Archaeological investigations at Hinxhill, Willesborough, Ashford

Evaluation and a strip, map and sample investigation were undertaken by Archaeology South-East (UCL Institute of Archaeology) during June and July 2018 and September 2018 to January 2019 at Hinxhill. The results of the evaluation led to the excavation of four separate areas of the site revealed evidence of Neolithic–Early Bronze Age activity based on Beaker/Grooved ware pottery recovered from an isolated pit and worked flints recovered across the site. A Middle Bronze Age ring ditch was excavated, and although the burial mound and any primary burial had apparently been ploughed out, sherds of a Deverel-Rimbury type cremation urn were recovered from the ditch. The Middle–Late Iron Age was represented by rectangular enclosures and various rectilinear fields/enclosures and some discrete features were in use from the Late Iron Age to early Roman periods. There was evidence of medieval and post-medieval field systems and of ridge and furrow agriculture. The site represents an excellent example of prehistoric, Roman and medieval activity hitherto unknown in this part of Ashford. Accompanying specialist reports can be found on the KAS website.

Site location, natural geology, topography

Archaeology South-East (ASE; UCL Institute of Archaeology) was commissioned by CgMs Consulting (now RPS) to undertake a programme of archaeological mitigation on land at Hinxhill (centred on NGR 604231 141717; Fig. 1). The site comprised an irregular-shaped parcel of agricultural land, some 9.2 hectares in extent, lying between the A20 Hythe Road and the Hinxhill Road (south of William Harvey Hospital) on the eastern periphery of Willesborough.

[fg]png|Fig. 1: Site location and plan.|Image[/fg]

The underlying bedrock consisted of Folkestone Formation Sandstone in the northern part of the site and Sandgate Formation Sandstone Siltstone and Mudstone to the south. The only mapped superficial deposit was a small, localised area of River Terrace Gravels in the southern part of the site, which have subsequently been subject to geoarchaeological investigation and found to be gravel head deposits rather than river terrace (BGS 2022; ASE 2018). On investigation the natural geology in the northern part of site was found to consist of mottled dark [pg223][pg224]reddish-orange/light yellow medium sand. In the south, the natural geology was found to consist of Wealden Clay overlain in places by gravel deposits. Colluvium was encountered overlying this, measuring 0.30–0.75m. The overlying sub and topsoil measured up to 0.85m thick across site.

Archaeological/historical background

The archaeological background of the Hinxhill site and the surrounding area is somewhat scant, presumably in large part due to the general lack of archaeological excavation. The Kent HER records small assemblages of prehistoric flint within a 1km radius of the site, but the nearest find was 750m to the north-west where a single triangular shaped flint arrowhead of Neolithic date was found in a garden at Bracken Hill, Willesborough Lees. In 2012, Wessex Archaeology carried out an evaluation at Sevington West around 0.70km south-west of the Hinxhill site. A small number of archaeological features were uncovered, including a pit containing a number of sherds of mid-late Bronze Age pottery. Another pit was excavated that yielded four sherds of broadly prehistoric undiagnostic pottery (Wessex Archaeology 2012). The Kent HER does not list any recorded Roman or medieval sites or findspots within a 1km radius of the site. An incomplete Anglo-Saxon charter with a suggested date of ad 871–899 reads that the granter Æthelfrith made a bequest of land called Atleswolde (Aylesford) in Willesborough and Hinxhill to St Augustine’s Abbey (Sawyer 1968, 453).

The desk-based assessment prepared by RPS Consulting (2016) showed that there were a number of post-medieval farmsteads present within a 1km radius. The site evaluation carried out by ASE during June-July 2018 revealed evidence of prehistoric, Roman, medieval, and post-medieval features. As a result of these findings, it was deemed that a strip, map, and sample excavation should be undertaken by ASE.

Excavation results (Fig. 2)

[fg]png|Fig. 2: Overall phase plan.|Image[/fg]

Period 1: Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age (c. 2450–1800 BC)

OA1. A single pit was encountered in OA1 (Fig. 3). It was excavated and recorded during the archaeological evaluation and was found to date to the Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age based on potsherds recovered from the feature. These sherds comprised grog-tempered Beaker pottery (41 sherds, weighing 244g), together with two possibly residual sherds of Middle Neolithic Peterborough Ware. The Beaker decoration, including all-over cord, horizontal comb-stabbing and paired crow’s feet fingernail impressions, is characteristic of the East Anglian/Southern Beaker grouping (Clarke 1970; Case 1993) and similar to material noted locally at Beechbrook Wood (Edwards 2006).

[fg]png|Fig. 3: Period 1 – OA1.|Image[/fg]

Though not closely datable, the group likely falls between c. 2250 and 1810 cal bc. The date bracketing being from the start of a horizon where Beaker pottery became much more common outside of elite burial contexts (Needham 2005) until the likely end date for Beaker in Britain found by a programme of Bayesian modelling of new and existing radiocarbon dates (Parker Pearson et al. 2016, 623).[pg225]

Worked flint also recovered from the pit fill could have been contemporary with the Beaker sherds. Unfortunately, no other features aside from the pit in OA1 yielded comparable dating evidence, and so this pit appeared to exist in isolation within an area of open land, at least as far as the extent of the excavations were concerned.

Period 2: Middle Bronze Age (1500–1150 bc)

FS5. A number of ditches and a pit were dated to this period, based on pottery dating, stratigraphic relationships and spatial analysis. These features formed the remnants of fs5 (Fig. 4), which had been truncated by post-medieval ridge and furrow as well as more recent ploughing. One of the ditches was also cut by a Middle–Late Iron Age pit which formed part of FS1.

[fg]png|Fig. 4: Period 2 – FS5 and MON1.|Image[/fg]

Pit [1024] was situated on the western side of FS5, and a large Deverel-Rimbury rimsherd was recovered from the fill of this feature. The longer ditch running north-east to south-west across two areas of the excavation yielded three adjoining period 2 sherds. This ditch was barely visible in the vicinity of pit [1024] and may have been largely destroyed by subsequent ploughing. The ditches comprising FS5 exhibited the same u-shaped profile and measured between 0.13–0.57m deep. The fills of these ditches generally consisted of mid-to-dark greyish-brown/ brownish- grey sandy clay silt. A Middle Bronze Age bodysherd was recovered from a ditch running north-west to south-east close to ring ditch MON1.

