108. Funnel necked beaker, with constricted body, burnished to shoulder and inside rim. Ext. black: Core grey: Int. Black. Kiln waste layer ABH/40, cf. Monaghan class 2C8.1; 170/190-210/230.
109. Funnel necked beaker, squat and globular, grey ware, slightly oxidised, burnished outside. Kiln waste layer ABH/40, cf. Monaghan class 2C6.4; 170-230. Four examples.
110. As above, rather more bulbous form, burnished and slipped. Kiln waste layer ABH/40. cf. Monaghan class 2C6.1; 190-210/230.
111. Bag beaker, neckless form, burnished. Ext. dark grey: Core grey: Int. dark grey. Kiln waste layer ABH/40, cf. Monaghan class 2E0.1; 180-230.
Cooling Exotica by Jason Monaghan
List of identified exotic fabrics by context:
Hadham (third century) AJX/67 (pebble floor),BA/2 (red floor), MC/14 (east dyke top).
Oxford (third century) MD/11 (topsoil), NE/18 (red floor), JF/11 (top RB), HW/6 (east dyke top), KW/12 (top layers east dyke), WT/31 (east dyke), KC/11 (shallow trench), AJR/58 (fish pit), WY/33 (topsoil). WW/32 (red layer), AAX/39-38 (just above hearths), AAH/39(black ash), KV/15 (briq layer).
Nene Valley type (second-century - later parts) JP/16 (topsoil), DL/6(east dyke), KE/11 (top RB layers),DS/6 (top east dyke), LI/6 (deep east dyke), HE/5 (circular hut trench?), CC/1 (red floor), HC/ (below red floor), AHX/B (site in next field), JG/11 (top black), AIZ/58 (above black), ZY/39 (topsoil), XV/34 (top layers), UK/28 (lower red). Brockley Hill (60-120) unstratified.
Essex Coarse Wares (second century?). AAE/39 (top floor),AHM/57 (top floor).
Colchester Colour Coats (second-century). WW/34 (top layers), JK/14 (top east dyke), NT/20 (top layers), (thin and thick red), DE/4-FQ/3- NC/ 20-GR/6 (top east dyke), KQ/12 (east dyke), ZA/34 (hut circle), XZ/38- ZY/39 (topsoil), BQ/2 (chalk rubble floor), CD/3 (over pebble floor). Rhenish (second century) AFS/46 (dark clay, GS/6-MC/14-JX/16 (east dyke top), ABH/40 (kiln refuse layers),TX/28, WF/32, ZY/39 (top layers. Central Gaulish (first century). AFS/46 (dark clay),GR/6 (top east dyke), KC/6 (top east dyke), ABH/40 (kiln refuse layers), EV/4 (east dyke). Negative evidence: No Mayen, Argonne, Eponge, Rettenden, i.e. late third and fourth centuries. Very little grog tempered Belgic, i.e. pre-invasion. BB2 dishes type 5d, i.e. pre 180 ad and BB2 dishes type 5a, i.e. third century and later were rare.
The first listing was undertaken by Jason Monaghan in 1984, then in 1986 Christopher St. Breen compared it to the Dartford District Archaeological Group’s Samian fabric/form collection. Close examination made it clear that a series of corrections could be made. Joanne Bird was also involved at this stage, providing the summary of the 70 fragments of samian recovered (see below). The bulk of these is from the tip layers of the east creek. A detailed archive report is deposited in Maidstone Museum, while the samian and other exotic wares have been deposited with the DDAG’s reference collection at Dartford.
Top east creek:
Central Gaulish Form Dr.24/25 not later than 70 ad ; Forms Dr.31, 18/31, 37 and Form Walters 80, later second century; and Form Rheinzabern 36, later second to mid third.
Lower east creek:
Central Gaulish Form Dr,27 many, late first and early second century; Form Dr.30 Antonine; Form Dr.31R mid second century-Antonine; Form Dr.33 Hadrian-Antonine, also one sherd probably Argonne Form Dr.36 mid second century-Antonine; Form Dr.37 late Hadrian- Antonine; Form Dr.30 (stamped) 150-170 and Form Dr.30 Decorated 120-140.
