Bronze Age sword moulds from Holborough Quarry, Snodland, in context
The Late Bronze Age archaeology at Holborough Quarry, Snodland, excavated ahead of residential development in 2004-6, excited interest among students of prehistoric metallurgy in particular. A number of clay fragments of moulds for casting swords and other items had been found, many of which could be reassembled so the forms and styles of the objects cast in them could be reconstructed. This information would soon be included in broader surveys of Bronze Age manufacture and other related aspects, and in particular the Wilburton bronze tradition, to which this activity was assigned by experts. What has been missing from this publicity and research, however, is an account of the archaeological context of these finds, which includes domestic, farming and funerary activities, and a phased narrative of the development of the landscape and settlement wherein they were found.
Closely comparing feature and site formation processes, intra-site and topographical relationships, relative finds typologies and some absolute chronological data, it has been possible to suggest the following site narrative, which is interpreted as an occupation focus of the eleventh century that developed into a larger settlement between about 1000 and 800 bce, and went out of use shortly thereafter: in other words, the archaeological context of the sword mould finds.
Between 2004 and 2006, Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavated a mainly Late Bronze Age site at Holborough Quarry, Kent (centred TQ7025 6235; Fig. 1), prior to residential development (Boden 2017). The area, which had been known as the Corn Field, formed part of an east-facing slope some 1.5km south of the North Downs scarp and about midway between Holborough Hill and the Holborough Marshes on the floodplain of the River Medway, about 650m to the east. Since the earlier twentieth century the southern side of Holborough Hill had been extensively truncated by chalk quarrying for the cement industry, and the site at the time of excavation was bordered on its western and northern sides by former quarry workings, and existing residential development associated with the village of Snodland on other sides.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 1 Site location.|Image[/fg]
As is often the case, it was the exciting finds from this excavation that drew immediate attention, and especially a number of Late Bronze Age sword mould fragments, carefully reassembled during post-excavation analysis to reveal the residues of four particular swords (Figs 2-4). Unsurprisingly, reference to these, and other bronze working moulds from the Holborough Quarry excavation, [pg290]appeared ‘in the literature’ of late Bronze Age Kent and beyond fairly swiftly, and some time ago now, but the settlement context in which they were found took something of back seat in earlier accounts. This is largely because the finds were publicised before their archaeological context had been fully analysed. The site plan in Webley et al.’s book of comparanda in Bronze Age metallurgy (2020, 106) is a good example of this, as it is in fact only a general plan showing all the archaeological features on the site, from early Bronze Age to late Iron Age/Roman periods.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 2 Re-assembled sword moulds following cleaning (scale 0.5m).|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Fig. 3 Re-assembled sword moulds compared.|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Fig. 4 A sword mould fragment.|Image[/fg]
The archaeological remains at Holborough Quarry were heavily truncated, undoubtedly as a result of some 2,000 years of farming the slope since its last prehistoric/Early Romano-British occupation, so the archaeologists who carried out this excavation should be commended for rescuing a difficult but important [pg291][pg292] [pg293]prehistoric site. What they encountered was a large number of post-holes and other features that would prove difficult to disentangle both during and following excavation. Yet the work to reconstruct the various types and phases of activity represented by these partial traces, helped by a recent revision to the specialist pottery report (McNee 2022), has been worth the effort.
By applying standard archaeological principles of interpretation, it is possible to adduce a narrative of the site, and the archaeological context of the Holborough Quarry sword moulds, published here for the first time. As with many site narratives, the Holborough Quarry phasing presented here begins with residuality.
c.2300-1600 BCE
Some pottery dating from the millennium prior to occupation of the site that left [pg294]distinct physical traces, was present in later features. This residual material was not of considerable quantity in comparison with that of later phases, but shows the area being used in some way in relation to occupation. The earliest pottery, from the Early Bronze Age (Ceramic Phase 1, c.2300-1600 bce; 1.2% of the overall assemblage by weight), was notably confined to features near the north-west boundary of the excavated area. Such evidence obviously hints that the focus of earlier occupation lay to the north-west of the excavation area, further up the slope. Early Middle Bronze Age pottery (Ceramic Phase 2, c.1600-1300 bce; 6.4% of the overall assemblage by weight), was likewise scarce, and residual in features in the centre west and north-west parts of the site.
