Sampling issues

Before the advent of commercial excavation there were less than half a dozen excavated lowland Bronze Age field systems in Southern England, now there are more than three hundred and the number continues to grow. Arguably, their detection (and the confirmation of zones where they were absent) is one of the greatest achievements of developer-funding. Two major challenges, however, have emerged; first, how should field units proceed when they encounter the monumental scale of this new form of ‘site’

(some can exceed 400 hectares and, while the structural features may be slight, the enclosed area can be immense)? Secondly, after over a decade of contract digging comes the realisation that such formally planned structures are immensely complex in terms of construction conventions, phasing and the incorporation of ritualised practices. Unlocking the intricacies on such potentially large scale sites requires the development of a new set of strategies and sampling methodologies to increase our understanding of the organisation of the landscape in the late second – early first millennium BC.

New approaches are required because present ones are failing. Despite their scale and complexity, typically formal land blocks receive relatively scant attention in project work compared with identifiable farmstead boundaries and buildings. They are recurrently on the bottom rung of sampling priorities often meriting a 1%

investigation of the field ditches and at best 5%.

The soils, small pits and scoops which are framed by those borders have an even lower priority.

Where waterholes are encountered they might not be bottomed out because the sections lie below the line of development foundations, or their depth would entail significant costs.

The effect of such sampling shortfalls is considerable. Excavation under such limitations

makes it difficult to pin down the dating of the land boundaries and the sophistication of their use. Limited sampling cannot achieve preservation by record. If the existing sampling frameworks cannot resolve their genesis and use, the presumption should therefore be preservation by scheduling.

It might be argued that the discovery of field systems cannot be predicted and therefore any encounter in large area strips requires pragmatic solutions. The pattern of enclave or niche construction, however, suggests that it is now possible to anticipate their detection in certain lowland zones. New regional strategies need to be agreed in anticipation of further development pressures. The sampling strategy critically needs to be improved. Increasing the sample strategy is essential on three counts: –

a) the need for chronological precision.

b) the need to integrate palaeo-environmental analysis in the commercial contracts.

c) the need to investigate the subtleties of these areas of conspicuous production.

We shall look at each of these issues in turn before reflecting on the development of economic and social models and predictive modelling.

14.1.1 The paucity of dateable material and the need for chronological precision.

A major obstacle to our understanding of the development and demise of coaxial field systems is often a sketchy chronological framework. Locating dateable remains that relate to the construction/

initial use of the field system may not always be easy or even possible. There is also the problem of residual artefacts found in the ditch fills and curated Neolithic and Early Bronze Age artefacts placed there in the Later Bronze Age. Frequently,

Land, Power and Prestige 140

it is impossible to resolve the dating of the land boundaries (with the sampling budgeted for in the commercial contracts) and dating becomes reliant on morphological comparison. Often the features are broadly assigned to the conventional pigeonholes of Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age: eras used throughout this book since they continue to dominate excavation reports. The use of absolute dating techniques in commercial work remains the exception rather than the rule, despite the fall in laboratory fees. The remedy is an insistence that radiocarbon dating becomes routine. It should be possible to acquire a suite of AMS dates from all such future sites, and where appropriate, this should be accompanied by programmes of thermoluminescence dating (Palmer 2003). Developments in the dating of lipid residues from pottery should also yield a timed ceramic sequence. We need well-dated sites and well-dated field systems, with the routine use of radiocarbon determination alongside other dating methods. If such a stipulation is adopted across whole regions it should be possible to look more closely at local prehistories during the eight hundred-year span of the first wave of coaxial fields.

So what will greater chronological precision enable us to explore? Firstly, it has to be said that the late second and early first millennium BC field systems analysed in this research are one era of landscaping sandwiched between a succession of different attempts to shape and reshape the countryside. Hence the use of the term landscape palimpsest – just like medieval parchment the land surface has been reworked over time with previous earthworks being erased and overwritten by new landscape configurations. Chronological precision will provide a clearer insight into different building and maintenance phases, claims and counter claims on the land, and the longevity of settlements within a competitive world with all the fluidity of changing political fortunes that has entailed. We could also attempt to place the emergence of field systems in relation to the wider prehistoric woodland clearance phases. Finally, we can explore the genesis and spread of the adoption of this new form of land allotment. When did the innovation start and, ultimately, how sudden was the decline in the social significance of this emblem of land tenure? Absolute dating will also enable us to explore the uptake of new plant and animal species throughout Britain.

