The excavation of Barrow 4 in the Lord of the Manor barrow group at Ozengell, near Ramsgate
Excavations at the Lord of the Manor site, conducted in the late 1970s included excavation of a truncated round barrow that proved to have a central burial comprising the cremated remains of possibly a child, accompanied by a perforated cup (sometimes termed an accessory or incense cup) and some flints.
The author worked for the Isle of Thanet Archaeological Unit from the autumn of 1977 through to late summer 1978, and directed a small series of excavations around Ozengell culminating with the excavation of Barrow 4 in the Lord of the Manor group. When the author left Thanet in late 1978 he took with him the site records for this excavation, it being agreed that he would write it up for publication. Unfortunately, this never took place. Moving forward to 2022, the author having then only recently joined Twitter, noticed a brief tweet mentioning the sale of items from Ozengell to the KAS, and the name vaguely rang a bell. Serendipity has allowed all the connections to be made, and a lost site record to see the light of day once more.
Isle of Thanet Archaeological Unit
The Isle of Thanet Archaeological Unit was formed in 1976, primarily to undertake excavations on a group of Bronze Age barrows sited to the east of Manston aerodrome, which were threatened by deep ploughing.[fn1] The barrow group was known from aerial photographs, which on closer inspection also revealed the presence of an inhumation cemetery that proved to be of Anglo-Saxon date. The 1976-7 excavations concentrated on the area to the west of Haine Road (A256), uncovering LOM Barrow 1, a triple-ditched barrow with several burials.[fn2] The excavation was continued, exploring the Anglo-Saxon cemetery that lay just to the south, which extended south and east away from the site, as well as more of the barrow group.
In the autumn of 1977, the Isle of Thanet Archaeological Unit was provided with premises in Ramsgate, and at the same time employed a group of young people as a Job Creation Scheme through the Manpower Services Commission, with the author as the Field Officer and David Perkins as illustrator, finds co-ordinator and conservator. It was considered desirable to continue the LOM 1 excavations in [pg78]1978, by exploring Romano-British field ditches in the general area to the east of Haine Road, and then to excavate Barrow 4 (Figs 1, 2 and 3).
[fg]jpg|Fig. 1 Lord of the Manor Barrow 4, location map.|Image[/fg]
Barrow 4 lies slightly to the east of the main northern group of the barrows here (Fig. 2), with Barrows 1, 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d quite close to the west, and more barrows to the south and east – Barrows 3a, 5, 9 and 10, along with two more that were cut when the railway line was created. All the barrows were clustered near [pg79][pg80]to or on the 100ft contour, with a wide view over Pegwell bay. By modern times almost all of these barrows had been ploughed down, a process that is thought to have begun in the later stages of the Iron Age and through the Romano-British period, when this terrace was extensively used and sub-divided by field ditches for agriculture.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 2 Lord of the Manor Barrow 4, the barrow group and overlying Anglo-Saxon cemetery.|Image[/fg]
Lord of the Manor Barrow 4
The barrow is situated on the edge of an arable field close to the 100ft contour on a spur that falls away to Pegwell Bay and is about a mile east of Manston village (TR 3561 6549). Almost half of the barrow now lies beneath Haine Road (A256) and is presumed to have been destroyed by the roadworks. The barrow ditch forms a slightly elliptical circle some 69ft feet (21m) in diameter, with a flat-bottomed semi V-shaped ditch enclosing a level platform, within which was found a centrally placed burial pit. As with all of this barrow group, this site lies on the chalk with a topsoil cover of a clayey-loam. The local alkaline soils ensured that preservation of bone, ceramics and metals was generally good.
Earlier excavations by the Isle of Thanet Archaeological Unit [IATU] of Barrows 2a-2d had demonstrated that deep ploughing had cut into the upper levels of the chalk bedrock. Rather than excavating the entirety of Barrow 4, it was therefore decided to cut a trench north-south across the barrow and then west-east, with larger areas opened across the ditch and in the central area (Fig. 3). No attempt was made to locate the barrow ditch to the west of Haine Road. The site was dug by hand in January to March 1978.