c.1300-1100 BCE
Ditch G103 (Fig. 5) was most likely the earliest feature on the site but was also, sadly, one of the most truncated. It was traced for 47.25m in six slightly arcing lengths (F1-6) of shallow, concave-profiled segments, with a maximum depth of no more than 0.14m (and in some parts as little as 0.04m). This was all that was left of what was once a more substantial landscape marker, mostly lost to erosion. Each segment was filled with a greyish brown, ‘dirty’ clayey silt which contained considerable quantities of pottery and animal bone, though much of this was refuse that evidently marked abandonment of at least the physical manifestation of the boundary during the next phase of activity. Nonetheless, some pottery was finding its way into the bottom of the ditch from as early as Ceramic Phase 3 (c.1300-1100 bce).
A deposit in a small pit (F10), just to the north of ditch G103, is significant. The pit was a near circular, steep-sided cut 0.30m across and surviving to just 0.09m deep; almost 100 sherds of pottery were identified in post-excavation analysis as a ‘middle Bronze Age cremation urn’ (McNee 2022, 23), but late in the Deverel- Rimbury sequence (ibid.; the pot in fact constituted almost a third of the entire pottery assemblage from Ceramic Phase 3, which only made up 11% of the pottery assemblage as a whole, by weight). McNee also posits that this particular vessel has qualities suggesting it is late in the phase, perhaps nearer to 1100 bce, or even in the Late Bronze Age proper (ibid., 24). The vessel was partially intact amid a fill of slightly clayey, charcoal flecked silt, along with twenty-six very small fragments of animal bone and a large chunk of burnt flint. The feature with the Deverel- Rimbury ‘urn’ contained no cremated human bone, however. It is not impossible that cremated bone was once present, but this is most unlikely, since the material is renowned for its brittle and fragmentary qualities, and tends to be highly visible even in very small remnant quantities. This placement of a pot in a small pit is better described, therefore, as a ‘placed deposit’, and is in fact something that is common in this period, not untypically with a spatial focus on boundaries or older funerary monuments.
Ditch G103 also seems to relate both spatially and intrinsically with other features and deposits that characterise the phase: a group of cremation-related features (G101). A cremation-related deposit was located within a truncated backfill of ditch G103 itself (C745), in segment F4, just to the south of feature F10; and more deposits lay in specially cut small pits to the north-west (F8, F9, F11, and F12), [pg295]which appear to respect the projected alignment of the ditch. Another cremation- related feature (F22) lay close the south-east side of the ditch. Furthermore, there is some indication of a more general deposit once existing in the area from residual pyre material from later features, just north of the line of the ditch.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 5 The earliest features, c.1300-1100 BCE.|Image[/fg]
Feature F22 was located 5m to the south of ditch segment F5. Here Two separate deposits of cremated material were found within the same pit. This was circular and 0.65m across and 0.16m deep, with steep sides and a flattish base. The primary fill [pg296](1052) was just 0.06m thick and had been spread evenly across the base of the cut. This consisted predominantly of cremated bone (over 2.3kg) from a young adult along with nearly half a kilo of small, burnt flint and non-local stone fragments. Further small fragments daub or burnt soil, scraps of pot, mammal bone, fish bones, eggshell, charred stalks, grain and seeds were also recovered from samples of this deposit. It was sealed by a secondary fill of charcoal rich clayey silt containing 200g of cremated bone from an adult. Small fragments of fired clay (possibly pottery) and charred grains and seeds were also recovered from this deposit.
Cremation-related feature F12 was located some 3.5m north-west of the western end of ditch remnant F1: a subcircular cut with concave sides and a rounded base, 0.40m wide and 0.09m deep. Within was half a kilo of cremated bone including fragments of the skull, vertebrae, and upper and lower limbs of an adult. A small amount of burnt soil, charred cereal grains and fruit stones were recovered from samples. Feature F8, about 1.80m west of F12, was near circular with a diameter of 0.53m, with a concave profile 0.25m deep. This was filled with silty clay which contained just seven small fragments of unidentifiable cremated bone, weighing 15g, and possibly residual.
Feature F9 (see Fig. 6), located 3.2m to the north-west of F12, might have been included in this archaeological phase on the basis of its spatial association with the ditch alignment and other cremation-related features, but pottery evidence possibly suggests otherwise (see below). What can be said is that cremation-related features represent a tradition that seems to cross over all Bronze Age developments of the site, and this is partly because the relative date ranges of different types of material also overlap.
