Sutton Valence: Early Roman Iron-Working at Haven Farm

Archaeology South-East undertook a small excavation at Sutton Valence in the summer of 2011 that identified a small prehistoric enclosure cut by pits and ditches associated with an early Roman settlement. The early Roman settlement likely associated with an adjacent Roman villa had three phases: small-scale industrial activity of three iron-smelting furnaces and three contemporary enclosures; a secondary agricultural phase of a field boundary and a track; and a more tentative third phase of a masonry wall footing, possibly part of a walled cemetery and an adjacent hollow way. A Late Roman juvenile inhumation burial was identified possibly respecting earlier aspects of the landscape. Medieval stone quarry pits were found in the east of the site. There is an accompanying online supplement to this report on the KAS website on the microscopic and chemical characterisation of metallurgical residues at Haven Farm.

Archaeology South-East (ASE; UCL Institute of Archaeology) was commissioned by Provian Construction to undertake an archaeological excavation on the site of a proposed housing development at Haven Farm, Sutton Valence.

The excavation area was a rectangular plot, c. 50m by c. 70m on the south side of Haven Farm, bounded by North Street to the east, a private dwelling to the south and agricultural land to the west and north. The site lies on the north-eastern edge of Sutton Valence village at the top of the Chart Ridge with the Low Weald to the south (centred on NGR 581112 149564; Fig. 1). The geology is head deposits capping Hythe Beds (BGS sheet 288) located between 1.16m OD and 1.19m OD. At the time of the excavation the site was grassland and sloped gently from north to south.

[fg]png|Fig. 1 Site location and phased plan of the archaeological features.|Image[/fg]

Archaeological background

While there is little evidence for prehistoric activity, there are two significant, but poorly understood, Roman sites located in the immediate vicinity of Haven Farm. The Roman occupation at Sutton Valence may well be associated with the nearby Maidstone to Lympne Roman road (KHER: TR04SE120), which is believed to run east-west along the Chart Ridge (Fig. 1).

To the west a roadside settlement with masonry buildings possibly representing a small mansio, was identified at Court Farm in the 1930s from aerial photographs [pg152][pg153]and later trial trenching (Fig. 1). However, as this work has never been published, it is worth quoting the Kent HER entry (KHER: TQ84NW6):

‘In 1949–1950 consequent to marks noticed on an AP which has since been mislaid, excavations by the late Mr. M. C. W. Thomas, Bursar of Sutton Valence School, and Mr. V. J. Newbury revealed the ragstone foundations of a Roman building measuring 60 ft. x 27 ft. (long axis NW–SE) which contained a corridor and three small rooms, two with hearths. Finds from the site include 4 coins ranging from Hadrian to Constantine, a large quantity of iron slag and a pipe clay figurine of Venus. The last is now on exhibition in Maidstone Museum and the remainder are in Mr. Newbury’s possession. Amongst the pottery found was a piece of Samian of c. 130–160 AD date, and a storage jar of Patch Grove ware. The A.P. marks suggested the building lay on the S[outh] side of a rectangular enclosure which covered many acres but the area is now an orchard and this cannot be recognised; the form and its proximity to R[oman] R[oad] 130 have suggested that it may be the site of a mansio and its position, 12 Roman miles from Rochester, is significant.’

To the south-east of Haven Farm was also a remarkable walled cemetery (KHER: TQ84NW1) excavated in 1827 by the Grammar School (Fig. 1). The findings are only known from a summary published in the Victoria County History (Page 1974, 170–171), but what is clear is that this was a large cremation cemetery with nearly 100 urned burials of likely first to second century date. Many of the burials were interred with Samian and glass accessory vessels, as well as the occasional bronze fibulae (ibid.). The most notable burial was a mortared ‘cist’ with a large two-handled glass vessel containing burnt bones, a smaller glass vessel with a fluted handle, and at least five Samian vessels. The cemetery enclosure itself was also unusual: ‘a substantial masonry wall c. 0.45m wide and the ‘north-east side was 60ft long, and the north-west and south-east sides 15ft, and the south-west side joining them was carried into an oval shape’ (ibid.). Recent archaeological attempts at relocating this cemetery have all failed, and its precise location, and indeed whether any remains still exist are unknown.

Archaeological activity for the post-Roman period is scant, until the foundation of a small castle perched on the edge of the ragstone escarpment in the latter half of the 12th century. The occupation of the castle was short-lived, falling out of use in the early 13th century, although the adjacent nascent village flourished as part of the important overland route from Rye and Winchelsea to Maidstone and the Medway (Newman 1980, 559).

Excavation results

(All context numbers are shown in square brackets and group numbers are prefixed by G)

Period 1: ?Prehistoric

The earliest features identified, two pits and a small enclosure contained no finds but were cut by Roman ditches indicating they were likely to be prehistoric in date (Fig 1). The small enclosure was comprised of two relatively straight ditches, G1 in the north and G2 in the south, and formed an open-ended sub-rectangular [pg154]enclosure 20m long and 10m wide aligned east–west. The ditches were shallow, no more than 0.15m deep and filled by stiff grey brown clays. The function of this somewhat enigmatic feature is not readily apparent but it may have been part of a droveway or livestock-pen.

Two pits, [53] and [185] were also cut by the earliest dated phase of early Roman activity and may have been contemporary with the enclosure. The small sub-circular pits were filled with brown sand silts and they function is similarly unknown. While these features did not contain any datable finds, seven residual sherds, categorised as a broad group (FLIN) with moderately coarse to coarse flint-temper (with maximum inclusion size ranging from 3–5mm) are likely Middle/Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age in date. Surface rustication, perhaps indicative of Early Iron Age dating is present on one of the sherds but they are otherwise featureless. The small enclosure and two pits found to be pre-dating the earliest dateable Roman features are likely to be prehistoric in date but their function was uncertain and they contained no finds and little can be said about them.

Period 2: Early Roman summary

The vast majority of the features and finds from the site date to the early Roman period (Fig. 1). Although the dating of the pottery was almost entirely confined to the Late Iron Age to early Roman periods (50 BC to AD 60), the presence of a small assemblage of Roman ceramic building material (CBM) from the main landscape features in Phase 2.1 suggests that the activity on the site is mostly post-conquest, and perhaps confined to the second half of the first century AD. In addition, finds from the furnaces included tap slag, a characteristic by-product of Roman rather than Iron Age smelting techniques.

Within this short period of perhaps no more than 50 years, three phases of activity could be tentatively distinguished, based upon the stratigraphic and spatial relationships. The finds from all these phases were very similar and could not provide any further chronological refinement. Most of the smaller features, such as the pits and furnaces, had no stratigraphic relationships and are tentatively phased by spatial association or are simply phased as Period 2. A final Late Roman phase (Phase 2.4) was represented by an isolated inhumation burial.