The slightly elliptical ditch had a diameter of 32.8-36.1ft (c.10-11.5m), to the internal and external ditch edges at the surface of the chalk, providing an irregularly shaped profile at the top and with almost vertically sided in its lower section down to a flat bottom (Fig. 4). A total length of 9.5m of the ditch, out of the 27.3m available, was excavated in three separate segments.
The ditch faces showed extensive signs of weathering, a point underscored by the striated fills and the multi-period nature of the ceramic finds from the ditch fills. The bottom ditch fill, layer 19, comprised a series of rapid silts comprising small chalk rubble and very fine yellowy-brown loamy silts. The thickness and composition of this layer was not consistent from one section of the ditch to the next. Above the rapid silt layer 19 were a series of medium silts, layers 18, 17 and 16, all of which comprised a broadly similar fill as layer 19, but with larger pieces of chalk, whilst the silty loams were now a darker colour, ranging into darker browns.
The surface of layer 16 was found to be particularly compacted and almost level, suggesting that this formed a surface that remained as such for a considerable period of time. The differential in the ceramics found in the lower layers, all being sherds of Neolithic or Bronze Age wares, compared with those in the upper ditch fills, all being either Iron Age or Romano-British, with the occasional very worn sherd from earlier periods, adds weight to the idea that the ditch remained an open feature in the landscape for well over a millennia.
Agricultural activities had removed all potential traces of either a mound or a ring bank. It is unlikely that a substantial mound could have been created from the spoil dug from the ditch, although a turf-stack mound might have been created. [pg81]
[fg]jpg|Fig. 3 Lord of the Manor Barrow 4, site plan showing excavated areas and position of feature 5.|Image[/fg][pg82]
[fg]jpg|Fig. 4 Lord of the Manor Barrow 4, sections across the barrow ditch.|Image[/fg]
Burial deposits and skeletal material from Barrow 4 - ditch and pit
In the northern section of the ditch a fragment of skullcap and part of a femur were found in layer 18. These pieces of skeletal material may represent part of a burial disturbed by the construction of Barrow 4, or might relate to burials interred in the secondary phases of Barrows 1 and 3a; the ditches of both these barrows also produced fragments of human skeletal material.
Two deposits were found in the central pit of Barrow 4, feature 5 (Figs. 5 and 6, Plates I and II). It is presumed to have held the primary burial on account of its position close to the geometric centre of the barrow. The pit held both a primary deposit, comprising a small perforated ceramic cup and its contents, along with [pg83]fragments of cremated skeletal material and, additionally, a secondary deposit cut into the fills of the central pit.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 5 Lord of the Manor Barrow 4, plan and section showing the primary stage of the central burial pit.|Image[/fg]
The burial pit was approximately square in plan, with overall dimensions of 57 x 43in. (1.5 x 1.1m), cut to a depth of 16.2in. into the chalk bedrock (0.4m), having near vertical sides and a flat base (Fig. 5). The primary burial was placed in the south-east quadrant of the pit, comprising an area of ash with calcined bone, with the cup and several large pieces of worked flint placed nearby. None of the calcined bone that remained was of a sufficient size to allow identification of individual bones, let alone allow a determination of sex or age. No teeth were recovered.
Micro-excavation of the perforated cup at the British Museum revealed it contained a bronze awl with a putative wooden handle (Plate III), and five rounded,[pg84]smooth flint pebbles that had no obvious function as tools or of a decorative nature, and fragments of a bird’s eggshell.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 6 Lord of the Manor Barrow 4, plan and section showing the secondary stage of the central burial pit.|Image[/fg]
The pit was filled with a chalk-flecked loam, that was then covered by a thick deposit of rough, angular flint nodules, none of which showed any trace of working for tools but rather mechanical crushing and grinding likely from wave action on a beach.[fn3] Amongst the flints gathered to fill the pit were five echinoid fossils.
Five shards of pottery were found in these fills, all clearly having been burnt. It is likely that these were residual pieces of ceramics rather than having been deliberately placed in this pit.
