Emerging patterns in the SE corner

Champion, writing in 1980 observed that the prehistory of Kent and especially the Bronze Age had been sadly neglected with interest focused instead on all things Roman, Saxon and Medieval (1980, 223). While Bronze Age settlement and pottery evidence was limited, one category of material was plentiful – the metalwork. Figure 3.1 shows the finds spots of Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age metalwork up to 2003.

The wealth derived from participation in an increasingly cosmopolitan world is clearly seen in the accumulating scale of metal deposition.

The increase in prestige weaponry in circulation

The Straits of Dover and the Thames Estuary 21

with an even greater emphasis on ostentatious objects and depositional cult practices is of particular interest – suggesting that social elites had developed by the Late Bronze Age. The range of weaponry and ornaments originating from the great river communities of north-west Europe (particularly the Seine and Somme) suggests a close bond between peoples on either side of the Channel.

Champion in his synthesis of Bronze Age Kent concluded that by the Late Bronze Age the focus of activity was riverine, estuarine and coastal (1980, 229). Twenty years on and with the benefit of a considerably greater database that same pattern holds true (2001; 2004). Figure 3.2 shows the effect of the first dozen years of developer-funded work in the county resulting in a remarkable increase in known settlement and, more spectacularly, the discovery of the structured fields associated with the farmsteads. The pace of discovery continues to accelerate. The county is experiencing an extraordinary construction boom generated by its lead role in European Community initiatives.

Without the integration of archaeology into the planning and development process much of this knowledge would not have been recorded.

Despite the vast range of metalwork discovered in the county little was known until recently of Bronze Age settlement and even less of the associated farming practices. Developer-funded archaeology has made a significant breakthrough in this respect. The scale and frequency of evaluation and excavation work, allowing large areas to be stripped, has started to reveal the field systems, stock enclosures, waterholes and droveways that had proved so elusive. The evidence now available suggests a regime of highly organised mixed farming with livestock rearing a special priority.

Figure 3.3 records the location of the settlements, field systems and other forms of land boundary. The choice of prime sites made by these farmers is quite apparent, revealing a preference for coasts, major river valleys and estuary foreshores. At the start of the approach to the Thames, land divisions and settlement concentrations are found on either side of the Wantsum Channel, a key navigation route for inter-regional traffic. On the Reculver Peninsula and out towards Whitstable there is a particular intensity of land use. The coastline here has been severely eroded since the Bronze Age (Allen 1997;

So 1966; 1971), so what evidence remains (and it

Figure 3.1 Bronze Age metalwork in Kent. Compiled from data supplied by Martyn Barber. The maps show the accumulating scale of metal deposition and the importance attached to key routeways, particularly the Wantsum Channel in the north east corner of the county

Land, Power and Prestige 22

is spectacular) offers only a partial insight into a tract of heavily populated coastline. Further west, settlement and land management are apparent on either side of the lower reaches of the River Medway, particularly the brickearths on the southern part of the Hoo peninsula opposite Gillingham.

The pattern of settlement and land use on the northern coast of Kent is reflected on the other side of the estuary. From one of the highest points on the Isle of Sheppey, the ringwork located at Kingsborough Farm, it was possible to look north across the Thames estuary to Southend on Sea. That commanding peninsula has a high volume of metal deposition, which is matched by intense settlement activity and field construction

(Couchman 1980; Wymer and Brown 1995). The cluster of settlements and regimented lands at Southend borders directly on the estuary and this zone forms a definable enclave of intense activity in marked contrast to surrounding land use in South Essex. The first ditched land divisions appear in the Middle Bronze Age and there are further developments in the Late Bronze Age.

Three sites to date are of Middle Bronze Age origin and none suggests continuity into the Late Bronze Age. Excavation at North Shoebury shows that the abandoned Middle Bronze Age enclosures are respected in part by later agricultural boundaries to the south and east. There are four Late Bronze Age field sites including two developer-funded projects at London Southend Airport. These Figure 3.2 The first dozen years of commercial work in Kent. Commercial work has greatly increased the record of Later Bronze Age settlement and land division. The maps show the contrast between recorded sites in 1990 and 2002

The Straits of Dover and the Thames Estuary 23

recorded components of a Late Bronze Age coaxial field system showed no evidence of continuity into the Early Iron Age. In contrast at the North Shoebury site, the major Late Bronze Age boundary remained in use for a considerable time and formed the axis of the subsequent

Early Iron Age settlement (Wymer and Brown 1995, 21). The exceptional environmental work associated with the Hullbridge project provides some insights into activity during the Late Bronze Age. The Hullbridge Crouch 22 site produced a wooden structure or hurdle likely to have Figure 3.3 The Straits of Dover and the Thames estuary: Later Bronze Age fields, enclosures and droveways.