[pg227]MONI. Ring ditch MON1 (Fig. 4) was located to the south-east of FS5. It measured between 0.35–0.90m deep and had been quite substantially truncated by later ditches and subsequent landscaping to the east. The fill deposits varied to some degree, but generally consisted of a basal fill of light grey sandy clay, overlain by a fill of sub-angular flint mixed with light grey clay which had formed into solid lumps. Overlying this was light grey silty sandy clay with orange mottling, containing occasional sub-angular flint inclusions. This was overlain by a fill of light grey silty clay with frequent flint and gravel. The uppermost fill consisted of mid grey silty clayey sand with occasional sub-angular flint inclusions.

The majority of period 2 pottery was recovered from MON1. The assemblage mostly comprised undiagnostic thick-walled Deverel-Rimbury bodysherds associated with coarse and very coarse flint-tempered fabrics, with occasional flint- and-grog-tempered wares, similar to the fabric composition in the Middle Bronze Age assemblage from nearby Beechbrook Wood (Jones 2006, 13–14). A single diagnostic Deverel-Rimbury finger impressed cordon was also recovered from the ring ditch. Sherds from a broken Deverel-Rimbury type cremation urn were included in the pottery assemblage. These sherds were recovered from the shallower eastern half of the ring-ditch, suggesting that the urn had been disturbed through the aforementioned ploughing/landscaping. MON1 may originally have comprised a barrow, and the sherds recovered from the Deverel-Rimbury cremation urn show that the feature would have been utilised for burials. Although there was no trace of a barrow mound, primary burial or ditch bank associated with MON1, the former two were presumably destroyed through ploughing and the creation of later field- systems (see FS4 below). The bank may also have been ploughed away or eroded naturally, forming some of the infills of the ring ditch. Two shale/mudstone armlets of prehistoric date were also recovered from the fills of MON1 (Fig. 5).

[fg]png|Fig. 5: Illustration of shale armlets recovered from MON1.|Image[/fg]

[pg229]Bronze Age and Early Iron Age armlets were made using flint tools or flakes, as seen at Brean Down where blanks recovered bore clear tool marks (Bell 1990, 159), whereas Late Iron Age and Roman examples tend to be lathe turned (Calkin 1953, 45–71). Due to the poor preservation of both objects, no identification could be made as to the manufacturing method employed.

One possible source for the armlets is the Bronze Age to Early Iron Age stone working site of Burham approximately 40km to the north-west, in the Medway valley (Nelson 2015, 160; Gittins 2022). However, evidence for localised shale working has also been found at nearby White Horse Stone (Champion 2011), and the presence of small fragments of unworked shale/mudstone at Hinxhill perhaps suggests that shale working may have taken place locally. The origin of the raw material is unclear; possibly the local Gault exposures or Lower Greensand deposits (Gittens 2022, 307) or the Kimmerage shale beds, although Champion (ibid.) also suggests the import of raw materials from northern France. The form of the armlets is analogous to later Bronze Age and Iron Age examples recovered elsewhere in Kent, for example at Mill Hill (Champion 1980, 233) and Thanet (Nelson 2015, 160).

Period 3: Mid–Late Iron Age (150–1 bc) – FS1, ENC1, ENC2 and OA2

FSI. FS1 was formed of two perpendicular ditches, as shown in Fig. 6. Period 3 pottery was recovered, though the stratigraphic relationship between the two ditches remained unclear as their putative intersection lay beyond the northern limit of excavation (ASE 2019). The north-east to south-west ditch showed some signs of re-cutting/maintenance along part of its length. A substantial pit [413] measuring 2.07m long x 1.35m wide x 0.98m deep cut the northern-most ditch forming part of FS1. Pottery dated to period 3 was also recovered from the pit and this feature was thought most likely to have been utilised as a livestock watering hole.

ENC1. Part of a potential enclosure ENC1 (Fig. 6) was formed of a right- angled ditch on the western part of the site, though the limits of excavation mean this interpretation remains tentative. It could simply represent a continuation of field system, FS1. The ditch measured 0.15–0.27m deep, containing a single fill consisting of dark brownish-grey silty sand with occasional angular flint inclusions. A single potsherd dated to period 3 was recovered.

[fg]png|Fig. 6: Period 3 – FS1, ENC1, ENC2 and OA2.|Image[/fg]

ENC2. The ditches forming ENC2 (Fig. 6) exhibited the same profile of concave sides and base in section. The fills generally consisted of mid grey/mid brownish- grey clayey silt/silty sand and the feature varied from 0.15–0.84m deep. A terminus of the southern-most ditch (oriented north-east to south-west) potentially formed the entrance to ENC2. Examples of potsherds recovered from this terminus are illustrated in Fig. 7. Associated environmental samples produced scant evidence of charred plant remains. A group of postholes were found within ENC2, and pottery dating to period 3 was also recovered here. There was not enough evidence to suggest if these postholes were originally part of a structure of some kind.

OA2. A large open area OA2 existed to the north and east beyond FS1. Here sporadic period 3 activity was found in the form of two intercutting pits. Pit [1222] was found to cut pit [1224]. This pit contained a single fill consisting of a charcoal and fired clay dumped deposit. No finds were recovered, but the fill was removed [pg230]archaeological investigations at hinxhill, willesborough, ashford [pg231]Steve Price for environmental sampling and subsequent radiocarbon dating, see below. A date range of 168 cal bc – 1 cal ad (2081 ± 24 BP; SUERC-96228 (GU56448); 95% probability) was returned, placing the pit within the Mid to Late Iron Age. Despite a lack of dating evidence pit [1224] is thought to belong to the same phase of activity.