The fills of the pit were cut at a later date when a second interment was made. This too was the burial of a cremation, also with calcined bones reduced to very small sizes none of which could be identified as particular skeletal elements. Again, no teeth were present.[pg85]
[fg]jpg|Plate I Lord of the Manor Barrow 4, central burial pit showing the primary burial|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Plate II Lord of the Manor Barrow 4, central burial pit showing the secondary burial and the remains of the flint cairn.|Image[/fg]
[pg86]
[fg]jpg|Plate III The Lord of the Manor Barrow 4 cup during micro-excavation at the British Museum.|Image[/fg]
The Perforated Cup (Plate III and Plate IV)
In his comments on the small cup in 1978, Dr Ian H. Longworth described it as an ‘Accessory cup’. At the time such cups were occasionally termed as ‘incense’ or ‘slotted’ cups. Most recently, the term ‘fenestrated’ cup has been coined. This terminology will be discussed further below, but this writer prefers the term ‘perforated’ cup, which carries with it no overt connotations.
The perforated cup was micro-excavated and consolidated by the Department of Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities, as arranged by Dr Longworth. The conservationist reported as follows:
A small cup 3.15 ins in circumference at its widest and 1.97 ins in circumference at the top was brought into the department for conservation and cleaning. It was filled with compact earth and was decorated with sixteen holes around the sides and a cross-hatch etching around the sloping top of the vessel. Before excavation the pot was consolidated with Polyvinylacetate and due to the fact that some of the base appeared to be missing, this was filled with plaster. The pot itself was cracked, probably when it was under compression in the earth, so that half the pot was lower than the other half.
The pot was then excavated. Close to the top a hole was discovered which seemed to go right to the bottom of the vessel. As this void may previously have been [pg87]occupied by organic matter, for instance wood, the hole was filled with plaster. The vessel was further excavated and small shells (snail), chalk, flint, fibres (possibly roots) and fragments of a small finewalled eggshell were unearthed.
[fg]jpg|Plate IV The Lord of the Manor Barrow 4 cup and awl (drawing from the British Museum).|Image[/fg]
At the bottom of the vessel and almost against the edge a bronze ‘pin’ was discovered. This was 0.95 ins long and slightly wider at one end than the other. The piece of plaster cast from the hollow lay over the left side of this pin and slightly towards the middle, the plaster cast was about 0.39 ins in diameter.
The perforated cup and awl
Dr Longworth reported (4 December 1978) as follows:
Cup
Dimensions: Diam. of mouth: 2.01 ins
Height: 1.55 ins
Diam. of base: 3.05 ins
Decoration: On the upper body, twisted cord lozenges. Sixteen vertical slashes through the wall of the lower body.
Fragment of bronze awl
Length: 0.95 ins[pg88]
[fg]jpg|Plate V LOM4 cup in situ.|Image[/fg]
The awl has a round cross-section tapering to a flattened rectangular tang. A void found in the filling of the cup in which the awl was discovered may represent the remains of an organic handle. The cup belongs to a distinctive type of perforated cup, carrying narrow vertical perforations through the wall.[fn4] Some eleven examples have been recorded, all but two of which, i.e. those from Comboots, Scalby, Yorkshire,[fn5] and Meini Gwyr, Llandsilio, Carmarthenshire,[fn6] are confined to southern and eastern England. Three have been previously found in Kent: at Luddington Wood (aka Lutinton), in Littlebourne parish, east of Canterbury,[fn7] Ringwould[fn8] and Tilmanstone.[fn9] The Lord of the Manor cup is typical in carrying twisted cord decoration and the lozenge pattern produced may be compared to the twisted cord lattice pattern on a cup of similar form from Grave 8, Wilsford, Wiltshire.[fn10] The Wilsford cup, along with those from Portsdown, Hampshire,[fn11] Ringwould and Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire,[fn12] occurred in grave groups which would conventionally be assigned to the Wessex culture. Since the type is not numerous, a date close to those of the Wessex culture would therefore seem appropriate for all examples of the type.
It should be noted here that the Tilmanstone cup has been lost for many years.[fn13]
Other finds
Twelve sherds of pottery were recovered from the ditch fills and fills of the central pit. None were construed as being anything other than stray, residual sherds of pottery. Four sherds of a Beaker-type ware were found in layer 10, in the central [pg89]pit. Seven further sherds of Beaker-type ware were recovered from layer 16, in the ditch fills, which also produced a small number of very fragmentary sherds that were thought to be Neolithic. Some fifty or so sherds of Iron age and Romano- British pottery were recovered from layer 14, the top fills of the ditch.