Scattered across the western half, but notably absent from the rest of the site, were mostly small and sub-circular pits G20, G22, G23 and G24. The majority contained pottery sherds, but it could not be established which phase of landscape use they were contemporary with, and they are simply assigned Period 2 Roman. Some of these pits are likely to be associated with a domestic settlement, possibly located to the west of the site boundary, and represent peripheral activity such as waste disposal. A notable feature was fire-pit or outdoor hearth [33] with a burnt clay base and a stone cobble lining (Fig. 1).

Period 2, Phase 1: Early Roman

The earliest phase of activity was three irregularly-shaped enclosures and two track/droveways (Track 1 and Track 2; Fig. 1). Only partial amounts of the enclosures were seen within the excavation area and the full extent of this contemporary [pg155]land-use is unknown. The enclosures and track/droveways appear to aggregate (rather than rectilinear) and the northern enclosure appears to have been the initial construction with the other two added after and respecting its form.

The three enclosures were in the north-east, the north and the south. The land-use of the south-east is uncertain but seems to have been an open area or alternatively located within a much larger enclosure circuit beyond the limits of the site.

South enclosure: this was formed by Track 1 in the north and Track 2 in the south with a straight east side ditch (G4). The western portion of the enclosure lay beyond the limits of the site. Ditch G4 was contemporary with and drained downhill into the north side of Track 2 (ditch G5). The enclosure had an entrance from Track 1 in the north. The entrance was staggered ditch G3, a broad shallow ditch noticeably different in profile to the other narrower enclosure ditches.

Located within the staggered enclosure entrance was furnace G27 (Figs 1 and 2). The furnace seemed to be aligned with, and therefore contemporary with, the adjacent enclosure ditches and its position, whilst compromising the entrance somewhat, did still leave a gap c. 2m wide to enter the southern enclosure.

[fg]png|Fig. 2 Plan and photograph of furnace G27 (1m scale bar).|Image[/fg]

Furnace G27 was aligned north–south survived as a dark red burnt clay base [174], 1.2m long and 0.6m wide, sloping gently from south to north to a depth c. 50mm. The northern, deeper part was less heat-affected and was likely to have been the location of the air holes or tuyères. The superstructure had been deliberately dismantled after the last firing and there was no fired clay or slag associated with the feature. The slight depression in the northern part was filled with grey brown silt [168] containing a moderate assemblage of pottery sherds dating to AD 1–60 including a semi-complete vessel, possibly a special deposition relating to the disuse of the furnace.

North-east enclosure: only part of the south side of the north-east enclosure was seen, comprising of curving ditch G7 in the west and ditch G8 in the east, forming an entrance 3.5m wide to the open area to the south-east. The enclosure was at least 35m by 5m and extended north beyond the limits of the site.

Within the north-east enclosure was iron-smelting furnace G29, located close to the southern boundary ditch G7 (Figs 1 and 3). Only the southern half of the furnace was seen with the rest lying beyond the site to the north. The furnace had been constructed in a relatively large pit [221], 0.44m deep and 1.8m in diameter with the air-holes or tuyères in the east and the furnace in the west. In the area of the furnace the natural clay geology had been baked hard changing from a light grey at the surface to dark red further away from the heat-source. No structural elements of the furnace were evident in situ and the superstructure had been deliberately removed after the last firing. From the heat-affected clay and the shape of the construction cut, the furnace seems to have been relatively small, only around 0.7m in diameter. Bulk samples were taken from all the furnaces but they recovered little evidence of environmental remains or charcoal.

[fg]png|Fig. 3 Plan and photograph of furnace G29 (0.5m scale bar).|Image[/fg]

After the furnace had been dismantled, the construction cut [221] was backfilled with a mixture of grey silts and industrial waste including 7.5kg of smelting slag and related material from primary fill [220] and over 25kg from the upper fill [219]. The upper fill also contained frequent unworked ragstone blocks and cobbles possibly representing demolition deposits from a nearby masonry structure, such as wall [175] located 20m to the west.

[pg156]Significantly, the upper fill [173] of nearby ditch G7 was a similar dump of slag and debris relating to smelting (over 8 kgs) and this fill was only found in a c. 8m ditch length immediately adjacent to furnace G29. This strongly suggests that both features were open at the same time and use of both the enclosures and furnace G29 were contemporary. No evidence was found to corroborate the use of the other two furnaces (G27 and G28) with the other enclosures and the phasing of these is more tentative.

North enclosure: to the west of the north-east enclosure was the north enclosure with a curved east side and a straight south side formed by ditch G7. The enclosure measured at least 35m by 20m and extended to the west beyond the limits of the site. The function of the north enclosure is unknown although the relatively small finds assemblage from the ditch fills suggests it was not in the immediate vicinity of a domestic settlement.

[pg157]Tracks/droveways 1 and 2: Track 1 was aligned east–west and sandwiched between the north and south enclosures. The east end terminated in the centre of the site and had an unusual hooked entrance into the south-east open area; a form of entrance which would have been impractical for droving livestock suggesting that the track was solely for human use. Track 2 was an identical width (c. 2m) to Track 1 and aligned north-west–south-east.

Open area: in the apparent open area in the south-east of the site was furnace G28 (Figs 1 and 4). The furnace was constructed in pit [212], measuring 2.2m in diameter and 0.26m deep with a contemporary irregular shallow feature [217] to the east, probably representing an area of trample associated with the use of the furnace. Only the fired-clay base of the furnace survived with the superstructure being deliberately removed after the last firing, like the other furnaces. The differential heat-affection of the surviving fired-clay base allowed the internal floor of the furnace to be distinguished from the walls. The grey clay oval floor [215] was 0.62m long and 0.38m wide surrounded by red clay wall [255] between 0.13m [pg158]and 0.3m thick. At the western end, an aperture in the red clay wall (c. 40mm wide) with an external splay and the clay floor [256] here was stained black by the removal of the presumably hot slag.

[fg]png|Fig. 4 Plan, profile and photograph of furnace G28.|Image[/fg]

After the furnace had been dismantled and abandoned, the construction pit was allowed to silt-up gradually with brown sand silt fill [213/216]. The lack of finds of slag and fired clay from the fill was noticeable (cf furnace G27) and suggests no other smelting was being undertaken in the vicinity.

[pg159]What the overarching function of these enclosures, track/droveways and furnaces was is not entirely certain: the minimal finds recovered suggest it was not a domestic settlement, so they may have had agricultural and/or industrial functions. A possibility is that they were associated with the construction of the Roman settlement at Sutton Valence; this also explains why they quickly fell out of use and superseded by the Period 2, Phase 2 occupation.

Period 2, Phase 2: Early Roman

This phase saw a distinct change in land-use: the Phase 2.1 enclosures and tracks had silted-up and Track 3 and field boundary ditch G9 were dug on a rectilinear north-east–south-west alignment. The new land-use did not respect any part of the earlier land-use and the new ditches clearly cut the Phase 2.1 features. The pottery from the Period 2.2 features was not markedly different from the Phase 2.1 assemblage (dating to AD 1–60) suggesting that both phases were short-lived.