The pottery from period 3, totaling 180 sherds, weighing 2.64kg, was primarily found in ditches forming ENC2 and FS1. The most diagnostic pottery group contains examples of simple hand-made necked jars with sinuous profiles (P1–P4) and one example of a plain saucepan-like jar with a slightly closed profile (P5) (Fig. 7). These elements can be paralleled in Middle Iron Age assemblages like that from Beechbrook Wood (Jones 2006). This assemblage is, however, characterised by groups in which significant quantities of Late Iron Age grog-tempered fabrics occur alongside flint-tempered, glauconitic and sandy wares which are more typical of the Middle Iron Age. The fabric composition therefore appears similar to that of the Middle/Late Iron Age assemblage from Brisley Farm (Thompson & Doherty 2013, 275–277). The assemblage likely dates to around early mid first century BC.

[fg]png|Fig. 7: Period 3 pottery illustrations P1 – P5.|Image[/fg]

Period 4: Late Iron Age–Roman (c. AD 1–200) – FS2 and ENC3

FS2. Three of the ditches forming part of FS2 (Fig. 8) looked to have formed parallel northeast-southwest oriented ditches. They exhibited the same profile of concave sides and u-shaped bases, measuring 0.06–0.48m deep according to their state of preservation in the excavated slots. The fills generally consisted of mid greyish-brown silty sand and clayey sand.

[fg]png|Fig. 8: Period 4 – FS2 and ENC3.|Image[/fg]

FS2 pit [206] measured 0.80m in diameter x 0.42m deep. It was cut by a similar sized pit [208], that measured 0.72m in diameter x 0.42m deep. The lower fill [209] of pit [208] had potentially been burnt in-situ, and an environmental sample was taken. Evidence of wheat and hulled barley was recovered, suggesting some arable land use of the field spaces. Sherds of early Roman pottery dated to c. AD 50–80 were also recovered from fill [209].

A nearby group of postholes may have outlined a roughly rectangular structure, perhaps an outbuilding of a farmstead, and they are considered to have been part of FS2 based on a period 4 pottery sherd recovered from an environmental sample. The function of an unusual rectangular feature [1076] is unclear (Fig. 8). It was too short to be some sort of gully and it seems unlikely to have been a beam slot. The fill was clearly defined against the natural and it contained pottery dating from the first–early second century AD. Although this feature appeared to cut one of the north-east to south-west FS2 ditches in section, it may be possible that it was actually part of the ditch fill that had been disturbed by subsequent ploughing action.

ENC3. ENC3 appeared to have undergone a fair amount of alteration during its use, with stratigraphic relationships showing ditches were cut and re-cut at different times. There was potentially some sort of livestock management system/ funnel on the eastern side, and part of the enclosure continued beyond the southern and western limits of excavation. The ditches that formed this possible livestock system, which looked to have been replaced at least once, measured between 0.05–0.28m deep and exhibited u-shaped profiles in section. Fill deposits consisted [pg232]archaeological investigations at hinxhill, willesborough, ashford P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 0 5cm P1 Simple sinuous jar with short neck in grog-tempered fabric. Fill [158], ditch [157], G3, ENC2

P2 Jar with a sinuous necked profile and slightly flattened rim in grog-tempered fabric, with light diagonal scoring/combing. Fill [159], ditch [157], G3, ENC2

P3 Jar with sinuous necked profile in grog-tempered fabric. Fill [159], ditch [157], G3, ENC2

P4 Jar with sinuous long-necked profile, in hand-made sandy fabric. Fill [159], ditch [157], G3, ENC2 P5 Plain possible saucepan related form with slightly incurving profile, in grog-tempered fabric.

Fill [159], ditch [157], G3, ENC2 [pg233]Steve Price of mid/dark greyish brown silty clay/silty sand. The terminus of ditch G19 was extremely shallow at just 0.05m deep and seemed to peter out rather than forming a genuine terminal end. This suggests that the ditch may have originally continued west-northwest and had been truncated away by subsequent ploughing. Therefore, the land division/ field space within ENC3 may also have been altered at some point. ENC3 ditch G15 was curvilinear in plan, measuring 0.24-0.62m deep with a u-shaped profile. The fills consisted of mid grey/ greyish-brown clayey silt/ sandy silt. This ditch was found to cut G16, although pottery dating suggested the ditches were in use together, with the southwestern terminus of G16 forming part of ENC3. A small pottery assemblage of 127 sherds, weighing 1.51kg, dating to either side of the Roman Conquest, was widely dispersed in the different features belonging to the earlier part of period 4 (c. AD 1–60). It was dominated by grog-tempered fabrics with one or two examples of Roman sandy wares. A moderate-sized pottery assemblage, of 437 sherds, weighing 3.27kg, was recovered in period 4 features spanning the later first to second centuries. A particularly large group of pottery was found in ditch G17 in field system FS2. Like the assemblage dating to c. ad 1–60, it still contains a large component of grog-tempered fabrics, but Roman sandy wares are in the majority, including grey and oxidized wares from Canterbury and fine table wares from the North Kent/Thameside industry. Samian ware is also relatively common in the assemblage with most examples coming from the second century Lezoux industry.[pg234]

Period 5: Saxon–Medieval (c. ad 575–1350) - OA3, FS3 OA3. Anglo-Saxon activity was represented in OA3 by two pits [1096] and [1144]. An assemblage of 67 Early–Middle Saxon pottery sherds was recovered from refuse pit [1144], dating to the late sixth to early seventh century ad. however, this was the only feature to yield such diagnostic Anglo-Saxon pottery. This pit contained multiple deliberate backfills including a dumped deposit of charcoal from which the pottery was recovered. This deposit was likely a dump of fuel waste (see discussion on charcoal below). Pit [1096] contained similar multiple backfills also including a probable fuel waste dump, but the pottery dating recovered from the top fill [1103] was considerably later, dating to the late twelfth–early thirteenth centuries. Samples of fills [1099] and [1102] were submitted for radiocarbon dating, and these returned results calibrated to ad 677–884 and ad 551–775 respectively ([1099], 1220±24 BP, SUERC-96222 1246±24 BP, SUERC-96223 and [1102], 1309±24 BP, SUERC-96217, 1485 ± 24 BP SUERC-96218; 95 per cent probability; see Table 3, KAS website). Given that context [1102] is above [1099] in the pit fill sequence, we may suggest a date of ad 677–775 for pit [1096]. The pottery recovered from the top fill of this pit [1103] comprised 3 sherds (30g) from a single cooking pot and may have been intrusive. It is also possible that the pit may have been reused, [1103] potentially forming a re-cut of an earlier pit. These pits appear to represent sporadic, low-level Anglo-Saxon activity between the late sixth to late eighth century ad, perhaps suggestive of some occasional seasonal occupation during this time.

