Archaeological Investigations at Hinxhill, Willesborough, Ashford

The following specialised reports formed a part of the main article on Hinxhill in Archaeologia Cantiana, volume 146.

Charcoal Report by Mariangela Vitolo

Charcoal from three pits was considered for full analysis. One of the features was dated to period 3, whilst the remaining two pits were part of the period 5 field system (see Archaeologia Cantiana, v. 146, Figs 6 & 9). All contexts represented deliberate backfilling of pits and did not show signs of in situ burning. As such, they are likely to contain fuel waste of mixed origins. The aim of this analysis is to look at trends in woodland exploitation and any changes in fuel wood selection and vegetation environment through time.

One hundred fragments were selected from each pit, combining fragments from different fills when needed. The fragments were fractured by hand along three planes (transverse, radial and tangential) according to standardised procedures (Gale and Cutler 2000; Hather 2000; Leney and Casteel 1975). Charcoal specimens were viewed under a stereo zoom microscope for initial grouping, and an incident light microscope at magnifications up to 400x. Taxonomic identifications were assigned by comparing visible anatomical characters with those documented in reference atlases (Hather 2000; Schoch et al. 2004, Schweingruber 1990). Notes have also been made on the presence of round wood and general state of preservation. Taxonomic identifications of charcoal are recorded in Table 2, and nomenclature used follows Stace (1997).

Summary of taxa: Anatomical characters were consistent with those of the following taxa: Fagaceae Quercus sp., of which two species are native to Britain, Quercus robur (pedunculate oak) and Quercus petraea (sessile oak) Betulaceae Corylus avellana, hazel Alnus sp., alder Rosaceae Prunus sp., sloe/cherry/blackthorn/damson Prunus spinosa/domestica sloe/damson Maloideae, subfamily including several taxa that are generally not distinguishable, such as Malus sp., apple, Pyrus sp., pear, Crataegus monogyna, hawthorn and Sorbus sp., rowan, service and whitebeam Fabaceae Leguminosae, gorse/broom Aceraceae Acer campestre, field maple Oleaceae Fraxinus excelsior, ash

[pg1]

The overall state of preservation was poor and as a result, all contexts contained a number of unidentifiable fragments. The main factor affecting preservation was percolation due to fluctuations of the ground water levels. Repeated periods of wetting and drying cause sediment laden water to infiltrate the deposits and the charcoal, obscuring diagnostic anatomical characters. This also caused the fragments to become brittle and to fall apart during sectioning. Sediment encrustations were particularly visible on the charcoal from period 3 pit [1222] (see Archaeologia Cantiana, v.146, Fig. 6, p. 231), but they were present to some degree in all contexts. Similar charcoal deterioration due to percolation was noted in features in the eastern area of the Brisley Farm site in Ashford (Gale 2013), indicating that it was a common occurrence in the local soils.

[fg]jpg||Image[/fg]

Mid-Late Iron Age pit [1222] was dominated by oak with a large presence of field maple. Other taxa were only minimally represented in this context. The majority of the taxa present could grow within woodland or on its margins; others, however, indicate the presence of hedgerows perhaps to mark field boundaries. The presence of two fragments of gorse/broom suggests the presence of heathland. The medieval pits presented a more varied range than the assemblage from [1222]. Despite oak being present in all analysed contexts, there is a strong contribution from the hazel/alder group in both pits. Hazel appeared to be dominant over alder, although poor preservation hindered secure identification of the majority of the fragments in this group. Hazel and oak are typical parts of a mixed deciduous woodland often managed through coppicing, whilst alder indicates the exploitation of wet or riparian environments for fuel procurement. Other mixed deciduous woodland taxa were recovered from the medieval pits, including ash which is a popular fuelwood choice due to its excellent burning properties. Field maple requires more light than other woodland taxa and might therefore indicate the presence of open spaces interspersed with woodland. Trees of the Maloideae group could have grown on the margins of said woodland but also as parts of orchards, perhaps alongside trees of sloe/damson which could also have lined hedgerows.

As all the analysed contexts represent deliberate backfills, the charcoal assemblages are likely to represent a redeposition of fuel waste likely originating from fires lighted in the fields. The range of taxa represented in the assemblage is rather narrow. This could be due to local availability, although all taxa present figure often in charcoal assemblages deriving from domestic fuels as they burn reasonably well. Alder would be the only taxon in this assemblage that does not make a good fuel when fresh, but it does if it is first turned into charcoal. Field maple needs to be seasoned before being burnt.