Track 3: this was c. 6m wide and was only partially seen in the excavation area with the track extending to the south-west and north-east beyond the limits of the site. The track had an apparent entrance on the south-east side. Unlike the other ditches which generally contained single fills with few finds, the fills of Track 3 at the south end were more numerous and abundant in finds, suggesting a domestic settlement was adjacent.

At the southern end of the east ditch G11 of Track 3 were a series of more complex fills. The primary fills [125], [149] and [154] of the ditch in the southern most c. 7m were formed by natural silting and dumps of domestic waste including over 1kg of animal bone (including a cow skull), pottery sherds and burnt clay.

Above the primary fills were dumps of unworked ragstone cobbles ([127], [4/005] and [153]) and a lense of burnt bone [152], possibly part of a cremation burial. Above these dumps, the uppermost fills [126] and [137] were formed by natural silting with few finds. This sequence may suggest a small domestic settlement was located close to the southern end of Track 3, perhaps just beyond the western boundary of the site, but this had ceased to exist before the track had completely disappeared as a landscape feature.

Field boundary ditch: ditch G9 cut through the Phase 2.1 north enclosure before terminating at both ends. The north-west end respected the alignment of Track 3 and left a c. 1m wide gap possibly representing a field entrance. The south-east end became noticeably shallower and narrower suggesting this end of the ditch had suffered from truncation, probably from ploughing, and the ditch is likely to have been originally wider and longer.

Fills, [234] and [109], excavated in the middle portion of ditch G9 were particularly noteworthy, containing over 150 pottery sherds and 0.5kg of animal and human bone. These finds assemblages are likely to have originated from the postulated domestic settlement close to the southern end of Track 3.

Pits: three pits G25 in the south of the site cut the Phase 2.1 south enclosure and are likely to have been contemporary with Phase 2.2.

Fence-line: in the north-west of the site was a scatter of nine postholes which may have formed a fence-line (Fig. 1). There were two forms of postholes: six postholes G18 deeper than 0.25m, often with post-packing stones and tapered bases; and three [pg160]postholes G19 shallower than 0.25m and less certain to be structural. A shallow spread of trample [211] on the eastern side was a likely location of an entrance.

The fence-line appeared to be aligned with the entrance to Track 3 and parallel to field boundary ditch G9 suggesting this fence was a contemporary part of an agricultural landscape.

The short-lived iron-working (Phase 2.1) was superceded by a larger track, a field boundary and fence-line suggesting a change from industrial to agricultural use. The finds from this secondary phase also suggests a domestic settlement was located near the site, probably to the west. The main occupation of the site (Period 2, Phase 2) seems to be restricted to a relatively short timescale perhaps to no more than latter half of the 1st century.

Period 2, Phase 3: Early Roman

Two features, a masonry wall [175] and hollow way G12 have been assigned a distinct phase although there is some difficultly in this interpretation (Fig. 1). Both features lacked clear stratigraphic relationships and contained small finds assemblages similar in date to the other phases, and their phasing and chronology in the site remains tentative.

Hollow way: the relationship between hollow way G12 and Period 2.2 Track/droveway 3 was not clear (the features were both shallow and filled with similar indistinct material) and the stratigraphic relationship is uncertain. The pottery from hollow way fill [151] was indistinguishable from the pottery found in the other phases (dating to AD 1–60) and provides no possible chronological refinement. Both the hollow way and Track 3 seem to follow the same general alignment, and they may well be successive routeways.

Hollow way G12 had no other stratigraphic relationship with any other features and did not seem to be contemporary element of the Period 2.1 landscape. The hollow way did seem to respect the corner of the masonry wall [175], but only relatively small amounts of both features were exposed and this spatial relationship may not be accurate. Hollow way G12 was c. 6m wide and 0.3m deep with shallow concave sides. The feature may not have been dug by hand but rather the result of the passage of human and animal traffic eroding a hollow depression.

Masonry wall: only the south-east corner of wall [175] was exposed with the remainder of the building lying to the north and west beyond the limits of the site. The wall had been partially-robbed but some of the unworked ragstone blocks in shallow foundation trench [167] did seem to be in situ and part of a rubble wall foundation c. 0.7m wide. The fill of the robber trench [166] contained six pottery sherds, including a single samian sherd, and the assemblage dates to AD 40–60/70. However, the small amount of finds, and the very nature of robber trenches, makes the confident dating of masonry wall [175] difficult.

The remains of a partially-robbed wall footing [175] in the north-east corner of the site are difficult to interpret and are somewhat enigmatic, as it could not easily be associated with any other phase of activity with so little seen in the excavation area. Despite this it seemed to be the south-east corner of a potentially rectangular structure. The dating of the wall, like most of the site, is tentative and only six mid-first century pottery sherds were recovered from the robbed wall backfill [166].

[pg161]If this structure is of genuine pre-Flavian date, then it represents a significantly early post-conquest structure and may be contemporary with two of the earliest villas in the country, Snodland and Eccles in the nearby Medway valley (Dawkes 2015; Detsicas 1983). However, there are significant reservations with this dating: the pottery assemblage was very small and was recovered from the robbed wall backfill and not the in situ masonry footings. Episodes of wall robbing can date [pg162]from any period and usually disturb other adjacent features introducing potentially misleading finds into the robber trench. However, placed in the context of the surrounding Early Roman phases, a first century date is still quite feasible.

The interpretation of the masonry wall is problematic. If this was part of a masonry building, such as part of a villa complex or mansio, then an obvious oddity was the complete lack of CBM and other finds usually associated with Roman domestic structures. The decay and demolition of Roman masonry buildings usually introduces vast amounts of related finds into the archaeological record and the CBM assemblages can often be measured in tonnes. Clearly this was not the case here, and the wall is probably better interpreted as a boundary or enclosure wall, not necessarily of domestic function, but perhaps part of a walled cemetery and possibly contemporary with the large walled Roman cemetery, excavated in the 19th century and thought to be located c. 200m to the south-east.

Period 2, Phase 4: Late Roman

An apparently isolated inhumation grave [80] of juvenile [79] was located in the west of the site (Fig 1 and 5). The skeleton was very heavily-decayed with only part of the skull and the lower leg bones surviving. The head was to the north and the legs were together with two complete vessels, a jar and flagon, placed by the ankles. There was a significant difference in the date of the two vessels: the Alice Holt white-slipped flagon dated to around AD 270–400 while the jar was of Late Iron Age/early Roman date. This suggests the jar was an ‘heirloom’, curated for the best part of two centuries before being interred in the Late Roman period (see Doherty, The prehistoric and Roman pottery below).

[fg]png|Fig. 5 Plan and photograph of juvenile inhumation grave [80] (0.5m scale bar).|Image[/fg]

The grave was on a noticeably similar alignment to enclosure ditch G4, north-by-north-east to south-by-south-west, and some remnants of this earlier landscape feature may well have been still extant in the Late Roman period.