Wilburton period: c.1100-1000 BCE
Before giving an account of the archaeology of this period at Holborough Quarry, it is worth pausing to consider some of the challenges it presented in interpretation. The ‘Wilburton’ phase of Bronze Age metalwork, like the relative chronology of other types of archaeological finds (e.g., pottery), is based on seriation, the development of understanding through comparison, of how materials, forms and styles of certain types of material culture are evolved by people over time and space. Stuart Needham defines the Wilburton phase of metalwork as of the ‘late twelfth to eleventh centuries cal BC’ (2017, 153) and ‘circa 1150–1000 cal BC’ (ibid., 156). This period overlaps with the start of a much broader pottery date range, Ceramic Phase 4 pottery of c.1100-800 bce (McNee 2022), post-Deverel- Rimbury plain ware with a date range which spans almost the entire Late Bronze Age. This pottery was by far the most represented in the overall assemblage, at over 3,500 sherds, and 68.2% by weight. Paradoxes in finds dating are exacerbated by the large amount of residuality of the material on this site caused by a marked increase in occupation activity and the sheer amount of digging that took place in the Late Bronze Age. Decorated forms (Ceramic Period 5) appear from about 900 bce, and therefore overlap in terms of date range, confounding matters further.
To deal with such evidential difficulties from a typological point of view, it is necessary to study feature and site formation processes very carefully, as well as spatial relationships between features and groups of features across the site. For [pg297]example, the following is largely based on the latest material in the backfills of pits rather than the likely more fortuitous incorporation of small amounts of (therefore residual) material in post-holes; considerations of changes of use for certain areas of the site as the settlement developed are also key to the interpretation.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 6 The Wilburton phase, c.1100-1000 BCE.|Image[/fg]
Taken together, the evidence strongly suggests that a main focus of this ‘Wilburton Phase’ activity at Holborough Quarry lay immediately to the south-west of ditch G103, and within pit group G119. Firstly, pit digging appears to represent change [pg298]of use of the area in relation to the cremation-related features, F22 in particular. Moreover, two of the pits in this group, F328 and F335, produced the bulk of the metalworking material from the site, including all of the sword moulds. Further remnants of clay mould were retrieved from samples taken from pit F351, and fragments of copper alloy waste and slag were recovered from fills of features F319, F328, F335 and F352, while small pieces of burnt stone were found in pit F328.
Pit F335 was almost circular, with steep, concave sides and a flat base. It was 1.35m by 1.27m wide and 0.50m deep. The earliest fill was of a 0.12m thick layer of reddish brown, carbon rich silty clay, clearly scorched, material which had been subjected to intense heat elsewhere before being deposited in the base of the pit. This material contained fragments from several sword moulds, and 83 potsherds dating to Ceramic Phase 4. More than 1.6kg of animal bone, fragments of burnt flint and a scrap of copper alloy slag/waste (FN: 205) were also present. The upper fill of the pit was somewhat darker and more charcoal-rich, and included rounded flint pebbles and chalk fragments. This deposit produced the bulk of the bronze moulding material recovered during the excavation: just over 3kg (of the total of 4.82kg), including several more fragmentary sword moulds, along with crucible fragments and other moulds used respectively in the manufacture of a razor, rings, blades and socketed tools/weapons. Over 250 further sherds of Middle to Late Bronze Age pottery, including 247 of Ceramic Phase 4, were present, with a fragment of quern stone (FN: 388), a bone bucket handle (or similar, FN: 386) and a dozen or so fragments of animal bone.
About 1.5m to the north-east, Pit F328 was oval and bowl-shaped, 2.04m long, 1.76m wide and 0.60m deep. The earliest fill was a light yellowish brown chalky silt, followed by three layers of charcoal rich, silty and stony clay. The primary fill produced another small fragment of sword mould, while the further infilling yielded yet more fragments of sword moulds as well as parts of moulds used in the casting of an axe, rings and discs; more than 100 sherds of Ceramic Phase 3 and 4 pottery were recovered, many fragments of animal bone, burnt flint and sandstone, and a large block of tufa weighing about 5kg. Some undoubtedly intrusive sherds of latest Bronze Age Ceramic Phase 5 (c.900-800 bce) were present in the upper deposit; this can be explained by a combination of pit fills typically slumping, and also becoming an interface for a later change of use in this zone (see below).
