Prehistoric Activity in the Lower Medway Valley: Evidence from Excavations in the Development of Peters Village and the Medway Crossing
With contributions by Julian Bowsher (coins), Jon Cotton (flint and prehistoric pottery), Michael Marshall (prehistoric small finds), Alan Pipe (zooarchaeology), Rob Scaife (pollen), and Don Walker (human osteology)
This archaeological report supported by MOLA was initially submitted as a full 30,000 word report which has been edited into two parts. The first which appears here focusses on the Prehistoric evidence, Periods 1-6. Those with problematic dating, were largely assigned to period 5 apart from two undated features discussed above as late probably being Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age and set apart, during analysis, in their own period, period 6. At the end of the article is included a thematic essay on the Early Neolithic in the Medway Valley and the section on Geoarchaeological Investigations (including pollen analysis) and Appendix C, will be on the KAS website as a part of the article. The second half of the report covering the Late Iron Age/ Roman and Anglo Saxon periods will be published in volume 147.
This paper reports on the results of a series of archaeological excavations along an approximately 3.5 km stretch of the Medway Valley between Rochester and Maidstone that was undertaken by MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) in advance of the development of a new residential settlement, known as Peters Village, and the approach roads for a new bridge across the River Medway. The excavations formed part of a package of archaeological works that covered c 75 hectares within the triangle of Ordnance Survey National Grid Reference points TQ 7047 6317, TQ 7120 6347 and TQ 7327 6144 (Fig. 1). This was a mixed landscape of riverside meadow, industrial wasteland, agricultural fields, and existing highways prior to the start of the excavations. Pollen analysis was carried out to study the vegetation of the site and its surrounds (Scaife 2014), and results are given in the appendix on Geoarchaeological Investigations. The results of the excavations have undergone a full stratigraphic analysis, which forms part of the project’s research archive (along with contributors’ reports and data in the MOLA Oracle database and Geographical Information System (GIS)). The individual [pg63][pg64]archaeological contexts (the basic units of archaeological recording in the field) have been grouped together and these groups have been organised into periods and assigned land-use interpretations.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 1 The full outline of the Peters Village project area, site code KT-PVG0.|Image[/fg]
The main excavations took place between April and September 2014, further watching briefs and additional strip, map and sample works were conducted in April and May 2015. Significant archaeological remains were found in eight excavation areas, which together are referred to hereafter as ‘the site’. All eight of these areas were on the east side of the River Medway between the villages of Burham and Wouldham, as shown on Fig. 2.
[fg]png|Fig. 2 Areas of excavations (Areas 2a, 2b, 3, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6 and 8a).|Image[/fg]
These eight areas comprise the following:
Areas 2a and 2b: a proposed road linking Peters Village with the Medway Crossing East Bank
Area 3: a proposed link road between Peters Village and the A229
Areas 5a, 5b, 5c and 6: areas of proposed improvements to Court Road
Area 8a: proposed development and roads around Hall Road.
Topography and the Archaeological Background
The site is located where the River Medway cut a gap through the North Downs. It extends from the present floodplain on the east side of the River Medway – characterised by tidal meanders, mudflats, and saltmarsh – across low-lying land to the lower slopes of the North Down. The British Geological Survey (BGS) of the Chatham area (1:50,000 series, Sheet 272) describes this profile as Holocene alluvium with Pleistocene ‘head’ on the lower valley slopes and Cretaceous chalk bedrock exposed on higher ground. In places river terraces border the Medway floodplain, beneath the head and alluvial deposits. Where seen these consisted of coarse flint gravels and were presumed to be Pleistocene deposits. Natural deposits recorded during the excavations have been assigned to numbered period 1.
This part of the Medway Valley lies within an area of national and European importance for the remains of Neolithic burial monuments known as the Medway Megaliths. Other Neolithic features include the Burham causewayed enclosure, which lies close to Area 5b (Fig. 2, B), and two Neolithic houses were excavated 4km to the south-east, on the High-Speed 1 (HS1) rail route (Booth et al 2011, 63–88).
A previous evaluation (Stevenson 2002) produced artefactual evidence in the form of worked flint from Neolithic, Middle and Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age activity, though no features relating to these periods were positively identified. The evaluation also established the presence of Late Iron Age features representing agricultural activity in Area 2a. These features probably continued in use into the Roman period.
Excavations at the corner of Margett’s Lane and Court Road (Fig. 2, F) found a continuity of activity from the Middle Bronze Age, c 1600 BC, until the end of the 1st century ad (Wessex Archaeology 2010). This activity included the establishment of a prehistoric field system with associated settlement activity, probably in the Middle Bronze Age, and subsequent expansion of occupation, with accompanying cremation and inhumation burials. There was an extensive arrangement of postholes in the Late Bronze Age. A substantial shale working [pg65][pg66]industry, manufacturing bracelets, occurred at Margett’s Lane, spanning the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Activity continued through the Middle Iron Age, on a reduced scale, and the Iron Age saw the reorganisation of the landscape in the form of ditches cutting across the earlier field system. This culminated in the construction during the Late Iron Age of a sub-rectangular double-ditched enclosure which continued to be used into the early Roman period similar those seen on the Thames estuary in Essex at Moor Hall Farm (Howell et al 2011, 58– 71) and Orsett Cock (Carter 1998).
Early Neolithic stake-built structure (S300), period 2 – Area 5b
The earliest significant archaeological feature found on the site was an Early Neolithic stake-built structure, S300 (Fig. 3). In the project archive, this structure is assigned to period 2: Neolithic remains. It was found in Area 5b, sandwiched between two layers of similar-looking deposits. A thin discoloured layer [620] was noticed expertly by the archaeologists supervising the mechanical excavation. When cleaned back a rough rectilinear arrangement of 26 stakeholes, aligned south-west to north-east, was seen surrounding the layer (Fig. 4). The layer was interpreted as a trampled or disturbed former occupation surface. It measured 8m by 4m and was less than 0.10m thick and was 50% excavated in two quadrants (see Figs 3 and 4). The surrounding stakeholes were all less than 0.20m in diameter and 0.25m deep; all were 100% excavated (Fig. 5). Further to the west were nine discrete features dated to the same period. At the time of construction, the margins of the River Medway would have been dominated by alder trees, with oak and mixed woodland in the wider landscape.