The single inhumation burial [80] is notable for being the rare evidence of Late Roman activity in Sutton Valence and perhaps gives an indication of the likely duration of the Roman settlement on top of Chart Ridge.

Specialist reports

The excavation produced a moderate amount of finds and the significant assemblages are described below. The environmental remains and animal bone survival were particularly poor and their results are not included here. All of the specialist assessment reports can be found in Dawkes (2012).

The Prehistoric and Roman Pottery by Anna Doherty

A moderate assemblage of predominantly Late Iron Age/early Roman pottery was recovered from non-funerary features during evaluation and excavation, totalling 574 sherds, weighing 5.68 kg, in addition to two complete vessels found in association with an inhumation burial of Late Roman date.

The pottery was examined using a x 20 binocular microscope and quantified by sherd count, weight, estimated number of vessels (ENV) and estimated vessel [pg163]equivalent (EVE) on pro forma records and in an Excel spreadsheet. Tempered fabrics have been broadly defined according to their major inclusion type(s) with further description of fabrics provided in the text below. Forms have been recorded using form codes from the London/Southwark typology (MoLA 2019) with cross-referencing to Thompson’s (1982) type-series for ‘Belgic’ pottery from south-eastern England.

Period 2

As shown in Table 1, the majority of fabrics are types that had existed in the region prior to the Late Iron Age but which continued to be used well into the 1st century AD. Around half of the assemblage is made up by glauconitic fabrics. Most of these contain common glauconite (GLAUC1) with a smaller group of sparsely glauconitic wares (GLAUC2). Another fabric group, accounting for about 6% of sherds, contains glauconite with flint (FLGL1). The flint in these fabrics is generally relatively sparse and fine although some coarser examples of this fabric group were noted. Non-glauconitic flint-tempered wares (FLIN1) and hand-made sandy fabrics (QUAR1) also account for a significant minority of the assemblage (c. 9% and 11% of sherds respectively).

Table 1. Quantification of Late Iron Age/Early Roman Pottery from non-funerary contexts

[tb][th]Fabric|Description|CAT|Sherds|Weight (g)|ENV|Sherds %|Weight %|ENV %[/th]

[tr]FLIN|Pre-MIA flint-tempered wares|-|7|114|5|1.2|2.0|1.2[/tr]

[tr]FLIN1|Flint-tempered wares|-|51|328|41|8.9|5.8|10.1[/tr]

[tr]FLGL1|Flint-tempered wares with glauconite|-|32|196|24|5.6|3.4|5.9[/tr]

[tr]GLAUC1|Glauconitic wares (common glauconite)|B9|258|2530|180|44.9|44.5|44.3[/tr]

[tr]GLAUC2|Glauconitic wares (sparse glauconite)|B9|36|278|31|6.3|4.9|7.6[/tr]

[tr]GRGL1|Grog-tempered wares with glauconite|-|12|76|4|2.1|1.3|1.0[/tr]

[tr]QUAR1|Hand-made sandy wares|-|64|674|46|11.1|11.9|11.3[/tr]

[tr]GROG1|Grog-tempered wares|B2|97|1430|60|16.9|25.2|14.7[/tr]

[tr]SHEL1|Shelly wares|B6|5|30|3|0.9|0.5|0.7[/tr]

[tr]NKGW|North Kent fine grey ware|R16|1|0|1|0.2|<0.1|0.2[/tr]

[tr]OXID|Unsourced oxidised wares|R74|7|8|7|1.2|0.1|1.7[/tr]

[tr]HOO|Hoo white slipped ware|R18|4|20|4|0.7|0.4|1.0[/tr]

[tr]Total| | |574|5684|406|100.0|100.0|100.0[/tr]

[/tb]

[pg164]Grog-tempered wares (GROG1) make up another important fabric type, accounting for about 17% of sherds, and an additional 2% is made up by grog-tempered fabrics containing sparse glauconite (GRGL1). A few sherds in shelly fabrics (SHEL1) were also noted. Roman sandy wares make up a very small proportion of the assemblage (around 2% of sherds) of which most are coarse oxidised wares of uncertain, probable north Kent origin (OXID). A single example of North Kent fine grey ware (NKGW) and several sherds of Hoo white slipped ware were also recorded.

The common occurrence of glauconitic fabrics is a feature of Late Iron Age/early Roman assemblages from the Medway Valley (Pollard 1988, 31). The proportion of these fabrics appears to have some chronological significance. At Snarkhurst Wood for example, glauconitic wares accounted for over 90% of an earlier Late Iron Age phase, ending in the earlier 1st century AD; although the high proportion of these fabrics might be partly attributable to proximity to a production location (Lyne 2006a, 6). The proportion of glauconitic fabrics in the current assemblage is very comparable to that from a phase spanning the first half of the 1st century AD at Thurnham Villa, with glauconitic wares having been observed to decline significantly thereafter (Lyne 2006b, 33–34). Similarly, at Queen Elizabeth Square, Maidstone, stratified groups dominated by glauconitic fabrics were considered more likely to be of pre-Conquest date with grog-tempered wares gradually replacing them over the course of the 1st century AD and glauconitic fabrics probably passing out of use by the latter part of that century (Biddulph 2004, 17).

At Sutton Valence, it was not possible to define any clear ceramic phasing relating to the three Late Iron Age/early Roman stratigraphic phases since most of the assemblage was recovered from discrete features which were only broadly attributed to Period 2. Although there are few large stratified groups in the current assemblage, glauconitic fabrics are in a clear majority in the only two assemblages of over 100 sherds from grouped features – field boundary ditch G9 and pit group G20 – suggesting that these, and perhaps most other features assigned to Phases 2.1–2.3, belong to the first half of the first century AD. Notably, the very low levels of flint-tempered fabrics at Sutton Valence contrast with the assemblage from Queen Elizabeth Square (ibid.), where these account for more than a fifth of the assemblage. This perhaps reflects a lack of pre-first century AD activity at the current site.

Forms are almost entirely dominated by jars, accounting for well over 90% of the assemblage whether quantified by EVE or ENV. As is typical in the local area, there are some jars of plain profile (Thompson 1982 form C3, e.g. Fig 6, P1) and a significant proportion of bead rim types (B5-5, C1, e.g. Fig 6, P4, P11 and P13) as well as jars with short everted rims (C2, C8-1, e.g. Fig 6, P2, P7), all of which are often associated with combed or furrowed surface treatments. Necked jars with rippled shoulders (B2, e.g. Fig 6, P3, P8, P9, P10 and P12) are particularly common, while plainer necked jars are also represented (B1, e.g. Fig 6, P5). Non jars include just two examples of partial plain lids and a Gallo-Belgic style platter (G1-9, Fig 6, P6). The latter was found in a partially complete state with a pitch/resin adhesive along one broken edge, suggesting repair in antiquity. Overall, the range of forms is quite typical of Late Iron Age/early Roman assemblages from rural sites in the Medway area and can be closely paralleled in local assemblages [pg165]like Queen Elizabeth Square, Maidstone and the West Malling to Leybourne Bypass (Biddulph 2004; Jones 2009).