To the north-west, pit F351 was lozenge-shaped, 1.63m long, 0.44m wide and just 0.10m deep with rounded ends and a shallow concave profile. It was filled by silty clay with flint pebbles and charcoal fragments, which produced a small piece of unidentified clay mould, five sherds of Ceramic Phase 3 and 4 pottery, and a few scraps of animal bone. Pit F352 lay parallel with, and to the south of, pit F351 and was similarly lozenge-shaped although with a flat western end. This was 1.14m long, 0.37m wide and just 0.08m deep and contained a fill very similar to F351, with three sherds of Ceramic Phase 4 pottery and two fragments of animal bone.
Of the remaining pits in group G119, pit F319 was again nearly circular and steep- sided with a flattish base, 2.20m in diameter and almost 0.50m deep. This contained a greyish brown silty clay with flint and chalk fragments which contained sherds of Ceramic Phase 4 pottery; a fragment of burnt daub and copper alloy waste and slag were derived from samples. Pit F332 was a rather irregular although roughly [pg299]triangular in shape and lay on the south-western side of the grouping. It was 1.25m long, 0.85m wide, and 0.20m deep at its north-western end. The fill of clayey silt with chalk rubble and flint pebbles appeared sterile and produced no finds. Feature F366 was near circular and about 1.40m in diameter with steep sides and a rounded base at a depth of 0.61. The clayey silt fill was typical of all other pits included in this group (F274; F317; F328), which between them contained occasional Ceramic Phase 4 sherds.
A final point of interest to mention about pit Group G119 is that it stands out in terms of its animal bone assemblage; specialist Susan Jones (2017, 199-200) has noted that this group contains both sheep and goat bones as a significant proportion of the assemblage, something not seen with other groups. From the point of view of the present interpretation, the focus of this tradition in a demonstrably earlier context seems associated with Wilburton phase inhabitants of the site, and a further marker of relative chronology, therefore.
Moving beyond depositional contexts in G119, two features to the north of the old ditch, F154 and F563, were certainly purpose-built hearths, and potentially small furnaces associated with bronze working. Feature F154, nearer the eastern side of the excavation, consisted of a near circular pit with step sides and flattish base, 0.65m wide and 0.19m deep, lined with large chunks of burnt sandstone. The stone lining appeared to have been laid to form an ovoid depression about 0.30m long, 0.20m wide and 0.19m deep on the western side of the feature, which was filled by two deposits of dark greyish brown, carbon rich silt. Feature F563 was located to the west, a circular, steep-sided and round-based cut, 0.96m across and 0.25m deep, containing large fragments of burnt sandstone and carbon rich silt, which produced thirty sherds of Ceramic Phase 4 pottery and some small scraps of animal bone. Even if the link with bronze working is tenuous for these features, it is quite possible that they represent domestic hearths, perhaps the only remains of dwellings associated with this early phase.
A number of other pits (pits of G122; G151; pits F638; F212; F215; F220; F150; F153-4; F240; F26 and F166), all containing pottery of Ceramic Phase 4 or earlier, could be traced across the site, many of similar shape and proportions, and with similar carbon-flecked silty fills. These, along with other circumstantial evidence, might give an idea of the extent of this phase of occupation. Pit F166 is particularly noteworthy. It lay furthest east of the features, was almost circular (1m by 0.86m) and had an even, bowl-shaped profile 0.40m deep. The pit was conspicuous in having a clay lining, some 0.10m thick, covering its base and lower sides. Within silty clay fills were small lumps of clay, flint fragments and charcoal, and large sherds of a perforated bucket vessel. According to Barbara McNee (ibid., 28), ‘Dating of this vessel is problematic. The form and fabric is classic Deverel- Rimbury, but it is quite similar to pots recovered from Bridge Barrow, which have below rim perforations, and a 1246-1066 bc date. This might suggest a later date for this vessel, and may also indicate that the vessel was used as a cremation urn’. Certainly, the design of pit F166 and its contexts suggest an alternative function to refuse disposal: perhaps another placed deposit.
