An Early to Middle Iron Age burial at St Margaret’s Bay Holiday Park, St-Margaret’s-at -Cliffe, Kent

Between February 2016 and February 2019 Archaeology South-East undertook an archaeological trial trench evaluation and three small watching briefs at St Margaret’s Bay Holiday Park (NGR 635510 144290; Fig. 1). The work was commissioned by Bilfinger GVA in advance of a phase of expansion of the park, to include a new access road, new lodges and caravan pads with services and parking. Much of the groundworks had minimal impact, in some cases excavation was no deeper than the topsoil but, where excavations were of a depth to remove the subsoil and reach natural geology, archaeological deposits were identified across all areas, the most significant those of Early to Middle Iron Age date, in particular an inhumation burial.

[fg]png|Site location.|Image[/fg]

Site, Stratigraphy and Results

Situated 1.1km from the chalk cliffs and narrow gravelly beach of St Margaret’s Bay, the site was at 96m AOD, on a windy plateau overlooking the Strait of Dover (Fig. 1). The underlying geology was Margate Chalk Formation, overlain by a thin partial subsoil, ranging in depth from 0.10m to 0.35m, which was best preserved at the south-east end of the site. The subsoil was in turn overlain by a topsoil deposit up to 0.3m deep that was encountered in all areas.

The inhumation burial was identified in a circular pit with a flat base, [010]. Cut into the natural chalk, the pit had a diameter of 1.3m and was no more than 0.10m deep, the base of which lay at 96.65m AOD. The pit was too insubstantial to comment on its original form or profile. No definitive evidence of any further enclosure or ring ditch around the grave was recorded, nor was any evidence of a mound or grave marker.

A single heavily disturbed, fragmentary and poorly preserved skeleton, [012], was interred in the north-eastern half of the pit, in a crouched position, very tightly curled on its left side (Figs 2-3). Orientated on a roughly north-east to south-west alignment, the head was at the north-east end. Identified elements of the skeleton included fragments of cranium, the left clavicle, both left and right humerii and ulnae, the left femur and left fibula. Elements from the spine, right leg and the skeletal extremities were entirely absent. Evidence from long bone fusion would [pg368][pg369][pg370]suggest that this individual was an adult, but a more accurate estimate of age was not possible. Sexually diamorphic traits in the cranium indicated a female individual, an interpretation supported by the small size and gracile appearance of the bones.

[fg]png|Fig. 2 Plan of skeleton [012] and associated fragmented pottery vessel.|Image[/fg]

[fg]jpg|Fig. 3 Photograph of skeleton [012] and associated fragmented pottery vessel.|Image[/fg]

Associated with the skeleton was a fragmented but partially complete fine ware, bipartite, carinated bowl of the Highstead-Dollands Moor tradition, comparable to Highstead form F34 (Couldrey 2007, 107; Fig. 2, P1). Sherds of the vessel were concentrated near the shoulder area of the skeleton but also dispersed elsewhere within the pit (Figs 2-3). Given the truncated nature of the burial, it is unclear whether the vessel was originally placed intact, although the size and freshness of sherds suggests this is a strong possibility. The backfill of the pit also contained a few contemporary pottery sherds of other vessels and a small amount of burnt flint, which appear more likely to have been accidentally incorporated. Tiny intrusive post-medieval artefacts, including iron, coal, slate and glass were also recovered, indicating some post-depositional disturbance. Environmental material recovered from the grave fill included several fragments of burnt bone, land snail shell, small fragments of charcoal, and a single indeterminate cereal caryopsis. Radiocarbon dating on a piece of human bone from the skeleton later returned a calibrated date range of 400–200 cal BC (95% confidence; Beta-489247; 2260 ± 30). The earliest [pg371]part of this range overlapped with the probable date of the associated pottery, suggesting a range around 400–350 BC for both death and burial.