[fg]png|Fig. 3 Early Neolithic stake-built structure (S300, period 2) in Area 5b.|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Fig. 4 Layer [620] within Early Neolithic structure (S300, period 2) in Area 5b, looking south-east (1m scale).|Image[/fg]
[fg]png|Fig. 5 Selected sections of features within Structure 300, period 2.|Image[/fg]
While on site, the structure was thought to be Iron Age because of an initial assessment of the pottery; however, on later examination, Jon Cotton identified the pottery as Early Neolithic. The ceramic assemblage consists of 28 small worn sherds weighing 192g and comprising 12 ENV (estimated number of vessels) recovered from the various contexts associated with Structure 300. These utilised a restricted suite of flint-tempered fabrics, several of which appear to have exploited Upper Greensand/Gault clays with naturally occurring glauconite inclusions. Four stakeholes produced single sherds, as did two pits to the west. However, the majority of the assemblage (22 sherds weighing 138g; 6 ENV) was recovered from layer [620]. Two rim sherds from layer [620], together with a further sherd from posthole [648], bore clear traces of fluted ripple burnishing, a trait characteristic of Early Neolithic Mildenhall Ware (Fig. 6). Similar pottery has been recovered from a number of causewayed enclosures such as the pair at Kingsborough on the Isle of Sheppey (Gibson and Leivers 2008, 253), where both enclosures were dated to between the 38th and 35th centuries cal BC. This falls within the generally accepted date for Mildenhall ceramics of 3700 to 3300 cal BC. However, the small size of the sherds and their worn nature suggests that they may not be in primary contexts. Also, the quantity of finds is low, which is typical of such structures, as at White Horse Stone (Garwood 2011, 63–91), and might suggest they were either kept clean or not used for domestic purposes.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 6 Early Neolithic pottery from S300, period 2: <109> worn everted rim of Mildenhall Ware bowl with ripple-fluted burnish on int and ext surfaces, fabric FLIN 1, trample deposit [620]; <110> worn everted rim of Mildenhall Ware bowl with ripple- fluted burnish on int and ext surfaces, Fabric FLIN 2, trample deposit [620]; <111> worn angular everted rim of Mildenhall Ware bowl with ripple-fluted burnish on ext surface below the rim, fabric FLIN 6, posthole [647] (scale 1:2).|Image[/fg]
A small-worked flint assemblage of 62 pieces was also recovered from Structure 300. Much of the assemblage comprised unmodified debitage in the form of small [pg67][pg68][pg69]flakes and spalls. Two large irregular flake cores (Wt. 187g and 269g) were recovered from a nearby, shallow gully [722] (Open Area 300). Utilised pieces included a serrate on a narrow flake/blade and a short borer on a corticated secondary flake, both from layer [620], and a second serrate on a narrow flake/blade from a beam slot [654] (Fig. 7). Together with the worked flint from the fill of a relict channel to the east ([582], OA300) this formed the most significant collection of flint artefacts from the site although the two assemblages are not necessarily related. Relict channel [582] (OA300) was identified to the east of the Neolithic structure in Area 5b (Fig. 3). This irregular feature crossed the area of excavation north-east to south-west for c 24m and was 1.40m – 5.80m wide and 0.20m – 0.25m deep. It overlay the fills of a natural hollow [881] but the relationship with colluvium, to the west, was not seen. Therefore, it is unclear from the stratigraphy whether the channel was contemporary to the Early Neolithic structure (S300).
[fg]png|Fig. 7 Worked flint from Early Neolithic structure (S300) and associated gully [722] (OA300), period 2: <121> serrate on a narrow flake/blade of pale grey brown flint struck from a deeply corticated nodule, from S300 layer [620]; <122> serrate on a narrow flake/ blade of grey brown flint, rough buff cortex, from S300, fill [653] in beam slot [654]; <123> plunging bladelet of pale grey brown flint with abrupt retouch at the truncation, from S300 layer [620]; <124> short borer on a heavily corticated and iron stained secondary flake, from S300 layer [620]; <125> irregular flake core of pale grey brown flint retaining patches of rough buff cortex, from OA300, fill [721] in gully [722] (scale 1:2).|Image[/fg]
The single largest flint assemblage group from the site was recovered from relict channel [582]. It comprised 255 pieces including a single probably Middle Neolithic transverse arrowhead that suggested this activity post-dated the occupancy of Structure 300 and the causewayed enclosure further upslope. Moreover, the undistinguished nature of much of this material suggested it was highly likely to contain items of later prehistoric date.
This is supported by a small group of six small sherds weighing 34g also recovered from the relict channel [582]. With the exception of one small sherd weighing 4g in laminated fabric, of possible Middle Neolithic date, the group comprises a series of small worn plain body sherds in Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age fabrics. They included one fine thin walled sherd with a smoothed outer surface and four sherds of coarser jars, three in glauconitic fabric.[pg70]
Middle Neolithic ditch [3197] (S100, period 2) on floodplain to south of Wouldham Village – Area 2a
Ditch [3197] – Structure 100 – was the earliest archaeological feature recorded in Area 2a, located on the western limit of the excavations (Fig. 8). It appeared to be part of a curved ditch, whether a ring ditch or the south-eastern corner of some other enclosure and was dated by sherds from two impressed-ware vessels within the Peterborough Ware tradition as 3400–2800 cal BC. The exposed length of the curved ditch was 14.15m with a width between 0.71m and 1.44m; its depth varied between 0.29m and 0.48m. It was excavated in three slots: c 1m wide, c 1.5m and c 1.5m. The fill was a moderately firm mid reddish-brown sandy clay with [pg71]frequent small sub-angular naturally-derived flints. This feature was sealed by a layer, [3077], which was associated with a Middle Iron Age inhumation [3089] (S101, period 4; see below).
[fg]jpg|Fig. 8 Middle Neolithic ditch [3197] (S100, period 2) in Area 2a.|Image[/fg]
Its location, not cutting the alluvial clay, on the western side of the Area 2a suggested the feature had been purposely set on dry ground as near as possible to the River Medway. Also, its construction pre-dated the onset of tidal conditions in the late Neolithic (2760-2560 cal BC, Poz-20041, 4090±35 BP; Appendix C, Table 1; see KAS website).
A small ceramic assemblage of 19 sherds weighing 240g that comprised 2 separate vessels was recovered (Fig. 9). Both vessels employed flint tempered fabrics. Eighteen sherds weighing 202g belonged to a round shouldered open bowl with a flaring rim. Both the outer lip of the rim and the shoulder were decorated with whipped cord ‘maggot’ impressions, with those at the shoulder aligned herringbone- fashion. The second vessel was represented by a single sherd of open bowl employing Upper Greensand/Gault clay with naturally occurring glauconitic inclusions. It has a single deep impression at the neck, below which are three horizontal lines of closely spaced fingertip impressions. Both vessels have clear Peterborough Ware traits: the thin wall, rim form and decoration of the maggot-impressed pot is most similar to the Ebbsfleet sub-style (e.g., Ard and Darvill 2015, 10), while the single fingertip decorated sherd belonged more to the developed Mortlake/Fengate sub-style.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 9 Middle Neolithic pottery from fill [3196] of ditch [3197] (S100), period 2: <126> sherds of Ebbsfleet Ware bowl with ‘maggot’ impressions on outside of everted rim and at shoulder, traces of wiping on interior, fabric FLIN 5; <127> Mortlake/Fengate Ware, smoothed exterior with single deep circular impression in neck and horizontal rows of fingertip impressions below, worn interior, fabric FLIN 6.|Image[/fg]
[pg72]Peterborough Ware has been recorded from a number of sites along the route of HS1 (Garwood 2011, 96–98), including three instances where sherds were apparently redeposited in the fills of later ring ditches. Elsewhere, Peterborough Ware often occurs in small pits, and in secondary positions within Early Neolithic ring ditches, as at Staines Road Farm, Shepperton (Jones 2008). All the sherds collected here were from one excavated slot but the location in the fill was not recorded, making it difficult to assess whether the pottery represented a ‘placed deposit.’