The pattern of residual moulds and bronze casting material from later features across the site (marked on Fig. 6 as yellow stars) perhaps also hints at the original extent of occupation. Moreover, the locations of some of the cremation-related [pg300]features may indicate that they belonged to this phase of activity, if the periphery was considered a more appropriate place for such deposits. It was noted earlier that cremation-related feature F9 was located 3.2m to the north-west F12 (above, and Fig. 5). The partly truncated pit was probably originally circular, with steep sides and a flat base 0.40m wide and 0.35m deep. This was filled with very dark charcoal rich silty clay containing 557g of human skull fragments, ribs, vertebrae and upper and lower limbs representing an adult. There were also small fragments of burnt flint, unburned mammal bones, charred grains and fruit stones. Crucially, the material contained ten small sherds of Ceramic Phase 4 pottery. Given its spatial contiguity with ditch G103 and related features, this could surely form part of a continuing tradition of placement originating in the previous archaeological phase. It will also be noted, however, that its location may equally be considered broadly peripheral to the other activities/occupation area defined by the terminus post quem of pits already mentioned as well as the residual distribution of Wilburton material. Features F15 and F20 lay to the south. Feature F15 was a near circular flat based pit 0.46m wide and just 0.11m deep. A clayey fill, which contained a small quantity of cremated bone from an adult, charcoal and a few small pieces of burnt flint, lay within. Feature F20, about 5.5m to the south-west, was an oval cut 0.60m across and 0.23m deep. This contained three similar fills of friable clayey silt, and cremated remains in two identifiably separate fills; the earliest contained 96g of cremated bone from an adult (possibly male) the later contained 34g from a possible adult. A single sherd of Ceramic Phase 4 pottery was also recovered from this deposit. In both deposits the bone was mixed with much burnt flint and charcoal. The chalky silt natural on the northern side of the cut was noticeably scorched which suggests that the cremated remains were deposited while still very hot. The feature was finally infilled by a seemingly sterile deposit silty clay which produced very small fragments of a possible baked clay mould (FN: 852).
Feature F13 was investigated in the northern part of the site, and consisted of two deposits in an almost circular, steep-sided and flattish-based cut 0.6m in diameter and 0.33m deep. The earlier fill was a clayey silt which produced 8g of very fragmented cremated bone, charcoal and a few fragments of burnt flint. The upper fill of dark grey, charcoal-rich clayey silt contained almost 1kg of cremated bone from a mature adult (aged 30 to 50), comprehensively drawn from the skull, axial skeleton and upper and lower limbs. To the east, Feature 21 was a circular, steep-sided and flat- based pit 0.47m wide and 0.27m deep, the second fill of which was a charcoal-rich silty clay which contained over 1kg of cremated bone, again including fragments of skull, ribs, and upper and lower limbs of an adult, intermixed with considerable quantities of burnt flint and charcoal. A small scrap of undated prehistoric pottery and charred seeds or grains were also recovered during the sample processing.
c.1000-800 BCE
The pottery used for the dating of this phase included Ceramic Phase 5 (c.900-800 bce), 6.5% of the overall assemblage by weight, and Ceramic Phase 6 (c. 800-600 bce), just 2.7% of the overall assemblage by weight, both including residual material in later features. From these considerations, it can be suggested that it was only after what has been termed here the Wilburton phase (only after about 1000 bce) that the [pg301]
[fg]jpg|Fig. 7 Development of the settlement, c.1000-800 bce.|Image[/fg]
Late Bronze Age settlement at Holborough Quarry fully developed, and that it was perhaps not until the very latest Bronze Age that it reached its apogee (Fig. 7). It is not impossible that some of the post-holes assigned to this phase were earlier, but it is noticeable that: a) there is no convincing correlation between them and the hearths already described as probably of the Wilburton phase; and b) that post clusters clearly seem to mark changes of use to certain zones, as well as extension into wider areas.