The grave lay around 40m to the west of two contemporary pits, [008] and [014], which were larger than that containing the skeleton, with diameters in the region of 1.5m, and depths of 0.32m–0.35m. The base of these pits lay between 95.6m and 95.65m AOD, around 1m lower than that of the grave. Given the flat topography, it was considered unlikely that the grave had experienced considerably more truncation than these neighbouring pits, so was probably originally excavated to a shallower depth. At least one of the pits was somewhat bell-shaped, possibly indicating a primary function as grain storage feature, although both pits were comparatively relatively rich in finds, including fragmented pottery, animal bones from cow, pig, sheep, goat and wild boar, fired clay and burnt flint, suggesting that they may have been reused as rubbish pits. Although the pottery sherds are considered too partial for illustration, the fabrics, forms and decorative elements and, in particular, the frequent use of surface rustication clearly belong, like the vessel from burial [012] to the Highstead-Dollands Moor tradition.

The wider landscape in which the grave was located was hard to interpret definitively as this was hampered by the limited scale of the investigative works. Certainly, the storage/rubbish pits and their associated assemblages would suggest the grave was situated in close proximity to, if not within a settlement. A possible co-axial field system, orientated on a north-east to south-west alignment, one small field of which, bounded by ditches G2 and G9, may have contained the grave (Fig. 4). The latter ditch also contained a small assemblage of contemporary pottery. The layout of the grave loosely mirrored the alignment of the field system, perhaps indicating an association between the two.

[fg]png|Fig. 4 Plan showing burial pit [010], pits [008] and [014] and ditches G2 and G9.|Image[/fg]

[pg372]

Discussion

Scientific dating conclusively placed the inhumation at St Margaret’s Bay Holiday Park within the fourth to third centuries cal BC, a period which could be characterised as wholly Middle Iron Age. The associated vessel, however, together with other ceramics from associated features, clearly falls within the Highstead-Dollands Moor tradition. This has generally been described as an Early Iron Age ceramic style, although there remain inconsistencies in the way ‘Early’ and ‘Early/ Middle Iron Age’ labels have been applied to pottery of broadly similar character. For example, in the Highspeed 1 project, ceramics of Highstead-Dollands Moor type were initially placed in an ‘Early/Middle Iron Age’ phase in the specialist pottery reports on the basis of some associations with early Saucepan pottery (Morris 2006, 53-54); however, this period was subsequently discussed under an ‘Early Iron Age’ heading in the stratigraphic narrative (Champion 2011, 164- 166). Here it was acknowledged that the end date for this period and its associated ceramics was ambiguous. In two instances, at Eyhorne Street and Cuxton, similar pottery was associated with radiocarbon dates beginning in the fourth century BC. In both cases, bimodal calibrated date ranges suggested that the true age of the associated pits was probably before 350 cal BC (ibid.). This can also be said of the current radiocarbon result which has two distinct probabilities of 397–350 cal BC (39.7%) and 309–209 cal BC (55.7%). The close association between the vessel and radiocarbon dated burial [012] emphasize that Highstead-Dollands Moor pottery continued to be used at least into the first half of the fourth century, a period which can probably be characterised as transitional between Early and Middle Iron Age.

Until recently, Iron Age inhumation burial was considered rare in the South East and undated graves have often been assumed to belong to the Early Bronze Age, including nearby, a burial of two individuals identified during the installation of an electricity cable, close to the corner of Norway Drove and Kingsdown Road (Gardiner and Thomas 2012, 307-8). It has now been recognised, with the aid of radiocarbon dating, that inhumation burial was practised throughout the British Iron Age (Hey et al. 1999) and examples of Early, Middle and Late Iron Age date are increasingly being uncovered from coastal east Kent. Predominantly, these are found supine or flexed in extended or oval graves, sometimes in cemetery groups of varying levels of formality, as at Saltwood Tunnel (Champion 2011, 232-235), Tothill Street, Minster (Gollop and Mason 2006), Zone 12 of the East Kent Access Project (Fitzpatrick et al. 2015, 186), Cliffs End Farm (McKinley et al. 2014) and Thanet Earth (Rady and Holman 2019). Other examples, like that from St Margaret’s Bay, are found in crouched side postures in pits, either in isolation (for example, Archaeological Solutions 2001; Gollop 2013) or in close proximity to extended/flexed inhumations in graves, as at White Horse Stone (Champion 2011, 235) and Zone 13 at the East Kent Access project (Fitzpatrick et al. 2015, 186-187). At Thanet Earth, two crouched pit burials were found within the same landscape but at some distance from the formal cemetery (Rady and Holman 2019). In some cases, radiocarbon evidence suggests that these different styles of interment are broadly contemporary while, in others, they may represent burial over longer periods of time, as at Mill Hill, Deal where a crouched burial in a pit radiocarbon dated to 765–385 cal BC was found in proximity to both an undated extended inhumation and to Late Iron Age cremation burials (Parfitt 1995, 29).[pg373]