Table 2. Quantification of late Iron Age/Early Roman pottery forms from non-funerart contexts

[tb][th]Type|Code (Thompson 1982 code in brackets)|EVE|ENV|EVE%|ENV%[/th]

[tr]Jar: bead rim|2A (C1, B5-5)|0.64|5|22.2|12.5[/tr]

[tr]Jar: necked, plain/ single cordon|2T (B1)|0.66|4|22.9|10.0[/tr]

[tr]Jar: necked, ripple shouldered|2T (B2)|0.84|8|29.2|20.0[/tr]

[tr]Jar: plain profile|2 (C3)|0.23|6|8.0|15.0[/tr]

[tr]Jar: short everted rim|2B (C2, C8)|0.28|9|9.7|22.5[/tr]

[tr]Jar: storage|2V (C6-1)|–|1|–|2.5[/tr]

[tr]Jar: uncertain type|2|–|4|–|10.0[/tr]

[tr]Lid|9A (L)|–|2|–|5.0[/tr]

[tr]Platter: with external moulding|5B (G1-9)|0.23|1|8.0|2.5[/tr]

[tr]Total| |2.88|40|100.0|100.0[/tr]

[/tb]

Burial vessels: two vessels from grave fill [078] accompanied an inhumation burial, [079], in cut [080]. An Alice Holt white-slipped flagon (Fig 6, P14) which can be closely paralleled in the corpus of forms from the industry (Lyne and Jefferies 1979, form 8.12, 50), broadly dates the burial to the later Roman period (c. AD 270–410). Accompanying this was a small, squat, hand-made jar/beaker with a simple, short, everted rim (Fig 6, P15) in a fairly low-fired grog-tempered ware (GROG1). This vessel was nearly complete although it features a chip to the rim, which does not appear to result from post-depositional truncation, since the vessel is significantly lower in height than the accompanying flagon which was entirely intact. The vessel also features two faintly incised post-firing graffiti on the underside of the base – both X marks. Graffiti has quite frequently been noted on vessels from funerary contexts in Roman Britain, including examples of X-graffiti. There is some ambiguity as to whether these relate to earlier, non- funerary use or represent illiterate marks of ownership, perhaps linking them to the deceased (Biddulph 2006a, 357).

The dating of this latter vessel is quite ambiguous. The fabric is fairly indistinguishable from Late Iron Age/early Roman grog-tempered wares of Phases 2.1–2.3. The form does not have any of the most distinctive features of Late Iron Age/early Roman ‘Belgic’ pottery, such as cordons or corrugations but it could comfortably be categorised with Thompson’s (1982, 231) C2-2 form, suggested to pre-date c. AD 60 based on its associations with Sheepen. The occurrence of ‘heirlooms’ in burials is fairly well known in Roman Britain. For example, an analysis of a group of 37 anachronistic vessels from burials at the Pepper Hill cemetery suggests that they were an average of 42 years older than the burials they accompanied: the oldest example being 180 years old at the time of burial [pg166](Biddulph 2006b, 26). There is some disagreement about the motivation behind using old vessels in burials. Some have linked the phenomenon to the lack of availability of certain types and to fortuitous discovery of vessels from burials of earlier periods (e.g. Going 1993), while others suggest a more symbolic and active curation of personal possessions within families, which may have had a particular significance to the deceased individual (e.g. Barber and Bowsher 2000).

On the other hand, if the grog-tempered vessel is indeed of Late Iron Age/early Roman date the period of curation would probably be among longest recorded in Romano-British burials (probably over 200 years). It was initially assumed that the vessel did not belong to the Kentish Late Roman grog-tempered tradition because these vessels are overwhelmingly associated with black burnished style forms (Pollard 1988, 129). However, a search for parallels in Late Roman assemblages in Kent has revealed some broadly analogous small squat grog-tempered jar/beakers from Lullingstone, either found in securely stratified 4th century deposits (e.g. Pollard 1987 no 130, fig 74) or assumed to be Late Roman based on higher fired grog-tempered fabrics (e.g. ibid, no 337, fig 84). Another somewhat similar Late Roman plain, squat jar was also noted from Worth temple (Lyne 2016, fig 1). On balance then, although the possibility remains that this could be a curated vessel Late Iron Age/early Roman vessel, it appears more likely that the two burial vessels are broadly contemporary.

Catalogue (Fig. 6)

[fg]png|Fig. 6 Pottery illustrations.|Image[/fg]

Period 2, OA2, G20, fill [34], pit [33]

P1 Plain interning jar with row of finger impressions and light vertical combing below rim. Fabric GLAUC1, form 2 (C3).

P2 Jar with slightly everted rim and row of finger impressions/deep diagonal combing/furrowing. Fabric GLAUC1, form 2B (C2-1).

P3 Ripple shouldered jar with tall upright rim and gently rounded shoulder and a zone of light coming on shoulder. Fabric GLAUC1, form 2T (B2-3).

P4 Small plain globular barrel shaped jar with cordons below rim and a zone of combing on body. Fabric GLAUC1, form 2 (B5-5).

P5 Large necked jar, with tall upright rim and offset neck, light combing on shoulder. Fabric GROG1, form 2T (B1-2).

Phase 2.1, EN4, G27 fill [168], furnace [174]

P6 Platter with external moulding but no footring. Fabric GROG1, form 5A (G1-9).

Phase 2.2, FS1, G9, fill [109], ditch [108]

P7 Small jar with short everted rim. Fabric GLAUC1, form 2T (C2-2).

P8 Jar with upright rim and round, rippled shoulder. Fabric GLAUC1, form 2T (B2-4).

P9 Jar with necked/everted profile and double cordon/rippled shoulder. Fabric GLAUC1, form 2T (B2-1).

[pg167]P10 Jar with necked/everted profile and double cordon/rippled shoulder. Fabric GLAUC1, form 2T (B2-1).

Phase 2.2, FS1, G9, fill [234], ditch [233]

P11 Jar with bead rim and rippled shoulder. Fabric GLAUC1, form 2A (C1-2).

P12 Jar with simple everted rim and rippled shoulder. Fabric GLAUC1, form 2T (B2-1).

Phase 2.2, FS1, G25, fill [59], pit [58]

P13 Jar with slightly beaded, internally thickened rim with deep furrowing / combing. Fabric QUAR1, form 2A (C1-4).

Phase 2.4, OA3, G16, fill [78], grave [80]

P14 Later Roman collared flagon with tooled vertical line decoration on neck and wavy line decoration on shoulder. Fabric AHFA, Form 1 (Lyne & Jefferies form 8.12).