Less than 2% of the gazetteer entries pre-date

the mid second millennium BC. All are notoriously difficult to date very closely – a task complicated by Later Bronze Age people who customarily placed curated artefacts in the field structures.

The identification of the earliest permanent land divisions therefore poses especial problems in fieldwork.

Along the Thames valley and approaches the earliest examples of farming infrastructure were preserved by being deeply buried. A hollow way routed through a zone of ard mark ploughing at Holywell Coombe, Folkestone was sealed by colluvial deposits at the foot of the steep escarpment of the North Downs (Bennett et al. 1998). Similar ard-ploughing evidence and fragments of boundaries have also been found at Lambeth and Southwark, this time protected by peat deposits. These Early Bronze Age small-scale farming plots masked by overburden show the potential for research in specific pockets of preservation – the results from Lambeth and Southwark are particularly important because of the regular deployment of radiocarbon sampling whenever the peat blanket is encountered. Further up the Thames, the investigation of larger land blocks shows that interrupted ditches may have predated the creation of a system of continuous ditches, a phenomenon identified at Reading Business Park, Butlers Field, Lechlade, Didcot and Ashville Trading Estate, Abingdon (Yates 1999, 165).

Along the South Coast evidence for early fields occurs west of the Solent. At Bestwall Quarry a discontinuous ditch appears to predate a Middle Bronze Age field system, replicating the Thames sequence (Ladle and Woodward 2003, 265). Up river from Bestwall there are examples of short-lived land divisions along the Frome valley assigned to the Early Bronze Age but precise dating evidence is very limited (Wessex Archaeology 1994c; BUFAU 1994). The paucity of dating evidence available to excavators can be seen at the East of Corfe River site, on the Poole Harbour shoreline. The dating of all the phases associated with Wytch Farm Oilfield were largely dependent on ceramic analysis. The only radiocarbon determination was gathered from the Middle Bronze Age occupation phase. Finds recovered from the ditches of the Early/Middle Bronze Age field system were confined to a single Bronze Age sherd and a worked flint from one ditch and a scraper and flake from another (Cox and Hearne 1991, 31). Further west on Dartmoor the characteristic moorland reaves are associated

Competetive Exploration: Excavation Priorities 141 with the 18th and 17th centuries BC but as Johnston

observes the only fully published radiocarbon dates come from the excavation of one boundary, on Shaugh Moor (2005, 3). In Cornwall again there are sites tentatively assigned to the Early Bronze Age but they await new research (such as at Gwithian) to establish their age.

North of the Thames there have been claims for even earlier field systems. On closer scrutiny, some of these are now less convincing than at the time of their publication. Chigborough Farm site was argued to be, for Essex, the clearest indication of land division in the Neolithic/Early Bronze Age.

That interpretation is reliant on circumstantial evidence. Direct dating evidence for two rectilinear structures associated with a dividing boundary are minimal and the postulated dating for these domestic and farming zones is reliant on a process of elimination (Waughman 1998a, 67 and 103). Further up along the North Sea coast, a possible late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age field system was identified in the interim excavation reports for Sutton Hoo (Hummler 1993; Copp 1989). The final publication suggests an Early Bronze Age origin (Carver 2005).

In the Fenlands, the Fengate field systems were originally suggested to be Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age in date. That conclusion may have influenced further excavations in the vicinity. For example, along the A605 Elton-Haddon Bypass it was concluded that prehistoric fields were aligned at right angles to a tributary of the Nene “during the Neolithic period, just as field systems were aligned at right angles to the fen edge at Fengate”

(French 1994, 173). The excavation report does not provide a particularly convincing case for a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age origin. No radiocarbon dates are available and, in total, only 3 abraided late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age sherds were recovered in surface collection at Dog Kennel Field whilst the excavated ditch sections were essentially free of pottery (ibid. 48). The recent reassessment of the dating of the Storey’s Bar Road field system at Fengate, placing their construction in the early to mid second millennium BC (Evans and Pollard 2001, 25), further undermines a Neolithic attribution for coaxial field systems along the River Nene. Such uncertainties over local start dates for boundary building, present a research challenge for all units.