Iron Age inhumations in pits have sometimes been interpreted as deviant burials or even victims of sacrifice (Wait 1985, 119-120), their typical tightly crouched postures perhaps suggesting that they were bound in some cases (Whimster 1981, 11). Human remains can also be found in varying states of completeness or articulation in pits, possibly indicating very different intentions to those found in graves. Burials in pits were interpreted as purposeful and formal in the East Kent Access project (Fitzpatrick et al. 2015, 186-187), although alternative possibilities, more akin to processes of structured deposition relating to the closing of pits, were considered at Thanet Earth (Rady and Holman 2019, 227). Though interpretation of burial [012] is hampered by its disturbed condition, its crouched posture, the presence of a number of elements of the body and the possible placed vessel suggest that it can be interpreted as a disturbed formal burial rather than a structured deposit incorporating human remains.

The partially complete fine ware bowl accompanying the burial is of particular note. Given the heavily truncated nature of the burial feature, this may have been deposited complete or partially complete, but it seems to have been placed in close proximity to the body. Nationally, grave goods are especially rare in Iron Age pit burials (Wait 1985, 16) and it has been noted that some examples of fine objects found with human remains are better interpreted as structured deposits than formal burials with grave goods (Hill 1995, 55). Fairly convincing examples of objects placed with articulated inhumations have, however, been identified in the newly emerging burial evidence from east Kent. In an interesting echo of the current burial, at Saltwood Tunnel, sherds of carinated bowls were found in intercutting extended grave cuts containing poorly preserved human remains (Champion 2011, 232-233). As in burial [012], truncation may have impacted on the vessels, although they were interpreted as having been deliberately deposited in an incomplete state. Another example of pottery as a likely grave offering comes from Zone 13 of the East Kent Access project, where a crouched pit burial contained objects including a shale armlet and a spindle whorl which had been placed beneath an inverted jar (Fitzpatrick et al. 2015, 165). Similarly, a jar, broken into halves, was found in a grave cut into a ditch at Thanet Earth (Rady and Holman 2019, 185). Non ceramic objects found in association with Early and Middle Iron Age inhumations include an iron armlet worn around the humerus of an extended inhumation in a grave in Zone 12 of the East Kent Access project (Fitzpatrick et al. 2014, 154) and, slightly further afield, two spindle whorls from a grave at White Horse Stone (Champion 2011, 235).

Conclusion

Early to Middle Iron Age inhumation [012] was interred in a circular pit and, although heavily truncated, it appeared to be tightly crouched on its left side, and was associated with a partially complete carinated bowl, potentially placed as an intentional grave offering. Despite the limitations of a small excavation area, there was some evidence that the burial lay within an enclosed area, evidence which appears in keeping with that from larger scale excavations in Kent, suggesting that Iron Age burials tended to lie within or close to settlement areas (e.g. Fitzpatrick et al. 2015, 187).