P15 Small globular jar/beaker with simple everted rim, two faintly incised X graffiti marks on the underside of the base. Fabric GROG1, Form 2T/3.

Fired Clay by Trista Clifford and Stephen Patton

A very small assemblage of 69 fired clay fragments (836g) was hand collected from 18 contexts. The assemblage almost entirely dates to the Period 2 Late Iron Age/early Roman period and consists of very sparse fragments from two furnaces, a small number of briquetage pieces and a small fragment of loom weight. Additionally, there are two fragments of structural daub and 44 amorphous pieces with no diagnostic features (Table 3).

Table 3. Quantification of fired clay by form

[tb][th]Form|Count|Weight (g)[/th]

[tr]Amorphous|44|556[/tr]

[tr]Briquetage|13|48[/tr]

[tr]Daub|1|8[/tr]

[tr]Daub?|1|4[/tr]

[tr]Furnace lining|9|182[/tr]

[tr]Loom Weight RF ⟨4⟩|1|38[/tr]

[tr]Total|69|836[/tr]

[/tb]

The assemblage was examined by eye and using a 10x magnification hand lens, and a series of fabrics devised (see Table 4). The assemblage has been fully recorded on pro forma archive sheets and digitally on an Excel spreadsheet.[pg168][pg169]

Table 4. Site specific fired clay fabrics

[tb][th]Fabric|Description[/th]

[tr]F1|Fine to medium sparse sand tempered with occasional iron rich inclusions of ≤1mm and infrequent sandstone/ragstone pebbles up to 20mm[/tr]

[tr]F2|Very fine sand tempered with frequent orange ?grog inclusions within a pale greyish pink matrix. Briquetage[/tr]

[tr]F3|Medium sand tempered, similar to F1 with frequent organic voids[/tr]

[tr]F4|Very fine, sparse sand tempered with moderate coloured and white quartz pebbles up to 4mm. Briquetage[/tr]

[tr]F5|A fine, quite dense silty matrix with no visible inclusions[/tr]

[/tb]

The assemblage is too small in quantity to provide any possibility for spatial analysis, all of the fragments are small in size and only represent parts of their original form. Table 5 shows the quantification of the material by phase, group and form.

Briquetage was recovered from four separate contexts; Period 2 pit [131] fill [132] G20 contained a probable rim sherd in fabric F2. A second rim sherd from a straight sided vessel in fabric F4 came from ditch [108] fill [109] G9. Probable wall sherds were observed from pit [33] fill [34] G20, environmental sample <6>

[109] and ditch [233] fill [234] G9. A possible briquetage vessel base fragment came from furnace G27 backfill [168]; this has been considered within the pottery report.

Furnace lining, characterised by an aerated appearance and adherent slag was recovered from ditch [171] fill [173] G32 and Period 1 pit [185] fill [186], intrusive within the latter context. Several other pieces exhibited a flattened outer surface which may indicate that they were part of the outer surface of a furnace. A fragment from ditch [128] fill [125] G11 exhibits two wattle impressions arranged on opposing faces at 90° to each other. Again, this fragment probably once formed part of a furnace structure.

Fabric F1 dominates the assemblage, constituting 66% by weight. Fabric F5 represents 26%, from a single context. The remaining 8% consists of briquetage fabrics and a variant of fabric F1.

The briquetage fragments are limited in their diagnostic features. The presence of a vessel rim and a vessel base suggests that these pieces may have been present due to the transportation of salt rather than the production of it. Potentially they represent the method of containing salt for trading or movement rather than being part of the salt making process.

None of the furnace superstructures remained in situ having been in all cases most likely deliberately removed after the last firings. However, the fragment of daub from ditch G11 intervention [128] fill [125] suggests that if it was from furnace G27 then the superstructure was made around a wattle frame. This method of construction with clay is common throughout the time that bloomeries were in use for iron ore extraction, from the Iron Age through to the medieval period.[pg170]

Table 5. Quantification of fired clay by phase, group and form

[tb][th]Period|Group|Form|Count|Weight (g)[/th]

[tr]1 Prehistoric|G31 prehistoric pit|Furnace lining|1|16[/tr]

[tr]2 LIA/ERB|G20 south pits|Amorphous|6|40[/tr]

[tr]2 LIA/ERB|G20 south pits|Briquetage|3|12[/tr]

[tr]2 LIA/ERB|G23 north pits|Amorphous|1|10[/tr]

[tr]2.1 LIA/ERB enclosures|G7 north enclosure|Amorphous|11|224[/tr]

[tr]2.1 LIA/ERB enclosures|G29 furnace|Amorphous|12|188[/tr]

[tr]2.1 LIA/ERB enclosures|G27 furnace|Amorphous|6|42[/tr]

[tr]2.1 LIA/ERB enclosures|G27 furnace|Briquetage|1|26[/tr]

[tr]2.1 LIA/ERB enclosures|G32 slag dumps in north enclosure|Furnace lining|8|166[/tr]

[tr]2.2 LIA/ERB droveways|G9 field boundary ditch|Amorphous|1|10[/tr]

[tr]2.2 LIA/ERB droveways|G9 field boundary ditch|Briquetage|9|10[/tr]

[tr]2.2 LIA/ERB droveways|G9 field boundary ditch|Loom Weight RF ⟨4⟩|1|38[/tr]

[tr]2.2 LIA/ERB droveways|G11 north track, east side|Daub|1|8[/tr]

[tr]2.2 LIA/ERB droveways|G18 fence, deep postholes|Daub?|1|4[/tr]

[tr]2.2 LIA/ERB droveways|G25 later south pits|Amorphous|6|34[/tr]

[tr]Total| | |69|836[/tr]

[/tb]

Ceramic Object Registered Find by Trista Clifford and Stephen Patton

The fragment of loom weight, RF <4>, is a small part of an object that would have originally been triangular in form, with only part of the face and side being still present. It weighs 38g and is too fragmentary to ascertain the object’s original size or form with certainty. It was most likely of the Danebury Type 1 form (Poole 1984) whereby all three of the apexes were perforated side to side. This form is common throughout the Iron Age and into the earliest part of the Romano-British period. Part of the perforation is identifiable but not enough remains to estimate the diameter.

Overall, the assemblage is of very limited significance and provides little information for activities at the site. The briquetage and loom weight do not provide evidence for salt or textile making, but instead simply show that fragments of objects related to these endeavours ended up being deposited in features at Haven Farm. The lack of furnace superstructures also impedes any conclusions about their construction, but based on other examples wattle frames would be the most likely method of erection.[pg171]

The Human Bone by Lucy Sibun

Excavations uncovered a single inhumation [79] dating to Period 2, Phase 4, Late Roman. The bones within the grave were poorly preserved with fragments of the skull, dentition, two vertebrae and both femurs surviving. The teeth present, which comprised fragments of two deciduous and twelve permanent teeth, indicate and age of approximately 4–5 years (Gustafson and Koch 1974; Ubelaker 1989). It was not possible to gather any metrical data and no pathology was noted on the bones.