A single small flint-tempered body sherd 8mm thick and weighing 4g was recovered from alluvium on the west side of Area 2a. The traces of impressed decoration and the hackly laminated fabric suggested it was a small sherd of Middle Neolithic Peterborough Ware. Another Neolithic feature, located on slightly higher ground, c 200m to the north-east, in the adjacent Area 2b, was a Late Neolithic pit [2859], dated 2900–2200 BC by two small rims of probable Durrington-type Grooved Ware. The pit measured c 1.00m diameter and 0.13m deep and was filled with brown chalky silt. But for the pottery, this pit was unremarkable and it was not related to the other Neolithic feature.
Late Bronze Age crouched burial [2041] (S501) and Late Bronze Age settlement, period 3 – Area 5c
Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (c 1000 – 400 BC) features on the site have been assigned to period 3. At the eastern end of Area 5c, c 50 discrete pits and postholes were dated to the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 10).
[fg]jpg|Fig. 10 Late Bronze Age settlement activity including crouched burial [2040], to east of Area 5c.|Image[/fg]
They presumably formed part of a settlement that continued either side of Court Road and beyond the limits of excavation; however, no discernible patterns could be identified in their arrangement other than the chance that pairs of postholes could represent drying racks. The most significant feature was a crouched burial [2040] (Structure 501). The skeletal remains were set in a grave that measured 1.15m by 0.85m and was 0.28m deep, but they were poorly preserved, particularly in the area [pg73]isca howell of the vertebral column. The skeleton was approximately 65–70% complete; both feet had been truncated. The upper body lay prone within the shallow sub-circular grave with the head at the east end, facing north. The left arm was splayed some distance from the core of the body, following the line of the cut of the northern edge of the grave. The right arm was nearer the trunk with the elbow flexed at 90° and the forearm running under the lumbar spine. The pelvis was turned so that it rested on the right side. The hips were flexed at approximately 90°, and the knees [pg74]pointed north and were flexed at approximately 35°. This allowed the lower half of the body to fit within the grave. A right clavicle and patella, as well as two maxillary teeth, were recovered from the grave fill [2039]. These elements were matched to skeleton [2040].
There were no finds from the fill of the grave but a radiocarbon date of 1010–830 cal BC (Beta-397063, 2770±30 BP; Appendix C, Table 2, see KAS website) was obtained from the skeleton. This firm Late Bronze Age date is interesting because cremation was the common form of burial at this time. The individual was probably a male and had achieved adulthood, although there was insufficient evidence to place him within a specific age category. There was a degree of degeneration in the left temporomandibular joint of the jaw, though it had not developed into osteoarthritis. This joint may have been affected by trauma or by asymmetrical mastication as a result of the severe dental wear in this individual. There was also evidence of severe root and interdental caries in the dentition. A loose peg tooth was recovered but the poor preservation of the alveolar process prevented the identification of its tooth position.
The Late Bronze Age covered a period that saw a general European transition to cremation and evidence of inhumation is rare (Rebay-Salisbury 2012, 21). Nevertheless, a relatively large group of inhumations (6 articulated and 17 disarticulated individuals) from this period was excavated at Cliffs End Farm on the Isle of Thanet, providing important evidence of burial practice and of migration from the European continent. This site contained an extraordinary group of deposits including human sacrifice, crouched articulated burials and evidence of the manipulation, curation and redeposition of human remains (Bradley 2013, 28–35).
To the west of the Late Bronze Age pits and postholes, there was a north–south aligned ditch [2166] (Structure 500), with a possible western return on the north side of Court Road. Ditch [2166] was exposed for 10.90m and was 1.00m–1.60m wide and 0.40m deep. Its sides appeared convex on the west side and steep with a step on the east. It had a flat base (Fig 10). A small group of five flint-tempered pottery sherds (weighing 72g) was recovered from north and south of Court Road. None of the sherds were diagnostic, though the fabrics suggested a general Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age date. It was peculiar that the ditch appears to enclose an empty area to the west of the evidence for Late Bronze Age settlement.
The Late Bronze Age finds assemblage was dominated by steep-sided pit [2217] (in Open Area 500) which contained an exceptionally large group of 544 sherds of pottery representing a minimum of 68 separate vessels and weighing 15855g. The pit measured 1.90m x 1.75m and had been cut into the underlying soft chalk marl to a depth of over 0.80m. The excavator noted that it had been filled ‘very deliberately with very well-defined boundaries between the layers.’ The infilling also appeared to have been punctuated by the deposition of large sherd groups in lower fill [2160], middle fill [2158], and ultimate fills [2120]/[2121]; possibly ‘event-marking deposits.’ Furthermore, a number of sherds had been deposited in upright or nearly upright positions.
This pottery assemblage group was dominated by a series of thin-walled coarse jars, with only a handful of sherds of fineware bowls present. A small fineware bowl (or cup) from fill [2160] featured horizontal lines with pendant infilled triangles [pg75]below; while a shallow open dish from fill [2155] was similar in form to that from the fill of a posthole [2119], but featured bands of horizontal internal lines. Finally, sherds of the same thin walled jar in brittle fabric were present in three separate fill contexts of the pit ([2121], [2156] and [2158]).
The pottery utilised a range of flint-tempered fabrics including several with naturally occurring glauconitic inclusions in the parent clays. A good proportion of the pottery from the pit was composed of large fresh and occasionally conjoining sherds comprising large/medium sized jars and jars/bowls at the coarser end of the range, with a handful of smaller, finer bowls, cups and a single sherd of a shallow dish or lid. The size, condition, and orientation of many of the sherds suggested that they were deposited over a relatively short period of time, and substantial pieces of the same thin walled jar were distributed throughout the middle and upper fills. One or two pieces were worn, and a few others are heat- spalled, while several of the bases show traces of sooty ‘fire clouds’ indicative of incomplete firing.
Pottery occurred throughout the fills of pit [2217] with the exception of fill [2159]. While there are no particularly clear distinctions to be drawn between the ceramics from the various fills, sherds of long necked jars were only present in the lower fills with short necked forms in the middle and upper fills. As far as the fabrics were concerned the glauconitic fabrics comprise nearly a quarter of the pit assemblage by sherd count and weight and around 20% by estimated vessels. There were a higher proportion of these fabrics within pit [2217] than elsewhere, particularly within its lower fills.