Red floor sq 19.
Central Gaulish Form Dr.72 mid second century; Central Gaulish Forms Dr.31R, 33, 37, mid to late second century; East Gaulish Form Dr.45 and Form Curie 23, later second to early third.
Central Gaulish Forms Dr.27, 18/31, 31, 36, early second century- Antonine.
Kiln refuse layers.
Southern Gaulish Form Dr.27 later first century; probably Argonne Form Dr.36 later second century; Central Gaulish Forms Dr. 18/31, 31, 36, 37, Antonine.
Rare form-ribbed bottle-AGZ, on red floor, sq 55 top layers, Central Gaulish, Antonine (cf. Stanfield, J.A., 1929, Unusual Forms of Terra Sigillata’, Arch. Journ., 86, 113-150, fig. 6 illustrates several).
Decorated Samian (not illustrated) by Guy de la Bedoyere
1. Form: Dr.30 Context QN/PO Feature: East dyke. Stamped in the mould by Cinnamus of Lezoux. The boar, both bears and all three stags are on S&S pi. 163,66, the hound on PI. 163,74, the ovolo and beads on pi. 162,56. The leaf may be part of larger one. C.AD 150-170.
2. Form: Dr.37 Context BD Feature: East dyke. Ovolo, beads and heads in the style of Butrio, Central Gaul, 120-140 AD. (note similar; is the style of Libertus) Lezoux, here the ovolo, border and masks as S&S pi.60,679; seated Venus as pi.58,661.
3. Form: Dr.37 Context PI Feature: East dyke. Central Gaul. Ovolo (Rogers B77) used by several unnamed Lezoux potters; the scroll suggests links with the Sacer- Cinnamus Group. Later Hadrianic-early Antonine.
4. Form Dr,37 Context: FT/AFG Feature: East dyke/Top East dyke. Ioenalis of Les Martres-de-Veyre, Central Gaul, Vine scroll, as Stansfield and Simpson, pi.41,477 and 483, which shows similar birds pecking at the grapes. C. AD 100-125.
5. Form Dr.37 Context: FT (separate bowl from 4.) Feature: East dyke Ioenalis of Martre-de-Veyre, Central Gaul, Ovolo and beads as Stansfield and Simpson, pi.33, 416. c. AD 100-125.
Note: two further sherds that may relate to bowl (4). Context: AJX Rubble Floor and Context: GS East dyke Top. Form: Dr.37, from same bowl and same decoration unit (ROGERS M7) but not this panel (4).
The Trade with Northern Sites
This has been discussed by Monaghan at some length, who examined the assemblage from thirteen frontier sites (Monaghan, 1987, 211). He estimated that 50% of the BB2 fabric examined there was Kentish, in particular the fabric from Cooling, Cliffe and Shorne. At the Antonine fort at Camelon, roughly 40% of all the pottery was BB2. Half of the sherds were certainly Thameside produce, most of the remaining ones differing by only a small degree, the most common fabric was from Cooling and Cliffe. The pottery from Carpow, one of the few sites where undecorated pie dishes occurred, was similar to those of Cooling, cf. Fig. 10, no. 90 (5C3 Monaghan 1987, 141).
John Gillam, also examined the pottery from Cooling and recognised it as occurring on many northern sites, especially the fabrics with a slight metallic burnish on the surface, cf. fig 10, no. 92 and fig. 12 no. 106. He noted that this pottery showed up in the ‘destruction layer’ at Carpow (Wright, 1974, 28992) 215-216 AD, also pre ‘metallic ware’ at Benwells (plain rimmed bowls with wavy decoration). Gillam, suggested the export of BB2 started around 180 and ended before 240-270. The flanged rim bowl see fig. 8, no. 50, of early third-century date may represent the later phase of the industry at Cooling. The ABD/ABH layers possibly representing the ware for local markets in the early third century (John Gillam pers. comm.).