Discussion

Iron-working at Sutton Valence

Sutton Valence is located some distance (c. 20km) from the majority of the iron- working sites in the Weald, which mainly cluster around the upper reaches of the rivers Rother and Cuckmere in the low-lying area to the south of Tunbridge Wells. Unsurprisingly, this cluster is centred on the main source of clay ironstone ore in the Weald, and in terms of raw materials, the workings at Sutton Valence are an apparent oddity. However, the presence of patches of abundant ironstone fragments in the Clay-with-Flint geology on the crest of the North Downs has long provoked speculation that iron-working could have existed in the Vale of Holmesdale (Cleere and Crossley 1995, 15). While a Late Iron Age/early Roman (probably pre-AD 60) bloomery furnace has been found at Little Poplar Farm in the neighbouring Low Weald, c.4km to the south-east (Aldridge 2005) and bloomery slag has been found nearby at Hollingbourne (Pettitt 1973, 12), Lenham Heath (Miles 1974, 8) and in the adjacent Court Farm Roman building, this excavation has demonstrated that iron-working was indeed undertaken on the Hythe Beds geology. In addition, the chemical characterisation of the slag indicates the assemblage fits in the Kent Tertiary Sands geological group, in keeping with its location and access to resources. [See KAS website for a paper on the microscopic and chemical metallurgical residues found at Haven Farm.]

Microscopic analysis of metallurgical residues at Sutton Valence showed show that it was consistent with primary iron smelting intended to produce a soft ferritic iron. The character of the slag indicated it was derived from a developed bloomery industry and an iron smelting system that produced a consistent iron product that was typical of Roman period production. Furnace G27 was made with a clay tempered with a silica-rich sand could have sustained the temperatures of up to 1450°C. The amount of slag recovered (c. 25 kg) represented the production of c. 10 kg of iron.

Similar Roman furnaces have been found elsewhere in the Weald, notably at Bardown, Wadhurst, East Sussex (Fig. 7). The five Bardown smelting furnaces were better preserved, but of similar size and construction (Cleere 1970, 10–18). Despite the similarity of the furnaces, the two sites appeared to have fulfilled different functions. The extensive Bardown site was in use for over a century and was geared to large-scale production, with roasting furnaces, associated buildings and a huge slag heap (Cleere 1970). The Haven Farm iron-working, on the other hand, was short-lived and much smaller-scale, possibly fulfilling a nearby domestic [pg172][pg173]need for iron. The differing levels of production at these sites are a likely reflection of the contrasting nature of the Roman settlement of the High Weald and the North Downs ridge. In the Weald the lack of villas and scale of the industry has many to conclude that this was an area of direct imperial control (Cleere and Crossley 1995, 62; Mattingly 2007, 509). The North Downs ridge and the adjacent Medway valley are likely to have had connections with the Weald industry, perhaps involving transport and administration, but was likely under private ownership.

[fg]png|Fig. 7 Comparative plan of Bardown (Cleere 1970, fig. 4) and Sutton Valence furnaces.|Image[/fg]

The Nature of the Roman Settlement at Sutton Valence

The Roman settlement at Sutton Valence is known from three principal sites: the buildings at Court Farm, the Grammar School walled cemetery and from this excavation at Haven Farm. However, the nature of the occupation is obscure and is greatly hampered by the quality of the evidence. The excavations at the Grammar School and Court Farm were undertaken over 70 years ago and have never been published in anything other than summary detail. There are no known drawings from either site and most of the finds have been lost. The cemetery site has never been re-located and the building at Court Farm is only known from trial trenches, and its extent and form is uncertain.

Clearly, any attempt at interpretation must be cautious and bear these significant problems in mind. Nevertheless, enough information can be gleaned to offer a new explanation of the occupation and pose research questions for further fieldwork. The former interpretation was the masonry building at Court Farm was a mansio basically because it was near the likely course of a Roman Road (Fig. 1). There are a couple of problems with this simplistic interpretation. Firstly, there is nothing diagnostic about this building to indicate a mansio. Indeed, there has been much debate about what exactly typifies a mansio, as opposed to a large domestic residence, and their identification in the field is often problematic (Mattingly 2007, 259). Generally, mansiones are thought to have had abundant accommodation, stables, and are likely to have had bathing facilities, although there was much variation (ibid.). Secondly, it is hard to reconcile a mansio function with the other contemporary evidence, especially the adjacent large high-status cemetery.

To begin, a re-assessment of the masonry building itself is required. There is no plan but the KHER account describes ragstone foundations, measuring c. 18m by 8m, ‘which contained a corridor and three small rooms, two with hearths’ (KHER TQ84NW6). This description is consistent with the simplest form of Roman-style rural house, a series of rooms set behind a corridor or portico (Perring 2002, 73– 74). These ‘corridor-villas’ were very common, generally date to the earlier Roman period and usually formed the core from which later additions developed, such as adding wings (ibid.). This building was clearly part of a much larger settlement, as the remark about the aerial photograph clearly indicates: ‘the building lay on the s[outh] side of a rectangular enclosure which covered many acres’ (KHER TQ84NW6).

If all of the Court Farm masonry building was exposed, or indeed if there were other masonry buildings in the vicinity, is uncertain. More structures are hinted at by a 19th century reference to the discovery of a Roman ‘watch-tower’ at Sutton Valence by Charles Roach Smith (Cave-Browne 1898, 198). While this may not [pg174]be a ‘watch-tower’, this may well have been a different building to the Court Farm structure.

The evidence from the walled cemetery also infers a more sustained and affluent settlement than a mere roadside inn. The interments were numerous (almost 100) and on occasion high-status, with an abundance of pottery vessels and a number of bronze items. This indicates a sizable and affluent community, at least in the late first and second centuries, living at Sutton Valence. Interestingly, another richly-furnished walled cemetery was found nearby at Lockham, close to the villa at Boughton Monchelsea (Page 1974, 158–160).

Together, the Court Farm building and the cemetery can be interpreted as two elements of a wider villa estate overlooking the Weald and adjacent to the Roman Road. With this in mind, the Haven Farm findings can be seen as short-lived, small-scale iron-working, perhaps during the initial construction of the villa, and the subsequent agricultural use of the land on the periphery of the villa complex. The idea that there was a villa, rather than a mansio, at Sutton Valence is not new: it was first proposed in 1902 by Harold Sands, albeit in his introduction to his article on the medieval castle (Sands 1902, 198).

It is likely that the main villa buildings were around Court Farm, some 0.5km from Haven Farm, which lay on the periphery of the centre of the estate. The walled cemetery was slightly further away, although when found, burial grounds of villas are rarely close to the main residences. The majority of the dating evidence from the sites indicates the principal settlement was sustained from the first to early third century, although the isolated Late Roman inhumation (grave [80]) may be evidence of a reduced, later occupation.