The finewares from pit [2217] included a broken plain body sherd of a red- finished bowl from the upper fill [2120], and two vessels with incised decoration from upper fill [2155] and lower fill [2160]. Analysis of other red-finished vessels from the county has demonstrated that haematite was employed to coat the exterior surface at the leather hard stage, and that several of the vessels employed glauconitic fabrics (Middleton 1995, 206, Table 18.1A). The two incised vessels comprised part of a round shouldered cup with a wide band of horizontal incised lines at the neck, with a series of infilled pendant triangles below, the latter blurred by final burnishing of the vessel surface. The shallow dish/lid from [2155] features at least six narrow equidistantly spaced bands of incised decoration on its interior, each formed of three parallel lines, again suggesting its use as a dish rather than a lid. Along with the plain burnished dish from posthole [2119] this vessel may be linked with the assiettes tronconiques (tapered plates) of the near continent (see Couldrey et al 2007, 121–2). Comparison of the average sherd weights from the other Late Bronze Age pits in the vicinity reinforces the exceptional nature of the assemblage from pit [2217].
Diagnostic assemblage groups were also recovered from pits [2047], [2049], [2053], [2055], [2077] and [2101] (OA500). These incorporated sherds of thin walled coarse jars, some with finger-tipped cabled rims. Finer bowls/cups were in a minority but included single sherds of small fine furrowed bowls from pit [2047] and possible oven structure [2075] and small fragments of wide shallow burnished bowls/dishes from pit [2217] and posthole [2119] (also in OA500); the former with a series of incised horizontal lines arranged in groups of three on its internal surface.[pg76]
Copious deposits of animal bone were also recovered from pit [2217]. Together with the pottery, it suggests the ‘event-marking deposits’, referred to before, were associated with feasting. These fills were deposited intermittently through the overall infill of pit [2217], as with the pottery. A fuller report on the animal bone, including other Peters Village assemblages, is available in the project archive.
Pit fill [2120] produced a moderate assemblage, 25 fragments, derived mainly from adult cattle (Bos taurus) with smaller groups of adult sheep/goat (Ovis aries/Capra hircus), pig (Sus scrofa) and horse (Equus caballus). Dental evidence from two cattle mandibles indicated an adult animal in the fourth year and a younger adult in at least the second year. A cattle cervical vertebra had been chopped down the midline, indicating division of the carcase into ‘sides’ and probable removal of the spinal marrow. A metatarsal showed moderate canine gnawing. Dental evidence from a pig mandible indicated an adult animal in at least the fourth year. Pit fill [2156] produced a small group including two fragments of cattle mandible, with dental evidence of an adult in at least the fifth year. Sheep/goat was present and pig produced two fragments of mandible (lower jaw) including one from a female animal. Dental evidence from the pig mandible indicated a third-year adult animal and showed evidence of splitting of the left and right lower jaws through the mid-line at the ‘chin’, probably during splitting of the head to allow removal of the brain. Pit fill [2157] produced a small group that included a sheep/goat adult skull and adult horse metatarsals. The sheep/goat skull showed the only evidence of working from the selected assemblage, with transverse chop marks at the base of a horn core, probably an indication of preliminary preparation for removal of the horn sheath for further manufacture.
The horse metatarsal showed exostoses (extra bony growth) at the proximal (‘ankle’) articulation, probably an indication of spavin, a manifestation of osteoarthritis possibly linked to use as a working animal (Baker and Brothwell 1980, 118-9). Measurement of the horse metatarsal indicated an estimated stature of 1.242 metres at the withers (‘shoulder’).
Animal bone was also recovered from two other pits. Pit [2049] produced four animal bones from cattle, sheep/goat, and horse. Dental evidence from the sheep/ goat lower jaw indicated an adult animal in the fourth year. The horse metatarsal showed exostoses (extra bony growth) at the proximal (‘ankle’) articulation, probably an indication of spavin. Pit [2107] contained cattle, pig, and horse. Two pits in this area, [2217] and [2101], produced perforated chalk discs alongside Late Bronze Age pottery. Perforated chalk discs are found widely across prehistoric Britain and are most commonly interpreted as spindle whorls (Fig. 11). However, they can vary substantially in size and the function of larger examples is ambiguous (see Wheeler 1943, 294–5). These two examples may be whorls, although the complete example is very large (<50>, Diam 71.5mm; Wt 88g) and the fragmentary example was probably only slightly smaller. A chalk disc of very similar size and shape from Monkton, Isle of Thanet was also interpreted as a prehistoric spindle whorl (Gibson 2008, 85–8, fig 1/63 no. 3084). Finally, the near absence of certain finds was noted. These included the near absence of struck and burnt flints and perforated clay plates. Only a small fragment of a thin perforated clay plate was found amongst the features in Area 5c, while elsewhere four or five fragments were found in pit [929] in Area 3 and one in a medieval manorial enclosure ditch (Structure 204) in Area 8a. The few lithics associated with the pitting in Area 5c were dominated by unretouched flakes and pieces of irregular nodular shatter. Comparably small quantities of stratified later prehistoric flint were also noted along the HS1 route (Harding 2006), although a more extensive lithic assemblage was associated with Late Bronze Age shaleworking at Margett’s Lane (Wessex Archaeology 2010) which had a similar topographic aspect; set back from the floodplain on the flat ground and sheltered on three sides in a dry valley.
[fg]png|Fig. 11 Chalk discs or spindle whorls from Late Bronze Age pits, OA500, period 3:<49>(from fill [2100] of pit [2101]) and <50> (from fill [2120] of pit [2217]) (scale 1:2).|Image[/fg]
[pg77][pg78]
Round barrow [2679] (Structure 400) on a chalk spur overlooking the Medway Valley, period 5 – Area 5c
The presence of a ring ditch [2679] in Area 5c was revealed by excavation and confirmed by a geophysical survey (Walford 2015). The contexts of the barrow have been assigned to period 5, which comprises features of less secure or more general prehistoric dating; however, it is likely that this feature is of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age date. It was located to the south-west of the present Burham village in the central section of Area 5c in a prominent location on the crest of a spur, at c 38m OD (i.e., 30–35m above the base of the river valley), looking south-west (Fig. 12). The ring ditch would appear to have an internal diameter of c 20m and its ditch had convex sides and flat base (measuring 1.20m wide by 0.60m–0.90m depth in profile) on the south-eastern side and a concave profile (measuring 0.90m–1.00m wide and 0.40m depth in profile) on the north-western side. The reason for the discrepancy between the profiles cannot be explained by topography as it was dug deeper on the down slope. Exposing the southern arc of the ditch, during a later watching brief phase, only revealed the gradual merging of the two profiles.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 12 Round barrow [2679] (Structure 400) in Area 5c, with inset showing unexcavated NE part of ring ditch as confirmed by geophysical survey.|Image[/fg]
The ditch infill had a simple lower and upper fill sequence. Dating evidence from the lower fill comprised 24 sherds weighing 168g, recovered from fills [3309] and [3314]. The group was clearly mixed and incorporates 19 flint-tempered sherds alongside 5 sherds including a fragment of a Late Iron Age/Roman necked cordoned jar in a soapy grog tempered fabric. None of the flint-tempered sherds were particularly diagnostic, although the fabrics suggested a general Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age date. The later sherds are assumed to be intrusive and suggest that the ring ditch may have existed as a relict earthwork until at least the Late Iron Age. It is entirely possible the barrow might date to the Early Bronze Age as most examples belong to this period, but the absence of such dating evidence leaves the general Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age as the most likely dating for its construction.