FS3. The ditches in the north-western part of FS3 all exhibited a u-shaped profile and light greyish-brown clayey silt fills, measuring 0.10–0.29m deep. As can be seen in Fig. 9, two of the ditches looked to form part of a segmented ditch with a 7.00m wide entrance. These ditches were oriented north-east to south-west. A substantial rubbish pit [23/006] (Fig. 9) was excavated during the archaeological evaluation and yielded a large assemblage of fresh potsherds and fired clay. The fired clay was indicative of a hearth or floor surface, suggesting potential nearby occupation. It had been dumped as refuse into the pit, however, there was no direct evidence of a building from which this material could have derived encountered on site. The pit showed evidence of re-cutting, and the deliberate backfilling of this re-cut also contained medieval potsherds. The pottery dating from all of these FS3 features fell within the range of c. ad 1225–1350.

[fg]png|Fig. 9: Period 5 – FS3 and OA3.|Image[/fg]

The FS3 ditches in the south-eastern part of the site were oriented north-west to south-east, measuring between 0.21-0.38m deep, with mid greyish-brown sandy silty clay fills. Potsherds dated within a c. ad 1150–1250 bracket were recovered.

Period 6: Post-medieval (c. ad 1500–1900) – FS4 FS4. Remnants of a post–medieval field system FS4 were found to correspond with features on a nineteenth-century tithe map and 1907–1908 OS map (Figs. 10 and 11). Remnant furrows of a post–medieval ridge and furrow cultivation system were found to truncate prehistoric and medieval features of previous field systems. MON1 had been truncated by a substantial nineteenth- to twentieth-century boundary ditch oriented north-east to south-west and visible on the [pg236][pg238]map, containing multiple backfills and measuring up to 6.00m wide in places. This width appeared to have partially been a result of the ditch eroding downslope to the south-east, due to subsequent landscaping.

[fg]png|Fig. 11: Period 6 – FS4 overlain onto 1907-1908 OS map.|Image[/fg]

Specialist report Post-Roman pottery by Luke Barber

The archaeological work recovered 149 sherds of pottery, weighing 1905g, from 23 individually numbered contexts. The material has been fully listed for archive in the post-excavation assessment. Medieval fabrics have been allocated the Canterbury Archaeological Trust’s fabric code (bracketed) as well as a common/ descriptive name or, where not represented in that series, by reference to the fabric code used at the nearby site at Brisley Farm (Barber 2013). Post-medieval fabrics have been allocated common name only.

The earliest material consists of 67 Early/Mid Saxon sherds (604g) from pit [1144], fill [1146] (FS3) (Table 1). The sherds are notably fresh and derive from two jars in different fabrics, one of which has a simple everted rim (Fig. 12, fabric EMS1.4).

[fg]png|Fig. 12: Illustration of Anglo-Saxon vessel from pit [1144].|Image[/fg]

Table 1: The Early/Middle Ango-Saxon group from pit [1144]

[tb][th]Context|Fabric|No|Weight (g)|Comments (including estimated number of different vessels represented)[/th]

[tr]1146|Organic/grass tempered ware (EMS4)|26|248|?Jar x1 (reduced)[/tr]

[tr]1146|Sandy ware with sparse grass (EMS1.4)|8|126|Jar x1 (reduced, simple everted rim. Internally sooted)[/tr]

[tr]1146 <507>|Organic/grass tempered ware (EMS4)|33|230|same vessel as hand-collected sherds[/tr]

[/tb]

[pg239]Little pottery of this date has been recovered from the area to date though where it has these two fabrics have been present (Jervis 2011; Macpherson-Grant 2001). In Canterbury, where much larger groups of Early/Middle Anglo-Saxon pottery have been recovered, these fabrics are well dated and the current simple vessel form is easily paralleled (Macpherson-Grant 1995). It is unfortunate the current sherds remain an isolated assemblage with no other Anglo-Saxon pottery being recovered from the site. Taking the fabrics together a later sixth to seventh century date for the pit is probable.

The earliest post-Conquest material consists of the three sherds from an EM3 cooking pot from pit [1096] (FS3) that is probably of the later twelfth to early thirteenth centuries. Overlapping with these early sandy-shelly sherds are the much more numerous EM.M5 type that almost certainly derives from the nearby Potter’s Corner workshop (Grove and Warhurst 1952) (28/68g). The finish and forms suggest this material is best placed in a late twelfth or, more likely, thirteenth century date range. Chronologically it heavily overlaps with the later high medieval sandy wares, some of which still carry the last vestiges of shell tempering (e.g. fabric M40A). Virtually all of the EM.M5 sandy shelly ware sherds derive from cooking pots, though a single jug sherd is probably represented in context [61/006], recovered during the archaeological evaluation. Most of these sherds show some signs of abrasion.

The majority of the medieval assemblage (45/1145g) can be placed in the high medieval period. The material is limited in the range of fabrics – all deriving from a local source producing sandy wares with either sparse shell inclusions or purely quartz (M40A and M40B). These types could easily derive from the same workshops that produced the sandy-shelly ware and it is suspected an Ashford area source is probable (Barber 2013). The finish of these vessels is good and they are medium to well-fired suggesting an early thirteenth to mid fourteenth- century date. Jugs are particularly well represented and these include a number of competently, though not extravagantly, decorated vessels. Most of this material is notably fresh and includes large sherds, for example the assemblages recovered from pit [23/006] (fills [23/009] and [23/011], both SG 373, FS3), suggesting it has not been subjected to reworking.