Five large, rounded, partially flaked flints were found alongside the perforated cup. A small quantity of worked flint was recovered from the fills of the ditch, mostly comprising cores, flakes and waste. The site notes suggest that there were a few tools amongst this collection, but without any details. None of this material has been made available for further study and inclusion in this report, and is thought to have been lost.
Discussion
Stuart Needham, Keith Parfitt and Gill Varndell provided a useful over-view of small cups in their 2006 study of the Ringlemere cup. Their preference was to describe these cups as ‘slotted incense’ cups and noted that the largest cluster discovered so far was from Kent.
In another stroke of serendipity, a detailed study and analysis of small cups from the British Bronze Age was published in October 2022. Claire Copper, Alex Gibson and Deborah Hallam have produced a corpus in which they hoped included all the Bronze Age small cups from across the United Kingdom. Their 392-page study lists individually by county, and with drawings, all the small cups presently identified, to produce a corpus of some 770 small vessel examples.[fn14] Positing the question as to what constitutes a small cup, they offered a definition that it was a small cup less than 100mm high, although they allowed a few somewhat larger versions, on the basis of similarity to the broad range of these vessels. They further noted that these cups are not to be regarded as miniature examples of larger vessels, but are a definitive sui generis. They addressed the question of what these cups should be called or termed, and how they should be classified, for they have a long history with knowledge of their existence stretching back to the earliest days of archaeological investigations. Consequently, there have been several attempts to categorise these cups into defined groups, with several authorities creating multiple sets of cups based on design, shape and a variety of characteristic features. Copper and her colleagues have re-worked these classifications to produce their own system, comprising four main groups, with some sub-sections within each. Group 1 comprises miniature forms of vessels such as Beakers and Collared urns; Group 2 is formed of biconical or contracted mouth cups; Group 3 covers simple, undecorated and rudimentary forms; whilst Group 4 is entitled exotic forms that are further divided into eight sub-groups, all of which are of quite small numbers. Their so-called Fenestrated cups forming one such sub-group.[fn15]
The cup from the Lord of the Manor Barrow 4 is classed by them as one of their Group 4: exotic forms (Fenestrated) vessels.[fn16] Their application of the term ‘fenestrated’ introduces a new piece of terminology, for previously this type of cup would have been described as either a pygmy cup, or an incense cup or accessory cup or, as we have seen, a slotted cup. Dr Longworth, in his study of such vessels whilst creating his own classification, described the ‘cut-outs’ in the walls of these vessels as ‘perforations’.[fn17][pg90]
In 1978, Dr Longworth classed the LOM4 cup as an ‘Accessory cup’ but this has been rejected by Copper et al., who prefer the term fenestrated, on the basis that both ‘Accessory’ and ‘Incense’ cup offer a descriptive for which there is no supporting evidence for such usage. This writer would argue that ‘Fenestrated’ similarly offers a descriptive that lacks evidence, for we simply do not know the purpose for which these cups were made. It is somewhat surprising to note that the cover of their book features one such cup, with shafts of light emerging from the openings. This is an imaginative interpretation but, as they themselves observe, there is no supporting evidence for this use. In much the same way, there is no reason to preclude the idea that these cups were used as incense burners. But, as Needham et al. point out, ‘one thing is for certain, unlike the precious cups [such as the Ringlemere cup] most slotted incense cups are ill suited to holding liquid’.[fn18] The Lord of the Manor cup should, in this writer’s view, be termed a ‘Perforated’ cup, for this offers a suitably non-discriminatory term for what are quite enigmatic vessels. We can go a step further. Copper and her colleagues consider that a substantial number of these cups can be categorized into a single group, Group 4, comprising some 105 vessels out of the 770 they have studied, although their sub- division of ‘fenestrated’ reduces this number down to under 20 or so. As we shall see below, there is a case to suggest that the LOM4 cup belongs to a very small, select group of about a dozen such vessels.