[pg302]Before moving on to structures, however, a new northern boundary of the site should first be recognised. Ditch F7 was west-north-west/east-south-east aligned, and traced for 55.6m across the site. The ditch had a concave profile and survived to a maximum depth of 0.47m towards its eastern end, the width varying between 0.60m and 0.90m. The fill was silt and clay, eroded into the feature, rather than any refuse dumping, and produced only small quantities of pottery, mostly Ceramic Phase 4, but with two sherds of Ceramic Phase 6 material (c.800-600 bce), along with some occasional animal bone and burnt flint fragments. This boundary seems to mark an extension beyond the putative Wilburton phase periphery, and also appears to have been widely respected by an array of structures that now appeared in the northern parts of the site. Many of the numerous post-hole clusters at Holborough Quarry were simply impossible for archaeologists to rationalise into structural forms except in the vaguest terms. The only point that may certainly be made is that such masses of posts in the archaeological record more likely relate to superimposed buildings and/or changes to existing structures than haphazard design; either a longevity of particular structures with maintenance is being seen, or periodic total rebuilding, perhaps driven by cultural, or indeed, design factors.
Some structures could be partially determined from the posts, however, including remnants of two probable roundhouses, various four- five- and six-post structures, as well as scattered two-post configurations, various lines of posts, and some successive rebuilding of enclosures for animals. Zonation of this settlement, in fact, into domestic, husbandry, refuse and funerary areas, can be proposed.
Lying roughly within the north-west quadrant of the site area was a penannular wear hollow about 7.5m across with a causeway or entrance 1.85m wide on its north-west side (F27; Fig. 7). This feature was at most 1.50m wide along its southern extent narrowing to about 1m wide along its eastern and northern parts, and at the rounded terminals of the entrance. The feature was 0.35m deep to the south and only 0.10m deep to the north. It may have been formed by repeated cleaning and recutting of an eaves drip gully for a roundhouse, an interpretation that could explain discrepancies in width, depth and form in relation to the slope and the general direction of water run-off and catchment. In addition, irregular parts of the feature on its interior boundary, as indeed the rounded terminals at the entrance, suggest posts for a superstructure. The space within F27 allows for a projected circle a little over 7m across, a dimension which also appears to be significant for other features (see below). The silty fill of the hollow produced remains of two bowls assigned to Ceramic Phase 5 (c.900-800 bce), the latest Bronze Age. This could suggest that the earliest use of the feature was earlier, but perhaps not earlier than, say c.1000 bce.
Another probable dwelling, this time evidenced by a circle of posts (complete with what may be an irregular porch structure on the south-east side), could be tentatively delineated from post cluster G129, some 20m to the south-east of F27 (Fig. 7). Of key significance to this interpretation is the fact that the posts form a circle of the same size as that reconstructed for F27. It is notable that several of the post-holes here contained probably residual Ceramic Phase 4 pottery, as well as residual cremation-related material. It is also suggested that clayey silt horizons within and around the circle of posts represent disturbed occupation interfaces (greyed area on Fig. 7); these produced, along with animal bone, daub, burnt flint, [pg303]fragments of burnt and unburnt non-local stone, some Ceramic Phase 6 pottery (c.800-600 bce).
The cluster of posts grouped as G106, about 30m to the north-east of F27, can also be reconstructed as including a roundhouse form, once again of the same dimensions, and again with a possible porch structure (among others) on its south-east side (Fig. 6). These post-holes included several with probably residual Ceramic Phase 4 pottery, again roughly according with the suggested date range of this phase.
To the south and east of these three perhaps regularly spaced roundhouses, configurations of posts, especially groups G107, G125, G128 and G151, are highly suggestive of animal pens. Again, many of the individual post-holes contained probably residual Ceramic Phase 4 pottery, as well as some of Ceramic Phase 6; as such, a stock husbandry zone can be envisaged within this part the settlement. Outlying post-clusters to the north (G124; G127) are not possible to resolve into structural patterns, and neither is G118, to the south-east of the old ditch F103. The key significance of the latter group, however, is that it represents a change of use from the pit digging of the previous Wilburton phase. This also explains finds of Ceramic Phase 5 pottery pressed into the top of slumping earlier pit fills, and in the fills of the adjacent truncated ditch. Again, many of the posts of these clusters contain probably residual Ceramic Phase 4 pottery, likely included accidentally in material used for packing of the posts.
Hardly any of the two-, four-, five- and six-post arrangements produced pottery, and then only in those examples lying nearest to proposed domestic structures. This is perhaps a further clue to zoning of the settlement, and also to the expansion of the settlement during this phase. It is clear that these small post configurations (often interpreted as functional for agricultural practices) are broadly peripheral in the settlement layout, and the patterned location of pottery from some provides yet another clue to the smaller extent of the settlement in the Wilburton period.