Concerns over chronological precision are not confined to the earliest land blocks. Current typological categorisation of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age pottery in southern England

looks in need of a reassessment and that may affect some regional interpretations (Needham in print). For example the radiocarbon dates for Game Farm, Brandon suggest that the accepted dating scheme for Post Deverel-Rimbury ware in East Anglia needs to be pushed back (O’Brien 2004, 51).

Improved ceramic chronologies, together with the frequent use of absolute dating, would allow us to explore the complexity of land partitioning and enable us to detect any coeval standardisation (or otherwise) in field system design. Some patterns are already apparent.

During the Later Bronze Age sequence there are instances suggesting the use of standard measurement in design at least at the local level.

For example, along the Thames valley 30m wide field plots occur at Didcot, Bray, Corporation Farm and Lady Lamb Farm (Yates 1997, 84).

On the nearby uplands above Avebury, Fowler suspects that a unit of measurement of c 10m was used in the coaxial field system skirting Overton Hill (Fowler 2000, 24). East Anglia, the area with the largest excavated coaxial fields, also has examples of apparent imitation. Two overlapping land blocks at Raunds had similar spaced boundaries. At West Deeping and Fengate, the field systems both incorporated a major series of identically spaced parallel droveways designed to head livestock down to the water’s edge. The landblock dimensions at Eyebury Quarry and Barleycroft are also alike.

There is a further intriguing dimension regarding standardisation. Over time it is possible to detect a drift away from rigid conformity to a pure form of coaxial grid. This may be detectable in both the uplands and lowlands. On Salisbury Plain, the degree of regularity in terms of size and shape of coaxial field systems is remarkable (McOmish et al. 2002, 53). They display a common symmetry of layout with a predominant axis NE –SW, terrain oblivious, orientation. At Orcheston Down the fields at the heart of the coaxial system and integral to the earliest phase of development adhere to a fixed design form suggesting that strict rules governed field size during their construction.

However, on the periphery of the system land plots have been altered by ploughing across the subdivisions of earlier examples (ibid. 54). There is also evidence of earlier land divisions having been obliterated in order to create longer fields at Lidbury and the Central Impact Zone (ibid. 56).

Similarly in the Fenlands, ‘styles’ of layout may alter over time. There may have been a move away

Land, Power and Prestige 142

from larger more formal coaxial field systems, rigidly aligned on the fen edge, to more irregular land partitioning by the later second millennium BC (Evans and Patten 2003, 60).

The zones of intensive activity in lowland South Eastern England suggest a parcelling of land to accommodate large-scale pastoralism to ensure what may be termed ‘structured mobility’ (Pryor 1998, 100). There is evidence for droving, stock handling, confining, inspection and sorting of livestock. In terms of morphology, the division of the land relied on the creation of ditched boundaries.

They might be embanked, double ditched and banked, and were probably reinforced by hedges.

Composite boundaries using both ditches and fencing posts were also employed. The discovery of wattle hurdles may reflect seasonal stock activity, such as lambing or summer grazing (Yates 1999, 165–166). Ditch profiles at Raunds suggests a further variation, for they resembled foundation

trenches to support stout fencing. Whatever their form, the barriers were linear in Southern England.

Only in Cornwall and Devon do we see a degree of individualism or nonconformity and a disregard for straight barriers.

In terms of linear conformity, the primacy of the droveways may have been the chief feature organising the landscape access/axis. It is particularly noticeable in the large area excavations in parts of the Fenlands, but is equally applicable to the gravel terraces of the Thames and the wide stretches of loess on the Sussex Coastal Plain. The scale of some droveways suggest that they are

‘great’ routes, built and maintained to serve both local residents and more distant communities (Evans and Patten 2003, 59). As such they require prioritising in excavation, especially as en masse holding compounds are associated with these routeways. Examples include the 13–19m wide track at Colne Fen (Evans and Patten 2003, 9);

Plate 8. South Hornchurch droveway. Reconstruction painting by Casper Johnson. The 14m wide droveway heads SW towards the River Thames, passing by a ringwork and associated holding compounds

Competetive Exploration: Excavation Priorities 143 the c.14m lane (Plate 8) at South Hornchurch

(Guttmann and Last 2000, 320); and, a 12m broad track at Coldharbour Road (Mudd 1994, fig 13).