It is difficult to draw secure conclusions, given the small size of the assemblage. However, a transition from the predominant use of oak in the Mid-Late Iron Age/Roman period to more varied but still selective assemblages in medieval features is reflected in contemporary charcoal assemblages from Brisley Farm (Gale 2013). Oak was still present in all features at both sites, but contributions from other taxa became more important in later periods. Pollen data from the region and the Brisley Farm site specifically (Scaife 2013) indicate substantial woodland clearance taking place from the Late Bronze Age and the presence of open landscape conditions with small patches of mostly oak and hazel woodland. This clearance continued well into the Late Iron Age/Roman period. The remaining woodland could have been managed through techniques such as coppicing, in order to guarantee wood supply for both fuel and timber. However, evidence of woodland management could not be inferred either from the Hinxhill or the nearby Brisley Farm assemblage due to poor preservation. In the medieval phase, further clearance perhaps accompanied by settlement and population growth placed extra pressure on woodland resources. Oak wood would have become prized and might have been preferentially selected for timber. Farmers had no choice [pg2]but to tap into hedgerows and riverbanks to get wood from smaller trees or shrubs for the purpose of small-scale fires.

TABLE 2: CHARCOAL QUANTIFICATION AND TAXA.

(Numbers in brackets indicate tentative identifications.) [tb] [th]|Period|5|3[/th] [tr]Parent Context|1096|1144|1222[/tr] [tr]Sample Number|505|506|507|508|510[/tr] [tr]Context|1102|1099|1146|1149|1223[/tr] [tr]Context / deposit type|Pit|Pit|Pit|Pit|Pit[/tr] [tr]Notes||1 round wood fragment each of Maloideae, Quercus,Corylus|||sediment encrustations, extremelyfriable, poor preservation[/tr] [tr]TaxonomicIdentifications|English Name|||||[/tr] [tr]Quercus sp.|oak|1|6|14|16|63[/tr] [tr]Corylus avellana|hazel|5|5|19|3|[/tr] [tr]Alnus sp.|alder|11|7|1||[/tr] [tr]Corylus/Alnus|hazel/alder|28|10|9|15|[/tr] [tr]Maloideae|hawthorn, whitebeam, rowan, apple, pear|1|3|3|6|(1)[/tr] [tr]Prunus sp.|cherry/sloe/damson etc|||1||(1)[/tr] [tr]Prunus spinosa/domestica|sloe/damson||1||1|[/tr] [tr]Leguminosae|gorse/broom|||||2[/tr] [tr]Acer campestre|field maple||4|5|1|26[/tr] [tr]Fraxinus excelsior|ash||6||1|[/tr] [tr]Indeterminate/distorted||4|8|1|5|7[/tr] [/tb] [pg3]Registered finds by Trista Clifford As recorded above, the excavations produced two shale/mudstone armlets of prehistoric date (see catalogue below and Fig. 5 reproduced here):

Both armlets are in poor condition, with lamination and splitting evident; RF<2> is in five pieces, three of which conjoin. RF<1>, from the upper fill of MON1 is the most complete, comprising approximately 50% of the armlet, which would have had a complete outer diameter of c.95mm. The section is sub circular and slightly flattened, measuring 11.9mm high and 15mm wide. RF<2>, from the upper fill of MON1 is fragmentary, the conjoining pieces forming about 30% of the armlet. This example has a wider postulated diameter of c.100mm and an oval section.

RF<1> Shale armlet, incomplete

Fill [1139], ring ditch [1137], MON1, SG370 Period 2 Approximately 50% remaining. Flattened sub circular section Ext. Di94mm Th11.9mm W15mm RF<2> Shale armlet, incomplete Fill [1191], ring ditch [1188], MON1, SG293 Period 2 Approximately 30% remaining in five fragments. Flattened, oval section Ext. Di c.100mm W14.6mm Th13.7mm

Gale, R. and Cutler, D. 2000, Plants in Archaeology, Westbury/Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Gale, R. 2013, The Charcoal from the Brisley Farm Site, in Stevenson, J., Living by the Sword: the Archaeology of Brisley Farm, Ashford, Kent. SoilHeap Monograph 6.

Hather, J.G. 2000, The Identification of the Northern European Woods: A Guide for archaeologists and conservators, Archetype Publications Ltd.

Leney, L, and Casteel, R.W. 1975, Simplified procedure for examining charcoal specimens for identification, Journal of Archaeological Science, 2, 153–159.[pg4]

Scaife, R. 2013, Pollen Analysis, in Stevenson, J., Living by the Sword: the Archaeology of Brisley Farm, Ashford, Kent, SoilHeap Monograph 6.

Schoch, W. Heller, I. Schweingruber, F.H. and Kienast, F. 2004, Wood anatomy of central European Species, Online version: www.woodanatomy.ch (accessed 22 August 2018).

Schweingruber, F.H. 1990, Microscopic Wood Anatomy, 3rd edition.

Stace, C. 1997, New Flora of the British Isles, Cambridge University Press.[pg5]