The medieval assemblage appears to stop at around the mid fourteenth century, possibly the result of the Black Death. However, four of the unstratified sherds from the Stage 2 excavation are of late medieval type (Brisley fabric F4c) suggesting that even if actual feature-related activity ceased, the land was still being used agriculturally and the sherds may derive from occasional periods of manuring in the later fourteenth to mid fifteenth centuries.

The post-medieval assemblage is notably small consisting of a single intrusive sixteenth – seventeenth century redware tripod pipkin sherd in ditch [166] (FS1), suggestive of some manuring during the period but only very rarely.

Discussion and conclusions

Prehistoric

The single pit feature excavated within OA1 dated c. 2450–1800 bc based on the Beaker pottery sherds recovered, appeared to exist in isolation within the limit of [pg240]excavation of the site. Fifty pieces of struck flint were also recovered from the pit fill, including twenty-six flakes, twenty-one chips, two retouched flakes and a composite tool (ASE, 2019). Although there were no chronologically distinctive types, they displayed only slight weathering suggesting they were contemporary with the Beaker pot. A small amount of unworked, slightly burnt flint was also recovered from the pit fill; there was no evidence of any in-situ burning. The nearest recorded find of Neolithic date within 1km of the site was a flint arrowhead recovered around 750m to north-west of the site. The nearby sites of Brisley Farm and Westhawk Farm yielded evidence of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age activity in the form of residual worked flint. A Neolithic flaked axe fragment and backed knife, as well as Early Bronze Age scrapers and a barbed and tanged arrowhead, were recovered from Brisley Farm (Stevenson 2013, 19).

The majority of Neolithic and Bronze Age flints from Westhawk Farm were collected from later Roman contexts (Booth et al. 2008, 24–25). No comparable pottery was recovered from Brisley or Westhawk, and there was also a lack of worked flint from contemporary contexts; therefore, the recovery of Beaker pottery and worked flint within a contemporary context at Hinxhill must be considered significant for the locality. The pottery was comprised of a very fragmentary assemblage, and although it was not closely datable, is thought to most likely fall within a chronological range of c. 2250 and 1810 cal BC. it is thought that Beaker ‘cultural values’ became instituted between c. 2250–1950 cal BC (Needham 2005, 209), and the assemblage recovered from Hinxhill helps to demonstrate that Beaker pottery recovered in non-funerary contexts becomes more commonplace at this time, as its importance in burials begins to diminish (ibid.). Beaker pottery recovered from a pit during excavations on the route of the West Malling and Leybourne Bypass indicated a deposition between 2450–2060 cal bc and were of a vessel type found much more often within domestic than funerary deposits (Barclay 2009, 17–18). Hopefully there will be future archaeological work carried out in the Hinxhill area which could help to elaborate on this further, although at present we can only suggest a low-density background of Neolithic/Early Bronze age activity.

It is possible that MON1 featured a barrow mound within the ring ditch, since destroyed through field clearance and cultivation. A relationship between the position of barrows and the arrangement of plots of farmland often appears to have existed (Bradley 1978, 268). Round barrows also functioned as territorial markers, they did not sit isolated as part of a ritual landscape, and field boundaries tended to respect them (Pryor 2006, 84–85). Ditch alignments often ran right up to the mounds (Bradley 1978, 268). FS5 may well represent such an arrangement, where a ditch ran right next to MON1. Circular ditches with an external bank where the flat area within was utilised for burials are also known in southern Britain (Dyer 1990, 92). Although no grave cuts were present within MON1, the sherds of a broken Deverel-Rimbury type cremation urn recovered from the ditch were evidence that the feature was probably used for funerary deposition.

The ditches associated with FS5 form rectilinear field patterns, enclosing field spaces that may have been used for pastoral and crop growing purposes. Available data for southern England does suggest mixed farming practices at sites during the Bronze Age (yates 2007, 144). Some ditches ascribed to period 2 FS5 had [pg241]been truncated by ditches associated with the Middle–Late Iron Age (period 3), suggesting a certain amount of re-modelling of the field systems. The charcoal samples selected for carbon dating analysis from pit [1222] were found to contain, amongst others, taxa that indicated the presence of hedgerows. These may have originally marked field boundaries and could be suggestive of this re-modelling.

The site showed evidence of potential continuous use of ENC2 through the Iron Age and Roman periods, and fits with a pattern established at other sites in Kent. FS1 dated to period 3 did not show any signs of truncation by later period 4 ditches. Period 4 pottery was recovered from pit [73/004] which may have formed part of an entrance to ENC2. The posthole group located within ENC2 suggested continuous use through these periods. With respect to the nearby site of Brisley Farm, although Hinxhill is obviously a much smaller site, there is some correlation with the Iron Age pottery findings. As stated, the fabric composition of the pottery recovered from the ditches forming ENC2 appears similar to that of the Middle– late iron age assemblage from brisley farm.

The evidence suggests there was a mixed economy of livestock raising/control and crop cultivation occurring within the field systems at Hinxhill at various times, although the evidence recovered for the latter was sporadic. During period 3 a probable livestock enclosure (ENC2), complete with watering hole was in existence and features related to a potential livestock management system/funnel (ENC3) were encountered dating to period 4. Environmental samples recovered from FS2, also of period 4, produced evidence of wheat and hulled barley.

Roman

Studies of Roman rural settlement in Kent have tended to focus much more on villa estates as opposed to other rural sites, even though the latter form the bulk of the data in the county (Booth 2016, 56). Villa sites have been traditionally viewed as being perhaps the only sites of importance in this regard, even though more evidence of those sites considered lower down in the hierarchy has been recovered in more recent years (Millett 2015, 8; Booth 2016, 56). Development- led archaeology has contributed greatly to this. Cumulative excavations have demonstrated early Roman rural sites were also occupied during the Iron Age (Booth 2016: 57, Allen et al. 2018). The evidence of a Roman field system and enclosure with origins in the Iron Age at Hinxhill provides a further supplement to this data.

