kemsley, near Sittingbourne, Kent, Canterbury Archaeological Trust Occasional Paper 3.

Field, D., 2004, ‘Sacred geographies in the Neolithic of south-east England’, in J. Cotton and D. Field (eds), Towards a New Stone Age: aspects of the Neolithic in south-east England, CBA Research Report 137, 154-163.

Gearey, S.J., 2015, ‘Osteological Assessment of Cremated Human Remains from The Meads, Sittingbourne, Kent’, unpubl. specialist report produced for Canterbury Arch-aeological Trust.

Gibson, A., 1998, Stonehenge and Timber Circles, Tempus.

Gibson, A., 2012, ‘An Introduction to the Study of Henges: time for a change?’, in A. Gibson (ed.), Enclosing the Neolithic: recent studies in Britain and Europe, BAR International Series 2440, 1-20.

Hutchings, P., 2001, ‘Land at The Meads, Bobbing residential development: watching and Recording Brief’, unpubl. Canterbury Archaeological Trust Client Report 2001/22

Jeffery, E., Cotton, J. and Potter, G., 2014, ‘A ring ditch in Sittingbourne’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 135, 268-280.

Kausmally, T., 2015, ‘Animal bone assessment: TMS, Canterbury, Kent’, unpubl. specialist report produced for Canterbury Archaeological Trust

Keiller, A., Piggott, S., and Wallis, F.S., 1941, ‘First Report of the Sub-Committee of the South-Western Group of Museums and Art Galleries on the Petrological Identification of Stone Axes’, PPS, 7, 50-72

Longworth, I.H., 1984, Collared Urns of the Bronze Age in Britain and Ireland, Cambridge University Press.

Macphail, R.I., and Crowther, J., 2017, ‘The Meads, Sittingbourne, Kent; soil micromor-phology, chemistry and magnetic susceptibility’, unpubl. specialist report produced for Canterbury Archaeological Trust.

McNee, B., 2011a, ‘The Meads (TMS II 08) Assessment Report: prehistoric pottery’, unpubl.specialist report produced for Canterbury Archaeological Trust.

McNee, B., 2011b, ‘The Meads (TMS EX 08) Assessment Report: prehistoric pottery’, unpubl. specialist report produced for Canterbury Archaeological Trust.

McNee, B., 2015, ‘The Meads (TMS EX 12) Assessment Report: prehistoric pottery’, unpubl. specialist report produced for Canterbury Archaeological Trust.

Needham, S., Parfitt, K. and Varndell, G. (eds), 2006, The Ringlemere Cup: precious cups and the beginning of the Channel Bronze Age, British Museum Research Publication 163.

Parfitt, K. and Needham, S., 2012, ‘Ringlemere: a pit/post horseshoe and henge monument in East Kent’, in A. Gibson (ed), Enclosing the Neolithic: recent studies in Britain and Europe, BAR International Series 2440, 81-91.

Parfitt, K. and Needham, S., 2019, Ceremonial Living in the Third Millennium BC: excavation at Ringlemere Site M1, Kent, 2002–2006, British Museum.

Payne, G., 1880, ‘Celtic remains discovered at Grovehurst, in Milton-next-Sittingbourne’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 13, 122-126.

Payne, G., 1893, Collectanea Cantiana, London.

Rady, J. and Holman, J., 2019, Beneath the Seamark: 6,000 years of an Island’s History: archaeological investigations at ‘Thanet Earth’, Kent 2007–2012, vol 1, chronological narrative, Canterbury Archaeological Trust Technical Report 2.

Reimer, P.J. et al., 2013, ‘IntCal13 and MARINE13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50000 years cal BP’, Radiocarbon 55(4) (DOI: 10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947).

Stevens, S., 1996, ‘An Archaeological Watching Brief During the Construction of the B2006 Staplehurst Road Link, Sittingbourne, Kent’, unpubl. Archaeology South-East Client Report

SWAT, 2019, ‘Archaeological Excavations on Land Adjacent to Coleshall Farm, Iwade, Kent (2011–2016): post-excavation assessment, vol. 1’, unpubl. Swale and Thames Survey Company Client Report.

Williams, H., 1997, ‘Ancient Landscapes and the Dead: the reuse of prehistoric and Roman monuments as Early Anglo-Saxon burial sites’, Medieval Archaeology, 41, 1-32.

Wymer, J.J. (ed.), 1977, Gazetteer of Mesolithic sites in England and Wales, CBA Research Report 20.