Sutton Valence lies immediately adjacent to one of the highest concentrations of villas in England, the Medway Valley. A recent survey of Roman settlement in the valley identified the importance of transport links to villa location, favouring sites next to rivers and roads (Dawkes 2015, 121–125). This seems to have been significant at Sutton Valence with the proposed route of the Maidstone-Kingsnorth-Lympne Roman road (Margary 1965, 228–230, Route 2: Aldridge 2006) lying close to the southern edge. While the evidence suggests that this was a villa rather than a mansio, the villa itself may have offered a mansio-like function to travellers. Specialist industries and services have long been suspected on villa sites, but often prove elusive in the archaeological record (Branigan 1988, 42–50). However, such a function has been suggested for Snodland villa on the River Medway with its good communication links and abundant accommodation (Dawkes 2015, 121–122).

In conclusion, while this archaeological excavation was informative about an aspect of Roman occupation at Sutton Valence, it could not answer the broader questions about the settlement. Future research priorities could involve further understanding the form, nature and chronology of the Court Farm building(s) and the adjacent large enclosure; discerning if anything of the walled cemetery at the Grammar School survives; finding any evidence of Roman agricultural land-use in the local environs; and further plotting the course of the Roman road along the Chart Ridge.[pg175]

Acknowledgements

ASE would like to thank Provian Construction on behalf of their client for commissioning the work and Adam Single and Wendy Rogers of Kent County Council for their guidance throughout the project. Also thanks to Michael Charlton and Vic Lucas for undertaking the microscopic and chemical characterisation of metallurgical residue; all the staff who undertook the excavation and everyone involved in the project. The illustrations were prepared by Lauren Gibson and the article was edited prior to submission by Andy Margetts.

Bibliography

Aldridge, N., 2005, ‘A Belgic cremation cemetery and iron bloomery furnace at Jubilee Corner, Ulcombe’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 125, 173-82.

Aldgridge, N., 2006, ‘The Roman road from Sutton Valence to Ashford: evidence for an alternative route to that proposed by Margary, Archaeologia Cantiana, 126, 171-83.

Barber, B., and Bowsher, D., 2000 The eastern cemetery of Roman London, MoLAS Monogr 4.

Biddulph, E., 2004 Iron Age and Roman pottery, in P, Booth, and C, Howard-Davis, Prehistoric and Romano-British settlement at Queen Elizabeth Square, Maidstone, Oxford Archaeol Occ Pap 11, 15-21.

Biddulph, E., 2006a What’s in a name? Graffiti on funerary pottery, Britannia 37, 355-359.

Biddulph, E., 2006b The Roman pottery from Pepper Hill, Southfleet, Kent, CTRL specialist report series, Archaeology Data Service (distributor) https://doi.org/10.5284/1000230.

Branigan, K., 1988 ‘Specialisation in Villa Economies’, in K. Branigan and D. Miles, The Economies of Romano-British Villas, Sheffield.

Cave-Browne, J., 1898 Sutton Valence and East Sutton, Their Early History, Maidstone.

Cleere, H., 1970 The Romano-British Industrial Site at Bardown, Wadhurst. An Interim Report on Excavations 1960-1968, Sussex Arch Society Occasional Paper 1.

Cleere, H., and Crossley, D., 1995 The Iron Industry of the Weald, 2nd ed.

Dawkes, G., 2012 Post-excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design Archaeological Excavation at Haven Farm, North Street Sutton Valence, unpub ASE rep 2012005.

Dawkes, G., 2015 Flavian and Later Buildings at Snodland Villa: excavations at Cantium Way, Snodland, Kent, ASE Monograph Series 9.

Detsicas, A., 1983 The Cantiaci, Sutton.

Going, C. J., 1993 Pottery vessels, in N. Crummy, P. Crummy, P., and C. Crossan, Excavations of Roman and later cemeteries, churches and monastic sites in Colchester, 1971-88, Colchester Archaeol Rep 9, 44-50.

Gustafson, G., and Koch, G., 1974 Age estimation up to 16 years of age based on dental development, Odontologisk Revy, 25, 297-306.

Jones, G., 2009, Later prehistoric and Roman pottery, in C. Ellis, Archaeology of the West Malling and Leybourne bypass, in P. Andrews, K. Egging Dinwiddy, C. Ellis, A. Hutcheson, C. Phillpotts, A. B., Powell, and J. Schuster 2009 Kentish sites and sites of Kent: a miscellany of four archaeological excavations, Wessex Archaeol Rep 24, 18-31.

Lyne, M., 2006a The late Iron Age and Roman pottery from Snarkhurst Wood, Hollingbourne, Kent (ARC SNK99), CTRL specialist report series, Archaeology Data Service (distributor) https://doi.org/10.5284/1000230.

Lyne, M., 2006b The late Iron Age and Roman pottery from Thurnham Roman villa, Thurnham, Kent, CTRL specialist report series, Archaeology Data Service (distributor) https://doi.org/10.5284/1000230.

[pg176]Lyne, M., 2016 The end of Roman pottery production in Britain, Internet Archaeology 41 https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.41.7.

Lyne, M., and Jefferies, R.S., 1979 The Alice Holt/Farnham Roman pottery industry, CBA Res Rep 30.

Margary, I. D., 1965 Roman Ways in the Weald, London.

Mattingly, D., 2007 An Imperial Possession Britain in the Roman Empire 54 BC – AD 409, London.

Miles, A., 1974 Bloomery Slag at Lenham Heath, Kent, Bull of the Wealden Iron Res Group, Winter, 7, 7.

MoLA, 2019 London Roman pottery codes, available https://www.mola.org.uk/roman-pottery-codes (Accessed 14.02.23).

Newman, J., 1980 The Buildings of England West Kent and the Weald, London. Page, W., 1974 The Victoria History of the County of Kent, Vol 3, London.

Perring, D., 2002 The Roman House in Britain, London.

Pettitt, J., 1973 Pushing Back the Frontier, Bull of the Wealden Iron Res Group, Winter, 5, 12.

Pollard, R. J., 1987 The other pottery in G. W. Meates, The Lullingtone Roman villa. Volume II the wall paintings and finds, Kent Archaeol Soc Monogr 3, 164-305.

Pollard, R. J., 1988 The Roman pottery of Kent, Kent Archaeol Soc Monogr 5.

Poole, C., 1984 The objects of baked clay in Cunliffe, B, Danebury: an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire. Vol 2 the excavations 1969-1978: the finds. CBA Res Rep, 52, 398-407.

Sands, H., 1902 ‘Sutton Valence Castle’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 15 198-206.

Thompson, I., 1982 Grog-tempered ‘Belgic’ pottery of south-eastern England, BAR Brit Ser 108.

Ubelaker, D., 1989 Human Skeletal Remains, 2nd ed.[pg177]