The importance of these routes can also be gauged by the investment required. At Hays, Dagenham a sizeable workforce would have been required to excavate and transport substantial quantities of gravel, silts and fire cracked flint to form a causeway. The peats immediately overlaying this principal access route into the Thames marshes were dated to 1400–970 cal. BC (Beta-70881;

2960±80 BP) (Meddens 1996, 326). The impetus for the scale of these routes may have been a predominantly cattle-based economy. It may, ultimately, be possible to trace and date sections of connecting roads.

14.1.2 Palaeo-environmental sampling

Field systems are the ultimate symbol of conspicuous production and the subjugation of nature by people, representing dominance over the environment by the impositon of unwavering terrain oblivious boundaries. Rectilinear land blocks became the ubiquitous form of formal landscaping signing a new era of permanence, long term land tenure and environmental control.

It follows therefore that palaeo-environmental analysis should be central in investigating these imposed grids.

The preferred ground for formal land appropriation was the river gravels and brickearths which preserve little archaeo-botanical or environmental evidence – the very clues needed to determine what crops were propagated, which animals were favoured and how the land was cleared and managed. The scarcity of such data should not thwart attempts to retrieve information that can reveal the habitats being controlled within these managed lands.

Environmental work should be more prominent in the PPG16 briefs and incorporated into the development strategy of the area. Where waterlogged deposits are encountered they should receive priority including the full sampling of waterholes and well features. Sampling of so called natural deposits – dry river valleys, alluvial sequences, peat deposits, and palaeo-channels should also be integrated into development work. Such sediments and natural deposits have intrinsic archaeological value helping to explain the nature of land use during the adoption of formal land divisions. This requires specialist sampling and integrated C14 dating which can

have a significant effect on budgets. It needs to be included as a non-negotiable item rather than an ‘add on’ vulnerable to cost cutting if projects run over budget. Edwards suggests that natural sequences are so vital to explaining land use on site that we need to look at off site locales for palaeo-environmental evidence, for example peat bogs and relict stream beds in the vicinity (K. J. Edwards 1991). Off site exploration would be a more imaginative strategy for exploration, breaking away from adherence to legalistic definitions of the archaeological resource.

What are the gains in prioritising the recovery of environmental evidence? The imposition of the new form of land enclosure needs to be seen within the context of earlier land clearance and soil erosion. It is also of interest to see what follows this particular form of land appropriation. To this effect we need to chart: regional variations in the pace of woodland clearance; soil erosion in the form of colluviation and alluviation; and possible signs of woodland regeneration following de-intensification of land use.

The record may also reveal climate fluctuations, seasonality of land use, thresholds in the adoption of new crop species and any flooding events on the river and coastal margins.

Many other scientific techniques are now available which can unlock some of the mysteries of these permanent farming communities, including diet (stable isotope and lipid analyses) and soil management (micromorphology). Sadly, such scientific inquiry remains largely confined to research excavations. That expertise is much needed in commercial projects.

14.1.3 Exploring the subtleties of the formal landscapes

In a sense discovering the rectilinear fields and enclosures is the easy part, particularly for experienced excavation teams well aware of the need to allow adequate weathering time for the ditches to reveal themselves. Deciphering the subtleties of these land blocks is also improving as experience develops in commercial units and that knowledge percolates down. In the early days of excavation, interest focused on the ditch borders rather than the ‘dead ground’ that they

In a sense discovering the rectilinear fields and enclosures is the easy part, particularly for experienced excavation teams well aware of the need to allow adequate weathering time for the ditches to reveal themselves. Deciphering the subtleties of these land blocks is also improving as experience develops in commercial units and that knowledge percolates down. In the early days of excavation, interest focused on the ditch borders rather than the ‘dead ground’ that they