At other sites in Kent, evidence of continued use of field systems through the Iron Age and Roman periods can be found and is noted at nearby sites that were excavated prior to the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. The site west of Blind Lane, Sevington, Kent recorded a Late Iron Age–Early Roman field system which appeared to have fallen out of use at some time in the early second century ad (Oxford Archaeology (South) 2017b). A possible Bronze Age field system superseded by a Late Iron Age–Early Roman one was noted at Boys Hall Balancing Pond, Sevington, Kent (Oxford Archaeology (South) 2017a).

The countryside during the Roman period in the wider context of Britain demonstrates continued use of field systems from the Late Iron Age into the Roman period (Millett 2002, 120). For example, at Halifax House, South Parks [pg242]Road, Oxford, where Bronze Age ditches had been infilled during the Early– Middle Iron Age. Later features had been cut into barrows which contained pottery of Iron Age–Early Roman date (Anthony, 2005, 132). Excavations at Arunside Industrial Estate, Littlehampton (West Sussex) revealed a rectilinear field system that showed continuous use from the Iron Age into the Early Roman periods (Adams 2004). Work at the Bourne, Twyford, Winchester showed evidence of a field system established in the Late Bronze–Early Iron Age having been subject to extensive re-use in the Late Iron Age–Romano British periods (Andrews et al. 2015, 201), with Roman activity apparently coming to an end on this site c. ad 200.

The site at Hinxhill is not unique in terms of the initial establishment of a Bronze Age field system, showing some evidence of truncation by a later Iron Age field system demonstrating continuation of use and development into the Roman period. It has, however, presented an opportunity to excavate and record a site in a part of Ashford not previously known for Iron Age, Roman and medieval activity, and where little is known about the archaeology in around Hinxhill in general. The Weald of Kent appears to have been more sparsely settled than areas on the coast such as Broadstairs during prehistoric and Roman periods, but this may reflect the imbalance of fieldwork as the former has historically seen much less than the latter (Millett 2007, 174–175).

In terms of how the site may have linked with other known sites within a reasonable distance, this is more difficult to say at present. The nearby site at Bramble Lane, Wye was within a few hundred metres of a Roman road linking Canterbury with the Wealden heartlands (ASE 2009; Margary 1967, route 130, 37) and the site at Westhawk Farm was situated at the junction of this same road and the road from Dover and Lympe (Booth et al. 2008; Margary 1967, route 131, 37). The site at Hinxhill was within a few miles of the Roman road, and within 3–4 miles of Bramble Lane and Westhawk Farm. No clear evidence of trackways, routeways or hollow ways was encountered at Hinxhill, although any such evidence may have been destroyed by subsequent ploughing. Despite the absence of evidence in this regard, the sites at Westhawk Farm and Bramble Lane were easily within reach of Hinxhill. Hinxhill was somewhat further away from the main Roman road between Canterbury and the Weald than Bramble Lane and Westhawk Farm. The site at Bramble Lane revealed evidence of small-scale industry, including possible clay working. According to the Bramble Lane site report, ‘It may be the case that small scale pottery production was being undertaken in the vicinity, or that the site was acting as a distribution node, from which ceramics were traded to the wider Romano-British rural landscape’ (ASE 2009). Around 1.65 tonnes of waste associated with ironworking were recovered from Westhawk Farm (Paynter 2008, 267). Estimates suggest more than 27 kg of refined iron per year was produced at Westhawk, and the bulk of this was likely to have been traded (ibid. 296). The excavations at Hinxhill yielded only 525g of slag, and this hinted at limited iron smelting in the vicinity during the Late Iron Age/Early Roman period. There had also been other smithing activity carried out of uncertain date (ASE 2019). It is possible that the site at Hinxhill obtained refined iron from Westhawk Farm and ceramics from Bramble Lane, rather than producing much for its own use and/or trading purposes.[pg243]

Anglo-Saxon

Five contexts were submitted for radiocarbon dating. These included two fills from OA3 pit [1096], two fills from OA3 pit [1144] and FS2 pit [1222] (discussed above). The results are tabulated below:

Table 2: Radiocarbon dating results of five contexts (Iron Age and Saxon)

[tb][th]Context|Calibration range (95% probability)|Radiocarbon Age BP|Laboratory Code[/th]

[tr]Fill [1223], pit [1222]|168 cal BC – 1 cal AD|2081 ± 24|SUERC-96228 (GU56448)[/tr]

[tr]Fill [1099], pit [1096]|705 – 884 cal AD|1220 ± 24|SUERC-96222 (GU56442)[/tr]

[tr]Fill [1099], pit [1096]|677 – 877 cal AD|1246 ± 24|SUERC-96223 (GU56443)[/tr]

[tr]Fill [1102], pit [1096]|551 – 641 cal AD|1485 ± 24|SUERC-96218 (GU56441)[/tr]

[tr]Fill [1102], pit [1096]|658 – 775 cal AD|1309 ± 24|SUERC-96217 (GU56440)[/tr]

[tr]Fill [1146], pit [1144]|602 – 660 cal AD|1409 ± 24|SUERC-96225 (GU56445)[/tr]

[tr]Fill [1146], pit [1144]|600 – 656 cal AD|1421 ± 24|SUERC-96224 (GU56444)[/tr]

[tr]Fill [1149], pit [1144]|570 – 645 cal AD|1463 ± 24|SUERC-96227 (GU56447)[/tr]

[tr]Fill [1149], pit [1144]|576 – 649 cal AD|1452 ± 24|SUERC-96226 (GU56446)[/tr]

[/tb]

Romano-British activity appears to have come to an end at Hinxhill around the middle of the second century, and there appears to have been a hiatus in land use following this. An assemblage of Early–Middle Anglo-Saxon pottery was recovered from fill [1146] of refuse pit [1144], dating to the sixth–seventh centuries. The radiocarbon dates bear this dating out for the pit, suggesting short-lived, possibly seasonal activity. The majority of medieval pottery recovered during the excavations dated to the high medieval period. Environmental samples taken from fills of FS3 refuse pit [23/006] and its re-cut [23/014] contained charred plant remains that were indicative of a sizeable and varied arable economy during this period. Evidence of cultivation of legumes and a range of cereals were recovered. These charred plant remains were thought to have been discarded into the pit perhaps following a burning accident (ASE 2018). The fresh potsherds that were recovered are further evidence that these pits were primarily utilised for refuse. It is certainly possible that some of the field spaces were also used for livestock. Pastoral enclosures and varied cereal production were both identified at Brisley Farm during the medieval period (Stevenson 2013, 242).