The presence of remnants from a cremation alongside the cup is not thought to be especially significant. Copper et al. noted in their work that cups from Southern England were associated with 132 cremations, c.80% of the total number of such vessels, with 100 adults identified along with 1 adolescent and 15 children. In Northern England, of 247 cups 117 (47%) were associated with cremations.[fn19] As they also noted, metalwork was regularly recorded alongside these cups, with awls occurring in 45 instances.[fn20] Stone and flint is, surprisingly, largely absent amongst direct associations with small cups, Copper et al. listing only 42 sites, this however may be a consequence of limited records; for example, they had no detailed records of the excavation at Lord of the Manor.
Perforated cups from the Lord of the Manor and Kent
Based on the general form, style and decoration of the Lord of the Manor perforated cup, it is possible to discern a stylistic group of such vessels that stand apart from the overall corpus of small Bronze Age cups. The Lord of the Manor cup is a biconic vessel, with large perforations in the lower part of the vessel’s walls, having an opening in the top of the vessel that is of a smaller diameter than the base, and with decoration applied onto its shoulders. There are some 10 to 12 other vessels of this type and form from around the UK, of which four are from Kent: Lord of the Manor 4, Luddinton Wood, Ringwould B and Tilmanstone (Plate V). Others are: Clayton Hill, Lancing b, Portsdown, Scalby Comboots, Stanton Harcourt, Wilsford Grave 8, and Whinnie Liggate.[fn21]
These cups all have large perforations in the walls of the vessels, and mostly have a sloped top to an opening smaller than the base. These perforations would likely have been created using a knife, unlike the very much smaller perforations to be found in many others of the Copper et al. fenestrated cups that would likely [pg91]have been made using a pointed tool, such as sharpened bone or awl. Such cups with tiny perforations may well have functioned in a different manner to those with large holes, such as those from Kent.
[fg]jpg|Plate VII Luddington|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Plate VI Ringwould|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Plate VIII (left) and (above) Lord of the Manor 4|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Plate VI – VIII Three slotted cups from Kent sites: Ringwould (photo courtesy Catherine Holt, Dover Museum), Luddington (photo courtesy Craig Bowen, Canterbury Museum) and Lord of the Manor Barrow 4.|Image[/fg]
Dating
None of the Kentish perforated cups have been allocated dates obtained by any form of methodology, leaving us to suggest that they can be dated by comparative means alone, which is not entirely satisfactory. Copper et al. suggested that in the main small cups from the Bronze Age were made between 2000 and 1500 bc.
Was this a child’s burial?
The cup from this burial contained some rounded pebbles and part of a bird’s [pg92]eggshell, along with an awl. Associated with the cup and cremation were five quite large pieces of good quality but unworked flint. It seems feasible from the smallness of the pieces of bone found in the ashes from the cremation and the eclectic collection of objects placed in the cup that this represents a child’s burial.
Acknowledgements
The excavation was carried out by the Isle of Thanet Archaeological Unit as the final project in the 1970s at the Lord of the Manor site through the kind permission of the landowner, Mr David Steel. The author is grateful to Dr I.H. Longworth, then Keeper of the Department of Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities of the British Museum, who examined the finds from the barrow, arranged for the microexcavation of the cup and its conservation, and provided an illustrated report of the cup; and to Dr Derek Roe, of the University of Oxford, who examined the flint fill from the central burial pit and offered his comments. The late Mr Fred Wall was very much the financial driving force behind establishing the Isle of Thanet Archaeological Unit, and in securing Manpower Services Commission grants to organise Job Creation Projects to undertake archaeological work on Thanet; the author’s thanks to him and to the late David Perkins and the late Nigel MacPherson- Grant for their support and advice all those years ago. He is most grateful to Craig Bowen at Canterbury museum for a photograph and information regarding the Luddinton cup, and Catherine Holt at Dover museum, for photographs of the Ringwould cup, which is on loan there from Maidstone museum.
Bibliography
Allies, J., 1844, ‘Letter from Jabez Allies, Esq FSA, describing a remarkable sepulchral vase, and other antiquities, discovered near Scarborough …’, Archaeologia, 7, 458-62. Annable, F.K. and Simpson, D.A., 1964, Guide catalogue of Neolithic and Bronze Age Collection in Devizes Museum.