Also from the lower fill of the ring ditch were three bones: single fragments of ‘sheep-sized’ rib, sheep (Ovis aries) skull and a lamb deciduous mandibular (lower jaw) fourth premolar tooth showing wear indicating a first-year lamb. However, caution must be exercised as the upper fill of the ditch contained a wider variety of animal bones that could have been deposited much later than its period of ‘use’. There was no evidence of any associated burials but the interpretation that the ring ditch was part of some type of barrow would appear feasible especially because of its commanding setting.[pg79][pg80]
Other Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age features (period 3)
A sparse collection of Late Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age features, other than those in the sections above, were identified across the site. On the floodplain in Area 2a, south of the village of Wouldham, two pits were identified, c 70m apart (Fig. 13).
[fg]jpg|Fig. 13 Late Bronze Age/ Early Iron Age features in Area 2a.|Image[/fg]
[pg82]Pit [3158] (in Open Area 100) cut the fill of the Middle Neolithic ditch [3197] (S100, period 2). It measured 2.15m by 1.40m but was only 0.20m deep. The single fill of this pit contained 44 pottery sherds weighing 978g from six vessels including a thin-walled jar with upright rim and an open cup or bowl with a flattened rim. It was in brittle burnt flint-tempered fabric and decoration on several sherds included vertical finger pressing and smearing, although the single sherd from the small plain bowl or cup was in an unusual flint and grog tempered fabric. It was possible that the pit was deliberately sited with regard to the earlier feature.
Pit [3189] (in OA100) was oval in shape, 3.90m by 2.20m and 0.10m deep. It appeared to cut the floodplain alluvial clays in the south-west of Area 2a. Its single fill [3188] contained over 1700 small, comminuted sherds weighing 9199g, many in a brittle fabric. At least 6 vessels are represented amongst the larger sherds, and comprised weak/round shouldered jars, several with finger-tipped cabled rims. The small size and worn condition of a majority of the sherds (mean weight 5.9g) clearly suggested that these are not in a primary context but were swept up and incorporated from another deposit such as an occupation surface or standing midden.
It is possible these pits were associated with a gully, Structure 104. This gully (S104) and an associated hearth/fire pit (S105) are essentially undated; they were set apart in the analysis by being given their own period, period 6. It now seems likely that these were Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age features. The gully (S104) appeared to enclose the south-west corner of Area 2a and was cut by later Late Iron Age / Early Roman features. Interestingly it could not be traced in the floodplain alluvium to the west, suggesting the alluvium was still accumulating during this period. Within the ‘enclosure’ was a hearth/fire pit [3187] (S105). It measured only 0.60m in diameter and 0.1m deep, with a soft reddish brown burnt clay fill. It contained five small body sherds weighing 42g. None of the sherds were particularly diagnostic, although they utilised flint tempered fabrics and a sandy fabric, all of which were utilised during the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age elsewhere on the site. At the northern end of Area 3, pit [928] (in Open Area 200) produced fragments of perforated clay slabs (<91>, <92>). The use of these objects is unclear, but they were common on Late Bronze Age sites in the wider Thames valley and estuarine zones (Champion 2014). Examples are also known from other nearby sites, as at Hoo St Werburgh (Moore 2002, 263 and 274) on the Medway estuary.
Their dating is not tightly defined but most examples were probably in use within the period c 1100–700 BC (Champion 2014, 286). The pit also contained a small amount of flint-tempered pottery (21 sherds, 440g). Cable- rimmed jar sherds were dated as Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age but an oxidised small straight-walled cup or bowl with a flat internally sloping rim from fill [930] could be Early–Middle Iron Age.
In terms of the broader landscape in the Late Bronze Age, two ditches, both aligned [pg81]south-west to northeast, were recorded crossing the areas of excavation in Area 5b and Area 6. Ditch [734] was probably the same ditch plotted in a geophysical survey (Garwood and Baldwin 2009, Figure 5). If this was one continuous feature, then it continued for at least 300m further to the north-east and may have formed part of the Middle Bronze Age field system seen in the Margetts Pit excavations (Wessex Archaeology 2010, 11–2, figure 4) to the east. In Area 5b it was exposed for a length of c 22m and was 2.00m wide and 0.40m deep with an uneven bowl- shaped profile. The ditch may have been seen again in the extreme south-west of Area 5b (as ditch [874]). It was dated by a small assemblage of 8 flint-tempered sherds weighing 218g and representing 7 separate vessels. Most were body sherds, several of which had smoothed surfaces, but there was also a single small, flattened rim together with the complete base of a small jar/bowl with a slightly expanded foot. None of the sherds were particularly diagnostic, although the flint-tempered fabrics recorded here were seen elsewhere on the site in features dated to the Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age.
Ditch [2016] was located in Area 6, more than 360m to the south-east of the settlement site in the east of Area 5c. It was exposed for c 20m and had a profile that measured 3.60m wide by 0.30m. Three general fills were identified, one of which produced six sherds of a single round-shouldered bowl with an upright rim in a sand-tempered fabric (26g) and dated as 1,000–600 BC.
Both ditches, together with the settlement sites in the east of Area 5c and at Margett’s Lane, indicated there was an extensive man-made landscape interspersed with isolated settlement, each possibly with a predominant function role, such as shale object manufacturing at Margett’s Lane. A fragment of a Late Bronze Age socketed axe (<54>) from the subsoil in Area 5b and the perforated clay slabs (<91>, <92>) from Area 3 also suggest this occupation was not confined to the areas set back from the river.
Middle Iron Age crouched inhumation burial [3089] and possible structure 101 on floodplain to south of Wouldham Village, period 4 – Area 2a
Crouched inhumation burial [3089] was excavated in Area 2a (Fig. 14). It was set adjacent to, or perhaps within (although it could be later than) a possible rectangular/oblong structure (S101), which consisted of a 23 surrounding stakeholes, an internal divide [3130] and an irregular feature [3213]. Beaten earth surface [3077] might also had been part of this structure. It extended west of the structural element of S101, and partially over the fills of the earlier Middle Neolithic ditch [3197] (S100). The burial cut surface [3077] and the underlying fill of the Middle Neolithic ditch.