Do features F16 and F19, therefore, mark the latest cremation-related features on the site? They lay at or near what may have been the south-east periphery, or at least beyond the zone just described. Feature F16 was near-circular, with steep sides and a flattish base, 0.40m wide and just 0.10m deep. It contained very dark greyish brown, charcoal-rich and friable clayey silt, and nearly half a kilo of cremated bone consisting of skull, ribs, and upper and lower limb fragments from an adult. Feature F19, about 2.20m to the north-west, also nearly circular, but a mere depression 0.22m across and just 0.02m deep. The charcoal rich silt within was mixed with fragments of burnt flint and cremated bone amounting to six fragments of skull, three fragments of upper limb and nineteen fragments of lower limb possibly from an adult.
The pits that can be placed in this phase give some idea of continued daily life, and one, at least, provides some absolute chronology. Of special note are pits in the vicinity of possible roundhouse F27 (F130; F178; F193; F198; F199; F213; F746; F753; all assigned to general group G145). These were all near-circular with often rather shallow, concave profiles, with diameters ranging between 0.40 to 1.66m and depths of between 0.05 and 0.40m. They were clearly a series truncated pits that had been used for refuse disposal in the vicinity of at least two of the putative roundhouses. Several contained pottery of Ceramic Phase 5 (F213) or 6 (F746 [pg304]and F198). Animal bone was also typical, the largest assemblages being found in pit F198 (over 100 fragments of bone) and pit F130 (98 fragments). Charred and processed plant remains were recovered, and Pit F130 yielded some charred broad beans, emmer wheat chaff and spelt wheat glumes from which produced radiocarbon dates of 908-803, 1269-930 and 913-798 cal bc (at 95.4% probability; UBA-31957, UBA-31958 and UBA-31959), ranges that accord with this late phase of the Bronze Age settlement.
Cremation-related features
Cremation-related features and deposits are a regular characteristic of Middle to Late Bronze Age archaeology. They are typically analytically grouped by archaeologists because of their cremated bone content (as here), but this can only take us so far into interpreting the circumstances and actions that left such remains. In fact, another characteristic of these cremation-related deposits and features is their considerable diversity, confounding neat categories.
Whatever the context, most deposits of cremated material are only a ‘token deposit’ derived from the pyre cremation, where between 1,000-3,600g of cremated bone by weight might be expected to be produced from processing an adult corpse (McKinley 2000, 404). The deposit within the ditch fill for G103, albeit truncated, produced nearly 700g of bone, suggesting a more particular burial, perhaps, of a considerable amount collected from a single pyre. Generally, however, there was considerable variation in this regard with deposits of less than 100g of cremated bone (F15, F19 and F20), 100-500g (F16), 500-1000g (F4, F9, F12, F13) and over 1,000g (F21 and F22) represented. Even bearing the vicissitudes of post-deposition disturbance in mind, the larger deposits increasingly look like attempts to gather much more than a ‘token’ deposit, and F22 is particularly noteworthy, with over 2,500g. This indeed could be suggested to emphasise collection and deposition of as many of the cremated remains of a person as possible: an emphasis therefore on a particular person and their funerary rites.
It should be stressed, however, that even here there is room to consider the deposition of this material as a ‘placed deposit’, with perhaps (for the depositors themselves) much more in common with other more obviously ‘token’ deposits nearby, or the pot with funerary connotations but without any bone at all. Cremation-related features and deposits cannot be simply forced into categories based on analytical frameworks (contra Dean 2017). The stabilised cremated remains allow for many depositional, and indeed pre-depositional possibilities; they could equally have been buried long after the cremation pyre, for example, re-buried, even kept for many years and/or brought from distant lands, etc! If an assumption about each deposit representing a single cremation event is removed, it is not illogical to allow that different deposits from across the same site and elsewhere could even have derived from the same cremation pyre.
In the Holborough Quarry deposits, no particular patterns of ‘efficiency’ of cremation techniques could be adduced from a comparison of the colour and degrees of fragmentation of the bone, which certainly suggests a standardised technique, and bone deposits also tended to include all main areas of the skeleton (skull, axial, upper limbs, lower limbs), suggesting a quite uniform method of [pg305]collecting bone from the cooling pyre for the secondary deposition. The former is quite typical, as is the fact that several of the deposits also contained some cremated animal bone, likely the result of offerings on the pyre leaving remnants that those collecting the bone did not distinguish from the human remains.