Ashbee, P. and Dunning, G.C., 1961, ‘The Round Barrows of East Kent’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 74, 48-57. [Tilmanstone]
Ashbee, P., 1967, ‘The Wessex Grave’, pp. 26-33, in A. Corney, P. Ashbee, V.I. Evison and D. Brothwell, ‘A Prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon Burial Ground, Ports Down, Portsmouth’, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, 24, 20-41. [Portsdown]
Ashbee, P., 2005, Kent in Prehistoric Times, Tempus, p. 129.
Copper, C., Gibson, A. and Hallam, D., 2022, Funerary and Related Cups of the British Bronze Age, Archaeopress, Oxford.
Jessup, R.F., 1936, ‘Incense cup from Canterbury’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 48, 243-4. [Luddington/Lutinton Wood].
Longworth, I.H., 1983, ‘The Whinney Liggate perforated wall cup and its affinities’, in A. O’Connor and D.V. Clarke (eds), From the Stone Age to the ‘Forty Five, Studies presented to R.B.K. Stevenson, 65-86, Edinburgh: John Donald.
MacPherson Grant, N.C., 1977, The Excavation of a Neolithic/ Bronze Age Site at Lord of the Manor, Haine Road, Ramsgate. Isle of Thanet Archaeological Unit, Publication No. 1.
Perkins, D., 2010, ‘The Distribution Patterns of Bronze Age Round Barrows in north-east Kent, Archaeologia Cantiana, 130, 277-314. [pg93]
Needham, S., Parfitt, K. and Varndell, G., 2006, The Ringlemere Cup. Precious cups and the beginning of the Channel Bronze Age, British Museum Press.
Woodruff, C.H., 1874, ‘On Celtic Tumuli in East Kent’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 9, 16-30. [Ringwould]
[fn]1|For a broad study of Bronze Age round Barrows in Thanet, see Perkins 2010.[/fn]
[fn]2|MacPherson-Grant 1977.[/fn]
[fn]3|Pers. comm., Derek Roe, University of Oxford.[/fn]
[fn]4|Type E in I.H. Longworth 1983; see also Needham et al., 2006, 65-67, and figs 32-33.[/fn]
[fn]5|Allies 1844, 458-9; Copper et al., 2022, YKN/78.[/fn]
[fn]6|Copper et al. 2022, 18, 113, B3; DYFED/12.[/fn]
[fn]7|Jessup 1936, 243-4; and see Ashbee and Dunning 1961; Copper et al., 2022, KENT/7; Ashbee 2005.[/fn]
[fn]8|Woodruff 1874, 16-30; Copper et al., 2022, KENT/10[/fn]
[fn]9|Ashbee and Dunning 1961, 50, fig 2; Copper et al., 2022, KENT/15.[/fn]
[fn]10|Annable and Simpson 1964, no. 179; Copper et al., 2022, WILT/68.[/fn]
[fn]11|Ashbee 1967, 20-41, and fig. 5.7; Copper et al., 2022, HAM/7.[/fn]
[fn]12|Copper et al., 2022, OXFO/8.[/fn]
[fn]13|Needham et al. 2006, 50.[/fn]
[fn]14|Copper et al., 2022, 98.[/fn]
[fn]15|Copper et al, 2022, 11-22.[/fn]
[fn]16|Copper et al. 2022, 132.[/fn]
[fn]17|Longworth 1983.[/fn]
[fn]18|Needham et al. 2006, 66.[/fn]
[fn]19|Copper et al. 2022, 58.[/fn]
[fn]20|Copper et al. 2022, 70.[/fn]
[fn]21|Copper et al. 2022, corpus gives these as follows: Clayton Hill, Sussex - Suss/3; Lancing b, Sussex – Suss/9; Portsdown, Hampshire – Ham/7; Scalby Comboots, N. Yorkshire – YKN/78; Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire – OXFO/8; Wilsford grave 8, Wiltshire – WILTS/68; and Whinnie Liggate, Dumfries and Galloway – D&G/18.[/fn][pg94]