[fg]jpg|Fig. 14 Middle Iron Age crouched inhumation burial [3089] and possible structure S101 (period 4) in Area 2a.|Image[/fg]
The skeleton [3090] was radiocarbon dated to 354–95 cal BC (Beta-397064, 2150±30 BP; Appendix C, Table 2), which places the burial in the Middle Iron Age (period 4). The skeletal remains were moderately well preserved with approximately 70–75% of the skeleton present. The body had been placed on its right side in the southern half of a sub-oval shaped shallow grave with its head to the north and facing west. The upper limbs were close to the trunk with the right arm running under the body and the left arm above the ribcage with the elbow flexed at [pg83][pg84]approximately 45°. Both hands lay under the left leg. The lower limbs were tightly flexed, with the hips angled at 90°, the right knee at approximately 10° and the left knee at approximately 20°. The feet lay together. Although the upper body was prone at excavation, it is possible that it was originally positioned on its right side and then rotated to face downward during decomposition under the weight of the grave fill. As with Late Bronze Age burial [2040] (S501, period 3), the flexing of the legs allowed the body to fit within the cut of the grave. Fragments of bone from all areas of the body were collected from samples of the grave fill [3088] and then re-associated with the remainder of the skeleton at analysis. The grave was far bigger than what was required for the interment of the body. This may have been a misjudgement on the part of the grave digger or perhaps space was required for (perishable) grave goods. It is also possible that the pit was originally intended for a different purpose and was instead used, or re-used, for burial.
The grave was oval in shape and measured 1.32m by 1.16m and 0.16m deep, with intrusive abraded Roman pottery. It cut a surface deposit [3077] (S101), which overlay the Middle Neolithic ditch [3197]. The surface [3077] was a reddish silt consolidated with frequent sub-angular flints that covered an approximate rectangular area of 12m by 10m. It was associated with 23 undated postholes that may have defined its limits. However, it is unclear whether surface [3077] and its associated postholes were a structure at the time of burial or an earlier structure. There are no parallels to this in association with other Middle Iron Age burials and rectangular structures are uncommon in this period. The presence of the much older Middle Neolithic ditch [3197] may have acted as an incentive for the location of the burial, as it is possible the ditch was part of a monumental structure that may has remained as an earthwork long after its initial period of use.
The individual [3090] in grave [3089] was a probable male with an estimated living stature of 175.7cm ± 3.27cm (5 ft, 8 ins), based on left femur length (FeL1) (Trotter 1970). The individual lived into adulthood (i.e., 18 years of age or older) but it is not possible to provide a precise age of death as there was insufficient preservation of the skeletal elements used for such determinations. The dentition had evidence of severe tooth wear, decay (caries) and enamel hypoplasia. In hypoplasia, systemic disturbances in early life, such as that resulting from malnourishment or illness, can lead to periods of growth arrest reflected in lines or pits in the dental enamel (Hillson 1996, 166). In the vertebral column, there was evidence of joint degeneration in the form of osteophyte growth and intervertebral disc disease. Possible signs of soft tissue trauma were recorded on the posterior shaft of the right tibia, where a raised area of bone along the soleal line implied strain on the origin of the soleus muscle, a plantar flexor.
Further evidence of disease was observed in the right iliac bone of the pelvis in the form of osteomyelitis: non-specific infection of the medullary cavity. A circular cloaca (maximum diameter 10.9mm, maximum length 10.2mm) with smooth remodelled margins of mature bone fully perforated the post-auricular space of the ilium. The cloaca ran laterally at an angle of c 45° from inferomedial to superolateral, exiting through the iliac crest area. The posterior and superior sections of the auricular surface had been destroyed, leaving areas of porosity extending into the post-auricular space and encircling the cloaca. These bone changes reflect chronic non-specific infection of the right ilium in the form of [pg85]osteomyelitis with secondary spread into the right sacroiliac joint (septic arthritis). Although no specific disease process can be attributed to this lesion, the lack of proliferative new bone growth does not discount the possibility that the changes resulted from tuberculosis. To date, just a single individual from Dorset has been diagnosed with this disease from this period in Britain (Mays and Taylor 2003). Symptoms may have included lower back pain and difficulty in walking (Ramlakan and Govender 2007, 123).
Archaeological evidence points to a high degree of variation and complexity of mortuary treatment during the Iron Age. The rarity of formalised cemeteries in this period has led to the sporadic recovery of human remains in a variety of burial contexts, including storage pits, containing complete, partial, or fragmentary human skeletons. Many burial practices appeared to have left little archaeological record and may have involved excarnation or deposits in aqueous environments (Booth and Madgwick 2016, 14–5). However, similar examples of unaccompanied burials in shallow pits dating to the Middle Iron Age have been excavated at Yarnton (Oxfordshire), Kemble (Gloucestershire) and Suddern Farm (Hampshire). At Yarnton, a total of 35 burials were excavated. It may be that this form of inhumation was more common than is reflected in the archaeological record because of a focus on settlement excavation and difficulties in identifying this form of cemetery in rural areas (English Heritage 2011, 4).
To the south of burial [3089] was Structure 103; an approximate rectilinear arrangement of 9 postholes that appeared to form the eastern and southern wall lines of a possible building. Unfortunately, none of the nine postholes contained any dating evidence. The structure cuts the northern end of the exposed floodplain alluvium but the absence of Late Iron Age/Early Roman finds, which are common in later features in this area, suggest a prehistoric date.
The burial in Area 2a appeared isolated in the sequence of the site. The find that dated most closely to the period of the burial was an Iron Age ‘Thurrock Potin’ coin <66>, dated 120–100 BC, and found in the subsoil over the low-lying ground to the west in Area 5b (Appendix B, see KAS website). The coin is of a well-known type common to Kent particularly. As a copy of a late Greek coin from Massilia (Marseilles) it is ‘likely to have been the first coinage actually produced in Britain’ (Rudd 2010, 11). However, the burial and the coin are probably unrelated and serve only to illustrate that some activity took place on the site between the more prolific Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age and the Late Iron Age/Early Roman periods.
Thematic essay on the Early Neolithic in the Medway Valley
The Peters Village programme revealed a disparate array of features datable to the Neolithic period which complement those recorded during the HS1 rail project and other work (e.g. Garwood in Booth et al 2011; Garwood and Baldwin 2009). They comprise the Early Neolithic stake-built structure (S300) and associated features on the chalk slopes below the Burham causewayed enclosure in Area 5b; a possible Middle Neolithic ring ditch (S100) on the Medway floodplain to the south of Wouldham village in Area 2a; and a single small Late Neolithic pit [2859] sited on slightly higher ground 200m or so to the north-east of the ring ditch in adjacent Area 2b.
Stake-built rectangular Structure 300 appears to be associated with a group [pg86]of more substantial postholes immediately to the west, which might mark the presence of a separate post-built structure. If so the two structures have rather different architecture and different alignments. The long axis of the stake-built structure is orientated upslope south-west to north-east, while the apparent long axis of the post-built structure lies broadly at right angles in a west-south-west to east-north-east alignment. Finds are few and confined to the dished interior of the stake-built structure. They comprise small sherds of ripple-burnished pottery with Mildenhall affinities comparable to those from deep within the ditches of the Burham causewayed enclosure some 70m upslope to the north. However, the worn condition of the Peters Village sherds suggests that the two assemblages (and by implication the two sites) are not necessarily strictly contemporary.