A fairly large amount of fired clay was recovered from one of the fills of refuse pit [23/006] where it had been dumped, and it was considered that this was most likely remnants of a floor or hearth. This suggested that there had been a building or buildings associated with a farmstead in the vicinity, although no below-ground traces of this were encountered during the excavations. CBM evidence from the Northern and Southern Farms at Brisley suggested destruction debris from tiled roofs (Stevenson 2013, 238). Two small CBM roof tile fragments were recovered from the excavations at Hinxhill which were of possible medieval date, although the majority of the Hinxhill CBM assemblage was found to be post-medieval in origin.[pg244]

Evidence of a medieval field system FS3 was somewhat fragmentary. Segmented ditches in the north-western part of FS3 potentially formed field spaces with entrances between them. No dating evidence from cut features indicated medieval activity beyond the mid-fourteenth century. This is possibly a result of decline in land use following the Black Death. Nevertheless, there were four unstratified sherds of late medieval type recovered during the excavation, which may indicate that the land was still being used for agricultural purposes during the later fourteenth to mid-fifteenth centuries. Sporadic post-medieval pottery was limited to only a few sherds, although post-medieval ridge and furrow agriculture had truncated earlier contexts.

A few of the medieval ditches were noted to be on the same north-west to south- east alignment as the period 3 ditches that formed ENC2, representing some potential continuity in the orientation of land division at the site (see below). There was, however, no evidence of re-cutting/ re-use of earlier prehistoric or Roman ditches.

Post-medieval

The post-medieval period was represented by FS4 and included a substantial nineteenth to early twentieth century boundary ditch that had been dug right through MON1. Post-medieval CBM was recovered from the fill deposits of this ditch, along with some heavy-duty nails. This ditch looked to have suffered erosion downslope following subsequent landscaping. Each of the ditches comprising FS4 corresponded with boundary ditches visible on a nineteenth century tithe map and 1907–1908 OS map (Figs. 10 and 11). There appears to have been some potential continuity of land division with the orientation of ditches in the medieval and post- medieval periods. Fig. 2 shows medieval and post-medieval ditches running north- west to south-east. The large ditch cutting MON1 also ran on the same orientation as some of the prehistoric and Roman ditches potentially suggesting some form of continuity in land division a phenomena that is a notable aspect of the Weald and has been more fully explored elsewhere (Margetts 2018).

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to CgMs Consulting (now RPS) for commissioning the work as well as to the HCG KCC for their guidance and monitoring. Steve Price supervised the fieldwork, which was managed by Paul Mason in the field and by Dan Swift in post-excavation. Illustrations for this article were prepared by Lauren Gibson and it was edited prior to submission by Andrew Margetts. The author extends their thanks to all involved with the project.

Bibliography

Adams, S., 2004, ‘Bronze Age to Roman field systems at the site of the Arunside Industrial Estate, Littlehampton’, Sussex Archaeological Collections 142, 144–148.

Allen, M., Blick, N., Brindle, T., Evans, T., Fulford, M., Holbrook, N., Lodwick, L., Richards, J.D. and Smith, A. 2018. The Rural Settlement of Roman Britain: an online resource [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] https://doi. org/10.5284/1030449.[pg245]

Andrews, P., Harding, P. and Egging Dinwiddy, K., 2015, ‘A Late Iron Age – Early Romano- British Field System and Burial at The Bourne, Twyford, Winchester’, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 70, 201–203.

Anthony, S., 2005, ‘Prehistoric and Early Roman Field Systems at Halifax House, South Parks Road, Oxford’, Journal of the Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society 70, 129–139.

ASE, 2009, ‘Archaeological Investigations at the Former Oil Depot Site, Bramble Lane, Wye, Ashford, Kent’, Archaeology South-East unpublished report 2008148.

ASE, 2018, ‘An Archaeological Evaluation at Land at Hinxhill, Willesborough, Ashford, Kent’, Archaeology South-East unpublished report 2018263.

ASE, 2019, ‘Archaeological Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design Report: Land at Hinxhill, Willesborough, Ashford, Kent’, Archaeology South East unpublished report 2019322.

Barber, L., 2013, ‘The Post-Roman Pottery’, in Stevenson, J., Living by the Sword: the Archaeology of Brisley Farm, Ashford, Kent. Spoilheap Monograph 6, 284–301.

Barclay, A., 2009, ‘Pot Beaker’, in Andrews, P., Egging Dinwiddy, K., Ellis, C., Hutcheson, A., Phillpotts, C., Powell, A.B. and Schuster, J. Kentish Sites and Sites of Kent: A Miscellany of Four Archaeological Excavations. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Ltd, 17-18.

Bell, M 1990., Brean Down Excavations 1983–1987. english heritage archaeological Report 15.

Booth, P. Bingham, A. and Lawrence, S., 2008, The Roman Roadside Settlement at Westhawk Farm, Ashford, Kent: excavations 1998–9, Oxford: Oxford Archaeology.

Booth, P., 2016, ‘Kent Roman Rural Settlement’, in Bird, D. (ed.), Agriculture and Industry in South-Eastern Roman Britain. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 55-83.

Bradley, R., 1978, Prehistoric Field Systems in Britain and North-West Europe: A Review of some recent work, World Archaeology, 9, 265-280.