Williams has considered ‘that by the late second century or early third a number of small kilns in Kent including Cooling were supplying BB2 to northern military garrison sites’ (Williams 1977). He made a petrological analysis of the heavy minerals of the Cooling fabric comparing it with the fabric of the Northern sites. Salt-production could well have been linked to the export of pottery up the East Coast to the Northern Army. Production started in the first century and continued into the early third until the pottery trade had ceased.
A certain amount of coal was revealed in the excavations. The source may have been the Northern coalfields (although Somerset coal cannot be excluded).
The excavations produced large quantities of briquetage with much fragmentary material being discarded, although many incomplete pieces were retained, these being the remains of rectangular and circular vessels, rectangular and circular plates, wedges and firebars. The fired material varied in colour from dull red to dull purple, presumably reflecting the amount of firing received. A small quantity of slag was recovered. Close examination of the fabric with a 20X lens, showed no signs of grog, flint or quartz, only of organic temper, typical of the Thameside and Medway estuaries material.
J.R.B. Arthur studied organic material from evaporating vessels of the Medway saltings and found it consisted mainly of rye (Secale cereale L)\ probably this was left over from thatching. It is assumed that the alluvial clay was the basic material used by the briquetage makers.
Site B Squares Kl-9
Of the 34 briquetage fragments, 32.3% of the material consisted of rectangular vessels, ranging in thickness from 10-14mm while the remains of oval or circular vessels made up 8.8% of the total, being some 10-18mm thick, (cf. Miles 1965, Fig. 4, 1 and 2). The greater bulk was of firebars, 35.2% being 12-30mm thick (cf. Fawn, Evans, McMaster and Davies 1990, p. 13, fig. 12.) The wedges, of various shapes and sizes were some 13~30mm thick and formed 23.5% of the total (cf. Miles 1965, Fig. 5, 5 and 6). Very little pottery was found associated with this site, and a first-century date is suggested.
Site A. Main Site
The salt-making activity would seem to range from the first century to the early third. Of the 38 briquetage fragments retained, 42% were from rectangular vessels 10-14mm thick, forming the bulk of the material while 39.4% consisted of the remains of oval or circular vessels, 10-18mm thick. A number of rectangular and circular plate fragments were found, these being anything from 8-20mm thick. These consisted of flat fragments where the edges met roughly at right angles and the remains of fragments with a curved edge. It is not known for which purpose these would be used; they made up 13% of the total recovered (cf. Fawn, Evans, McMaster and Davies 1990, pi. 13, RH152, Tollesbury).
Only one fragment of a vessel 20mm thick was recovered, this may reflect different system of heating the brine solution, with larger evaporating vessels spanning the hearths, without the need for kilnbars which were possibly used as horizontal supports for the vessels which rested on them in earlier phases of the industry. Mention must be made of a fragment of a ‘pig-trough’ vessel 26mm thick, found in the supposed ‘fish pit’ just off the main site on the foreshore.
Glass Bead (not illustrated) by CM. Guido
Large cobalt blue glass bead with bosses decorated with opaque yellow spirals (possibly linked with sways in the same colour). Diam. 23mm, ht. 21mm, perforated diam. 8mm. Related closely to the many Oldbury type beads in this country, clearly one of the Celtic late La Tene III beads. A variant comes from Spilsby, Lincs., with sways; also found at Camulodunum.
These beads reached Southern England in some quantities in the latter first century BC and particularly in the South-East (Oldbury, etc) and they linger on into the second century occasionally as survivals in later deposits. Their origin on the continent is possibly Bohemia and they are found in Celtic oppida, which came to an abrupt end in the last twenty years of the first century BC.
Quernstones (not illustrated) by R.W. Sanderson
Compared with material of known origin in the Institute of Geological Sciences collections:
Specimens AB and AE: Feldspathic sandstone. These two specimens appear by their pink colour, to have been burnt. However, they are probably examples of Millstone Grit, possible from Derbyshire or south Yorkshire.
Specimen AA: Amygdaloidal tholeiitic basalt. The writer has been unable to trace comparable material in IGS collections. As such rocks occur in many part of the area of Roman influence, precise origin cannot be given.
Specimen AC: Glauconitic sandy limestone: This compares well with specimens of Bargate Stone from Godalming and Midhurst. Only possible to suggest a source in the western Weald.