The burial is clearly part of regional Iron Age inhumation tradition in coastal [pg374]east Kent, encompassing both crouched pit burials and supine or flexed examples in extended or oval graves. There appear to be both similarities and differences in the treatment of human remains in these distinct types of features. Increasingly, it appears that objects, including pottery vessels, were occasionally deliberately placed with Iron Age inhumations, perhaps more commonly in east Kent than elsewhere. Associations with placed pottery vessels and other objects may challenge the view that individuals buried in pits were, in some way, outside of normal society and interred without care. On the other hand, the complex range of depositional practices found in Iron Age pits, and the possibly incomplete nature of some of the accompanying finds, means that further integrated study is required to determine whether these should be interpreted unambiguously as grave goods.

Acknowledgements

ASE would like to thank Bilfinger GVA for commissioning the archaeological work, and Ben Found and Simon Mason, Senior Archaeological Officers at Kent County Council for their input at all stages of the project. The fieldwork was undertaken by Suzie Westall and was managed by Paul Mason in the field and by Dan Swift and Andy Margetts in post-excavation.

Anna Doherty, Hayley Nicholls and Lucy Sibun

References

Archaeological Solutions, 2001, An Iron Age site at Hartsdown Technology college, Margate, Kent, unpub. doc.

Champion, T., 2011, Later Prehistory, in P. Booth, T. Champion, S. Foreman, H. Glass, P. Garwood, P. Munby, J. and Reynolds, A., On Track: The Archaeology of High Speed 1, Section 1 in Kent, Oxford Wessex Archaeol Monogr. 4, 151-241.

Couldrey, P., 2007, The Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pottery, in P. Bennett, P. Couldrey and N. Macpherson-Grant, Highstead, Near Chislet, Kent: Excavations 1975-1977, Canterbury Archaeological Trust, Canterbury, 101-175.

Fitzpatrick, A.P. Brady, K. Good, O. and Thacker, G., 2015, Expansion and consolidation: later prehistoric land use, in P. Andrews, P. Booth, A. P. Fitzpatrick, and K. Walsh, Digging at the gateway: archaeological landscapes of south Thanet. The archaeology of East Kent Access Phase II. Volume I: the sites, Oxford Wessex Monogr. 8, 79-228.

Gardiner, V. and Thomas, K., 2012, Bockhill Farm to East Valley Farm and between Seymour Road and Beresford Road, St Margaret’s at Cliffe (TR 36339 45780), Archaeologia Cantiana CXXXII, 307-308.

Gollop, A., 2013 Capital House, Northdown Road, Margate, Canterbury’s Archaeology 2011–2012, Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust, 38-43.

Gollop, A. and Mason, S., 2006, Tothill Street, Minster, Canterbury’s Archaeology 2004- 2005, 24-26.

Hey, G. Bayliss, A. and Boyle, A., 1999 Iron Age inhumation burials at Yarnton, Oxfordshire, Antiquity 73, 551-62.

Hill, J.D., 1995 Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: A Study on the formation of a specific archaeological record, BAR Brit Ser. 242.

McKinley, J.I. Leviers, M. Schuster, J. Marshall, P. Barclay, A.J. and Stoodley, N., 2014 Cliffs End Farm, Isle of Thanet. A mortuary and ritual site of the Bronze Age, Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon period, Wessex Archaeol Rep. 31.

[pg375]Morris, E.L., 2006, Later prehistoric pottery in Ceramics from Section 1 of the Channel Tunnel.

Rail Link, Kent (ed P Booth), CTRL Specialist Report Series, 34-119, Archaeology Data Service (distributor), https://doi.org/10.5284/1000230 (Accessed 06/07/23).

Parfitt, K., 1995, Iron Age Burials from Mill Hill, Deal, London: British Museum Press.

Rady, J and Holman, J., 2019 Beneath the Seamark: 6000 years of an island’s history. Archaeological investigations at ‘Thanet Earth’, Kent 2007-2012, Vol 1: chronological narrative, Canterbury Archaeological Trust, Technical Rep. 2.

Whimster, R.P., 1981, Burial Practices in Iron Age Britain: a discussion and gazetteer of the evidence c. 700 BC - AD 43, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 90.

Wait, G.A., 1985, Ritual and religion in Iron Age Britain, BAR Brit Ser. 49.