The nearest comparable structures to Peters Village (KT-PVG07) Structure 300 were from the White Horse Stone group of sites, c 3km to the south-east. These were excavated on the White Horse Stone and Pilgrim’s Way sites in advance of construction of the HS1 rail route (Garwood 2011, 63–91). White Horse Stone (ARC WHS 98) structure 4806 was the best preserved and, because of the excellent dating strategy that was applied to the excavation, eleven radiocarbon dates allowed for nine early 4th-millennium radiocarbon dates to be modelled as part of a wider chronological analysis that suggested structure 4806 was built in 4065– 3940 BC and abandoned in 3745–3635 BC (Whittle et al 2011, 379–81, fig. 7.26). This evidence supported the dating of 66 sherds (138g) of pottery recovered from the structure to the Early Neolithic Bowl tradition, including several Carinated Bowl sherds.
ARC WHS 98 structure 4806 consisted of three gullies that formed two roughly parallel north-west to southeast alignments c 6.5m apart, together with six longitudinal rows of postholes, and nine or ten transverse rows of postholes. The distribution of the gullies appears to give the structure a north–south divide suggesting there were two parts to the structure, but there was no evidence for any surfaces or floors. Overall, ARC WHS 98 structure 4806 measured 17.5m by 6.5–7m. Another detail was the evidence that the ‘interior’ postholes were larger than the ‘exterior’ postholes. The worked flint assemblage suggested episodes of flint knapping took place in or around the structure. The only identifiable animal bone was a cattle tooth and plant remains were limited to a single wheat grain, a hazelnut shell, and small quantities of charcoal, from oak, ash, hazel/alder and possibly crab apple or similar.
Pilgrim’s Way (ARC PIL 98) structure 972 was found 240m to the south-east of ARC WHS 98 structure 4806 (Garwood 2011, 73). It consisted of two roughly parallel rows of postholes, 2.5–3.3m apart and 10.5m in length. It was aligned north-west to south-east, but at a slightly different angle to ARC WHS 98 structure 4806. However, the artefactual evidence was limited and ambiguous (the possible Middle Neolithic Grooved Ware pottery was assumed to be intrusive) and no radiocarbon dates were obtained.
Both structures were described as timber long halls and related to other rectangular/trapezoid durable timber buildings excavated in the British Isles, north-western and central Europe. They differ from Peters Village Structure 300, in that the latter is essentially a stake-built structure and somewhat smaller in plan. The possible post-built structure to the west of Structure 300 has more in common [pg87]with the White Horse Stone and Pilgrim’s Way structures in terms of architectural features, though its plan is clearly incomplete, and it is dated only by association with Structure 300.
The distinction between Carinated Bowls from ARC WHS structure 4806 and Decorated Bowls from KT-PVG07 Structure 300 suggests that Structure 300 is later. The radiocarbon dating for the inception of Carinated Bowls is 4185 to 3975 cal BC (95% probability) with an end date of 3715 to 3505 cal BC (95% probability) (Bayliss et al 2011, 759), although the early start date is skewed by Yabsley Street, Blackwall. Radiocarbon dates bracket the start of the Decorated Bowl tradition in southern Britain to 3745 to 3690 cal BC (95% probability) with the final usage at 3315 to 3245 cal BC (95% probability) (ibid, 763).
The significance of the Early Neolithic structure (S300) found during the Peters Village excavations lies in its relationship to the adjacent Burham causewayed enclosure, upslope to the immediate north. A geophysical survey (Garwood and Baldwin 2009) confirmed the present understanding of the monument. It indicated the causewayed enclosure has two roughly ovate circuits of interrupted ditches (see Fig. 3). The full internal diameter of the enclosure was c 280m by 210m (c 5ha) and the overall enclosure measured 330m by 250m. The scale of the enclosure makes Burham one of the largest causewayed enclosures in Britain.
There was also an elongated egg-shaped feature on the south-west side of the causewayed enclosure immediately adjacent to the outer ditch circuit. This was interpreted as a possible mortuary enclosure. It measured approximately 35m in length and 16–18m in width at its widest point, oriented north-west to south-east. The narrower western end might be open, with the ditch ends angled inwards, possibly becoming more substantial towards the east-south-east end, where it has a distinctly rounded shape. However, there is no evidence to indicate the relationship between it and the causewayed enclosure.
A small trench was excavated, in July 2009, across the outer ditch of the causewayed enclosure, just to the east of Margetts Lane on the south side of the enclosure (ibid, section 5.3). This demonstrated the presence of a substantial chalk-cut feature up to 4.5m wide and 1.5m deep that very closely matched the survey results. Pottery recovered from the lower part of the secondary ditch silts proved to be Decorated Bowl, probably Mildenhall style, as found in Structure 300, confirming an Early Neolithic date for the outer enclosure ditch, and suggesting the causewayed enclosure and Structure 300 are contemporary. Mildenhall style pottery is widely associated with causewayed enclosures in the south-east of England, as at Orsett in Essex, Yeoveney Lodge, Staines, and both Kingsborough enclosures on the Isle of Sheppey (see below).
The other three known causewayed enclosures in Kent, two at Kingsborough on the Isle of Sheppey and at Chalk Hill, near Ramsgate, have been scientifically dated (Allen et al 2008; Clark et al 2019). All were radiocarbon dated as follows: Kingsborough 1 was built 3660–3580 cal BC (at 68% probability) and abandoned 3605–3470 cal BC (at 68% probability), while Kingsborough 2 was built 3790–3630 cal BC (at 76% probability) and abandoned 3645–3435 cal BC (at 95% probability) and Chalk Hill was built 3750–3690 cal BC (at 68% probability) and abandoned 3640–3600 cal BC (at 68% probability). These dates are early in comparison with other causewayed enclosures in Britain, which suggests a westward continental [pg88]influence. However, Burham might not be related to the other Kent causewayed enclosures because of several factors: firstly, the larger size of the Burham enclosure and secondly its isolated nature. Both Kingsborough enclosures were within 200m of each other and the Chalk Hill enclosure may have had counterparts to the east and north.
The other important element within the local Medway Valley landscape is the group of tombs referred to as the Medway Megaliths. These lie either side of the Medway as it cuts through the chalk. The western group comprises Coldrum, Addington and Chestnuts while the eastern group includes Kit’s Coty House, Little Kit’s Coty House, and the Coffin Stone, together with several other stones which might have once been parts of chambered tombs. Radiocarbon dating of the human remains from Coldrum gave a date of 3980–3800 cal BC (95% probability), with a secondary interment dated 3730–3540 cal BC (95% probability) (Wysocki et al 2013), which suggests that at least one of these megalithic tombs is as early as the White Horse Stone structure.
Thus, although there could potentially have been a general overlap in the 37th century BC (where the possible dating ranges overlap), it seems on balance that Peters Village Structure 300 and the nearby Burham causewayed enclosure – both dated by Mildenhall pottery of the 37th to 35th centuries BC (though note the caveat entered above regarding the worn condition of the sherds from S300) – are probably later in date than the activity represented by the White Horse Stone timber long hall and were constructed at a time when megaliths had already been part of the Medway landscape for centuries (cf Healy n.d.,7).