1. Church Lane, Dagenham. 2. Bridge Road, Rainham. 3. South Hornchurch. 4. Site nine. Horndon to Barking pipeline. 5. Whitehall Wood. 6. Site five. Horndon to Barking pipeline. 7. William Edwards School. 8. Site four.

Horndon to Barking pipeline. 9. Baker Street, Orsett. 10. Gun Hill. 11. Linford. 12. Mucking. 13. Eastwood.

14 and 15. Southend Airport. 16. Butlers Farm. 17. Wick Farm. 18. North Shoebury. 19. Baldwin Farm.

20. Great Wakering. 21. Princes Road. 22. Coldharbour Road. 23. Cobham Golf Course. 24. Hoo St. Werburgh.

25. Lenham. 26. Kemsley Fields. 27. Shrubsoles Hill. 28. Brisley Farm. 29. Little Stock Farm. 30. Church Lane East. 31. South Street. 32. Radfall Corner. 33. Churchwood Drive. 34. Eddington Farm. 35. Willow Farm. 36. Beltinge Cliff. 37. Holywell Coombe. 38. Monkton Court Farm. 39. Ebbsfleet Farm. 40. Manston Road. 41. Ramsgate Harbour. 42. Northdown School. 43. RM Barracks, Deal. 44. Erith. 45. Joyce Green Lane.

46. Springhead. 47. Temple east of Springhead. 48. West of Church Road. 49. Snodland. 50. High Halstow.

51. Thurnham. 52. Malmaynes Hall Farm. 53. Damhead Creek. 54. Middle Stoke. 55. Tutt Hill. 56. Westhawk Farm. 57. West of Blind Lane. 58. Church Lane, Smeeth. 59. Link Park, Lympne. 60. Dence Park. 61. Bogshole Lane. 62 and 63. Herne Bay pipeline. 64. Netherhale Farm. 65. White Horse Wood. 66. Minster Abbey.

67. Kingsborough Farm. 68. Castle Street, Canterbury. 69. Highstead. 70. South Dumpton Down. 71. Mill Hill. 72. Hawkinge Aerodrome. 73. Dover Boat. 74. Langdon Bay. Site details in Table 3

Land, Power and Prestige 24

been associated with seasonal sheep handling dated 1130–800 cal. BC (HAR-5736; 2800±70BP) (Wilkinson and Murphy 1995, 136). The discovery of an increasing number of loomweights on the peninsula might also suggest textile manufacture and inter-regional exchange of which woollen cloth formed a part.

This land block seems to have been affected by the cessation of exchange networks at the end of the Bronze Age. Some of the field systems were Figure 3.4 Westhawk Farm, Ashford, Kent. Derived from Booth and Lawrence 2000. Two episodes of formal land division were encountered: construction phases separated by a thousand years

abandoned and generally there are far fewer Early Iron Age sites in the Southend peninsula than Late Bronze Age ones. These Early Iron Age sites also appear to reflect a greater degree of self-sufficiency (Wymer and Brown 1995, 157).

Communities on both sides of the Thames estuary were therefore active players in this important zone of exchange and contact. At the head of the estuary at Gravesend and Mucking coaxial land division also defined and reserved new land resources either side of the narrowing Thames channel (Yates 2001).

One cluster of land division seems not to adhere to the established riverine, estuarine and coastal pattern; a group of inland field blocks close to Ashford in Kent, including Westhawk Farm (Figure 3.4). Whilst they are sited near the head of Great Stour River, they are not in the main valley and are some distance from the Wantsum Channel and the sea. Not only do these sites appear relatively land locked but also the ground here can be difficult. For example, the paddocks and boundaries built at Brisley Farm cover some of the worst clay soils imaginable (Plate 3). In consequence the dedicated excavators, having experienced appalling ground conditions during excavation, nicknamed the place “Grizzly Farm”.

The appropriation of this poor ground (for livestock rearing) provides some indication of the pressure on land during the Later Bronze Age.

When its close proximity to the southern Bronze Age coast is noted that value is better understood.

That ancient shoreline is now many miles from the present coast, trapped by the extensive tract of land called Romney Marsh.