Based on the minimum number of individuals in each discrete deposit, the specialist osteological report for Holborough Quarry (ibid.) posits a total of seventeen individuals represented (although, as stated, this relies on widespread assumptions about how original pyre material relates to particular secondary deposits). Sixteen were adults, of which only one person represented by a contemporary deposit (F12) could be classified as a probable male, and another (F16) tentatively as a possible female.
This is all again fairly typical of an excavation that obviously represents only part of an original landscape, and the fact that the burial population represented by cremation burials in the Middle to Late Bronze Age can only be fraction of those who actually lived and died at this time; in short, many received archaeologically invisible treatment, and only a relative few came to be cremated and deposited, at least in a way that leaves an archaeological trace. Here is what appears to be a sample of what was already a selection of the population, set aside apparently for this particular funerary rite. In this respect it is also interesting that only non-adult in the Holborough Quarry sample, classed as an ‘older child’, was the one whose remains were apparently placed directly in the ditch rather than in a pit of its own; was this lack of a specially dug pit meaningful, in a social and funereal sense?
Finally in this area, it has to be said that a consistent tradition is certainly represented in the cremation-related material in a number of respects. It has already been noted, for example, that pyre technique and bone collection from all parts of the skeleton were fairly uniform, and the cremation of adults rather children (generally speaking) was a further pattern. Even given the truncated nature of the site, there would also appear to be a continuing tradition of more and less ‘token’ depositions in each phase, with some features containing a significant amount of bone; some very little. While such aspects are broadly typical of Middle to Late Bronze Age practices, their profile as a continuous tradition may lend further weight to the chronological interpretation of the site presented here.
Conclusion
This, then, is the general archaeological context of the Holborough Quarry sword moulds, an established settlement with evidence of domestic and agricultural activities as well. It has already been shown that, when various evidence is compared, the period of the development of this settlement might be interpreted beginning not long before c.1100 bce, and ending not long after c.800 bce, but with notable development from about 1000 bce. Such a pattern of origin and floruit is entirely in keeping with many new settlements and field systems that appeared in the landscapes of southern Britain and beyond at this time, often areas that had not previously been occupied so intensively.
Moreover, it might only be now, with breakthroughs in the study of genomic information derived from ancient human remains, that archaeologists can begin to [pg306]be more certain about why this phenomenon, long recognised among students of prehistory but not fully understood, appears so widespread in the archaeological record. Recent studies (Patterson et al. 2021) have demonstrated that there was considerable migration into the British Isles from mainland Europe in the late Bronze Age. The implications of such data are only just beginning to be felt, and debated over, in archaeological circles, let alone at intra-site levels. The questions raised, when applied to a site like Holborough Quarry, are already intriguing.
Bibliography
Boden, D., 2017, ‘Archaeological Investigations at Holborough Quarry, Snodland, Kent, 2004-2006: Final Report. Canterbury Archaeological Trust Technical Report No 1’, unpubl. Canterbury Archaeological Trust report.
Dean, B., 2017, ‘Human Remains’, in Boden 2017, pp. 174-196.
McKinley, J., 2000, ‘The analysis of cremated bone’, in M. Cox and S. Mays (eds), Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science, London: Greenwich Medical Media Ltd, pp. 403-421.
McNee, B., 2022, ‘Prehistoric pottery from excavations at Holborough Quarry, Snodland, Tonbridge, Kent: Revised’, Archive Report unpubl: Canterbury Archaeological Trust.
Needham, S. 2017, ‘Metalworking in the Wilburton Tradition’, in Boden 2017, pp. 118- 158.
Jones, S., 2017, ‘Animal Bone’ in Boden 2017, pp. 197-228.
Patterson, N., Isakov, M,, Booth, T. et al., 2022, ‘Large-scale migration into Britain during the Middle to Late Bronze Age’, Nature, 601, 588-594. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586- 021-04287-4.
Webley, L., Adams, S. and Brück, J., 2020, The Social Context of Technology. Non-ferrous metalworking in later prehistoric Britain and Ireland, Prehistoric Society Research Paper 11, Oxbow Books.[pg307][pg308]