The other Neolithic features located during the Peters Village programme – the possible Middle Neolithic ring ditch associated with Peterborough Ware, and the Late Neolithic pit containing a few scraps of Grooved Ware, from Areas 2a and 2b – add further unexpected detail to the local Medway Valley sequence. No Middle Neolithic ring ditches were located during the HS1 programme, although they have been recorded elsewhere. Furthermore, the insertion of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pit [3158] and Middle Iron Age burial [3089] into the ditch suggests that the monument was still visible as a landscape feature well into later prehistory, and that it retained significance for successive local communities. Ringlemere near Sandwich apart, Grooved Ware is not particularly well represented in Kent, although the number of find spots is growing, e.g. the pits from White Horse Stone which appear to be associated with several circular house structures (Garwood 2011, 101).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Trenport Investments Ltd, who supported the overall project, and RPS Consulting Ltd, who commissioned MOLA on behalf of the client. Thanks are extended especially to Chris Clarke of RPS Consulting Ltd, who acted as the consultant, Paul Morris of Trenport Investments Ltd, who monitored the progress during the fieldwork, and Wendy Rodgers of Kent County Council Heritage Conservation Team, who acted as the curatorial officer.
At the time of writing, the authors of this paper were MOLA staff, with the exception of Jon Cotton, freelance specialist, who contributed the analysis of [pg89]the site’s worked flint and prehistoric pottery, and Rob Scaife, University of Southampton, who contributed the pollen analysis. Individual reports by the contributing specialists form part of the project’s research archive along with the report on the post excavation assessment and updated project design (MOLA 2016).
The figures were prepared by Juan José Fuldain González, with original drawings of the finds by Faith Vardy and photographs of the objects by Andy Chopping. Digitized plan data was supplied by MOLA’s Geomatics team.
Bibliography
Allen, M J, Leivers, M, and Ellis, C, 2008 Neolithic causewayed enclosures and later prehistoric farming: duality, imposition and the role of predecessors at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, UK, Proceedings Prehistoric Society 74, 235–322.
Ard, V, and Darvill, T, 2015 Revisiting Old Friends: The Production, Distribution and Use of Peterborough Ware in Britain, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 34 (1), 1–31.
Baker, J, and Brothwell, D, 1980 Animal diseases in archaeology, London.
Bayliss, A, Healy, F, Whittle, A, and Cooney, G, 2011 Neolithic narratives: British and Irish enclosures in their timescape, in A, Whittle, F, Healy and A, Bayliss (eds), 682–847.
Booth, P, Champion, T, Foreman, S, Garwood, P, Glass, G, Munby, J and Reynolds, A, 2011 On track: the archaeology of High Speed 1 Section 1 in Kent, Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monograph 4, Oxford.
Booth, T, and Madgwick, R, 2016 New evidence for diverse secondary burial practices in Iron Age Britain: a histological case study, Journal of Archaeological Science, 67, 14–24.
Bradley, P, 2013, Death pits at Cliffs End: revealing new prehistoric mortuary practices, British Archaeology 131, 28–35.
Carter, G, 1998 Excavations at the Orsett “Cock” enclosure, Essex, 1976, East Anglian Archaeology Rep 86, Chelmsford.
Champion, T, 2014 Food, technology and culture in the Late Bronze Age of Southern Britain: Perforated clay plates of the Lower Thames valley, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 80, 279–98.
Clark, P, Shand, G, and Weekes, J, 2019 Chalk Hill: Neolithic and Bronze Age discoveries at Ramsgate, Kent, Leiden.
Couldrey, P, Green, M, Macpherson-Grant, N and Thompson, I, 2007 The Pottery, in P Bennett, P Couldrey and N Macpherson-Grant Highstead near Chislet, Kent, Excavations 1975–1977, Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 101–250.
English Heritage 2011 Introduction to Heritage Assets: Pre-Christian cemeteries, Oxford. Garwood, P, 2011 Earlier Prehistory, in P Booth et al, 37–147.
Garwood, P and Baldwin, E, 2009 Medway Valley: Prehistoric Landscapes Project. Burham Causewayed Enclosure, Burham, Kent: Geophysical Survey, 2009.
Gibson, A and Leivers, M, 2008 Neolithic pottery, in M Allen et al 2008, 245–53. Gibson, A, 2008 Chalk objects, in P Bennett, P Clark, A Hicks, J, Rady, and I Riddler, At the Great Crossroads: Prehistoric Roman and Medieval discoveries on the Isle of Thanet, 1994–5, Canterbury Archaeological Trust Occasional Paper 4, Canterbury, 85–8.
Hillson, S, 1996 Dental anthropology, Cambridge.
Howell, I, Swift, D and Watson, B, 2011 Archaeological landscapes of east London, MOLA Monograph Series 54, London.
Jones, p, 2008 A Neolithic Ring Ditch and Later Prehistoric Features at Staines Road Farm, Shepperton, SpoilHeap Publication, Monograph 1.
[pg90]Mays, S, and Taylor, G, 2003 A first prehistoric case of tuberculosis from Britain, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 13, 189–96.
Middleton, A, 1995 Prehistoric red-finished pottery from Kent, in I Kinnes and G Varndell (eds), ‘Unbaked Urns of Rudely Shape’: Essays on British and Irish Pottery for Ian Longworth, Oxbow Monograph 55, 203–10.
Moore, C, 2002 Late Bronze Age Romano-British and Early/Middle Saxon features at Hoo St Werburgh, Archaeologia Cantiana 122, 259–74.
Ramlakan, R, and Govender, S, 2007 Sacroiliac joint tuberculosis, International Orthopeadics 31(1), 121–4.
Rebay-Salisbury, K, 2012 Inhumation and cremation: how burial practices are linked to beliefs, in M Sørensen and K Rebay-Salisbury (eds) Embodied knowledge: historical perspectives on technology and belief, 15–26, Oxford.
Rudd, C, 2010 Ancient British Coins, Norfolk.
Scaife, R. G, 2014 Peters Village (KT-PVG07): pollen assessment analysis, unpublished report to MOLA.
Stevenson, J, 2002 An Archaeological Evaluation of Land at Peters Pit, Wouldham and the proposed Medway Crossing, Kent, unpublished ASE report.
Trotter, M, 1970 Estimation of stature from intact long limb bones, in T Stewart (ed) Personal Identification in Mass Disasters, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Walford, J, 2015 Archaeological geophysical survey at the Peters Village development site, Burham, Kent, December 2014, MOLA Northampton unpub rep no. 15/12.
Wessex Archaeology, 2010 Margetts Pit, Margetts Lane, Burham, Kent: Post-Excavation Assessment Report, Wessex Archaeology.
Wheeler, R. E. M, 1943 Maiden Castle, Dorset, Research reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 12, Oxford.
Whittle, A, Healy, F, and Bayliss, A, (eds) 2011 Gathering time: dating the Early Neolithic enclosures of southern England and Ireland, Oxford.[pg91]