BGS 2022, Geology of Britain viewer, Accessed on 13/09/22. http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html.

Calkin, J.B., 1953, ‘Kimmeridge coal money’, Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society Proceedings , 75, 45-71.

Case, H., 1993, ‘Beakers: deconstruction and after’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society

CgMs 2016 ‘Heritage Statement: Land at Willesborough, Hinxhill, Ashford’, Unpublished Desk-Based Assessment.

Champion, T.C., 1980, ‘Settlement and environment in later Bronze Age Kent’, in Barrett, J. and Bradley, R. (eds.), Settlement and Society in the British Later Bronze Age. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 83, 223-246.

Champion, T.C., 2011, ‘Later Prehistory’, in Booth, P., Champion T., Foreman, S., Garwood, P., Glass, H., Munby, J. & Reynolds, A. On track: the archaeology of High Speed I Section I in Kent. Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monograph 4, 151-241.

Clarke, D., 1970, Beaker Pottery of Great Britain and Ireland, Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.

Dyer, J., 1990, Ancient Britain, London: B.T. Batsford Limited.

Edwards, E., 2006, The early prehistoric pottery from Beechbrook Wood, Hothfield, Kent Channel Tunnel Rail Link Section 1 [data-set]. york: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] https://doi.org/10.5284/1000230.

Gittens, E., 2022, ‘Excavations at Margetts Pit, Burham: Large Scale Manufacture of Aretfacts in Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 143, 305-314. Grove, L. and Warhurst, A., 1952, ‘A 13th century Kiln site at Ashford’, Archaeologica Cantiana, 65, 183–187.

[pg246]Jervis, B. 2011., ‘Assessment of Pottery recovered from excavations at Lyminge, Kent’, Unpublished archive document.

Jones, G P., 2006, The later prehistoric pottery from Beechbrook Wood, Hothfield, Kent, Channel Tunnel Rail Link Section 1 [data-set]. york: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] https://doi.org/10.5284/1000230.

Macpherson-Grant, N., 1995, ‘Early to Late Saxon Pottery’, in Blockley, K. Blockley,

M. Blockley, P. Frere, S. and Stow, S., Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park and Surrounding Areas. Part II The Finds, Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust, The Archaeology of Canterbury V, 818–897.

Macpherson-Grant, N., 2001, ‘The local Saxon and later pottery’, in Gardiner, M. Cross,

R. Macpherson-Grant, N. and Riddler, I., Continental trade and non-urban ports in Mid- Anglo-Saxon England: Excavations at Sandtun, West Hythe, Kent’, Archaeological Journal, vol. 158, 208–224.

Margary, I.D., 1967, Roman Roads in Britain, London: John Baker Publishers Ltd.

Margetts, A., 2018: Wealdbǣra: Excavations at ‘Wickhurst Green’, Broadbridge Heath and the landscape of the West Central Weald. Archaeology South-East (UCL)/Surrey County Archaeological Unit Spoilheap Monograph series vol. 18.

Millett, M., 2002, The Romanization of Britain: an Essay in Archaeological Interpretation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Millett, M., 2007, ‘Roman Kent’, in Williams, J.H.(ed.) The Archaeology of Kent to ad 800, Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, and Kent County Council, 135-184.

Millett, M., 2015, ‘Rural Settlement in Roman Britain and Its Significance for the Early Medieval Period’, in Gathagan, L. and North, W., The Haskins Society Journal 27: 2015 Studies in Medieval History, Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1-14.

Needham, S., 2005, ‘Transforming Beaker culture in north-west Europe: processes of fusion and fission’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 71, 171–217.

Nelson, S. 2015, ‘Jet, shale and other minerals’, in Andrews, P., Booth, P., Fitzpatrick, A. P. & Welsh, K., Digging the gateway: Archaeological landscapes of south Thanet, Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monograph 8.

Oxford Archaeology (South) 2017(a), Boys Hall Balancing Pond, Sevington, Kent - Post Excavation Assessment Report [data-set]. york: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] https://doi.org/10.5284/1044820).

Oxford Archaeology (South) 2017(b), West of Blind Lane, Sevington, Kent - Post Excavation Assessment Report [data-set]. york: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] https://doi. org/10.5284/1044821.

Parker Pearson, M., Chamberlain, A., Jay, M., Richards, M., Sheridan, A., Curtis, N., Evans, J., Gibson, A., Hutchison, M., Mahoney, P., Marshall, P., Montgomery, J., Needham, S., O’ Mahoney, S., Pellegrini, M. and Wilkin, N., 2016, ‘Beaker people in Britain: migration mobility and diet’, Antiquity, 90 (351), 620-637.

Paynter, S., 2008, ‘Chapter 7: Metalworking Remains’, in Booth, P. Bingham, A. and Lawrence, S., 2008, The Roman Roadside Settlement at Westhawk Farm, Ashford, Kent: excavations 1998–9, Oxford: Oxford Archaeology, 267-301.

Pryor, F., 2006, Farmers in Prehistoric Britain, Stroud: Tempus Publishing Limited. Sawyer, P.H., 1968, Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography, London: The Royal Historical Society.

Birmensdorf: Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research. Stevenson, J. 2013, Living by the Sword: the Archaeology of Brisley Farm, Ashford, Kent, Spoilheap Monograph 6.

Thompson, C. and Doherty, A., 2013, ‘The Late Iron Age and Roman Pottery From Brisley Farm’, in Stevenson, J., 2013, Living by the Sword: the Archaeology of Brisley Farm, Ashford, Kent. Spoilheap Monograph 6, 270-282.[pg247]

Wessex Archaeology, 2010, ‘Margetts Pit, Margetts Lane Burnham Kent post excavation assessment and updated project design’, unpublished report.

Wessex Archaeology, 2012, ‘Sevington West, Sevington, Ashford, Kent: Archaeological Walkover Survey, Metal Detecting Survey and Evaluation Trenching’, unpublished report.

Yates, D.T., 2007, Land, Power and Prestige: Bronze Age Field Systems in Southern England, Oxford: Oxbow Books.[pg248]