Specimen AD: Glauconitic cherty sandstone. A specimen of Hythe Beds from near Larkfield (Maidstone) is similar to this. The differences (less green colour and slighter grain size) are not important enough to warrant suggesting a more distant source.
Coal Samples from Cooling and Cliffe by A.H.V. Smith
The samples produced reasonably rich assemblage of microspores, the composition of the two samples was different due to the fact they were derived from coals of differing petrology. However certain stratigraphically useful species were recognised. These species indicate that both coals are of Middle Coal Measures age widespread in the British coalfields but when the rank of the samples is considered it is possible to restrict the coalfields of origin to those of South Wales, Bristol and Somerset and Durham. A knowledge of the methods and the routes by which the Romans used to transport coal in Britain may eventually suggest the most likely source. The provenance of the coals from some overseas coalfield cannot be excluded although the measures in the Pas de Calais coalfield , the nearest to Kent, are entirely concealed.
Anatomical Report on Baby Skeleton by J.P. Hayes
The following bones were identified:-
Large part of (L)frontal bone - 2 adjoining fragments.
Large part of both parietal bones. More of the (R) than of the (L) was present. The (R) consisted of 5 adjoining fragments, the (L) of 3.
Squamous part of (L) temporal bone more or less complete.
Both zygomatic bones more or less complete. The (L) articulates with the frontal bone.
Posterior half of (R) mandible.
Anterior half of (L) mandible.
1 incisor tooth.
20 other fragments Of skull bone some of which fit together.
Rest of axial skeleton
4 vertebral bodies.
6 neural arches. 4 (R) thoracic, 1 (L) thoracic, 1 (L) cervical.
12 ribs or rib fragments. 6 (R) 2 (L). The rest were too incomplete to place. The 1st and 2nd ribs on the (R) were identified.
Medial two thirds of (R) clavicle.
Both scapulae. The (R) was broken across the blade and partly missing.
The upper ends of the (L) ulna and radius.
No bones inferior to thoracic vertebra or belonging to the more distal parts of the upper limbs could be identified.
Two bone fragments were also present which fitted together and formed part of a long bone from a much older individual - possibly an adult. The general morphology of the bones especially that of the skull identify them as human. The shape and size of the bones point to their being those of a new-born baby.
Goat/Sheep bones from body of mound by J.E. King
Radii - left and right
Humerus, I frag. L and R
2 Tibiae L and R 2 Femora L and R
1 Pelvis frags plus a number of vertebral fragments and rib fragments. These bones are all very young and are certainly from the same animal.
B.2. Many small bones including foot bones and limb bone fragments and epiphyses. Also vertebral and rib fragments. These bones are probably from the same animal as above.
Permission to excavate was readily given by Mr F. Muggeridge and the farmer Mr M. Bucknall and we are grateful to them both for their kind co-operation and assistance over the years.
The 1966-74 excavations were jointly undertaken by the author and M.J. Syddell, who later emigrated to Australia, Hence the report was written up by the author, who takes full responsibility for any deficiencies. The excavations were financed by a grant from the Kent Archaeological Society and a donation from P. A. Oldham (who gave continuous support throughout). Thanks are due to The Council for Kentish Archaeology for the loan of a Pegson Marlow pump.
The writer’s thanks are also due to members of the Lower Medway Archaeological Group and other volunteers who helped with the excavations. He is particularly indebted to Miss J. ICearsey, Messrs. F. Delaney, S.J. Dockrill, P.A. Harlow, M.J. Jessup, W.J. Morement,
D.J. Robertson and D. Wraight, who all worked very hard under adverse conditions. He is grateful for the work undertaken by J.P. Hayes in restoring the pottery; also to D.B. Kelly, and V.G. Swan, for help and advice with the pottery; R.D. Green, for help with the soil profiles; E.J. Philp for identifying ‘molluscs’ and M.A. Ocock and T. Ithel for undertaking site surveys and levels, while Daphne Miles helped in many ways particularly in proof-reading the draft of this report.
Bowler, E., 1983, ‘For the Better Defence of Low and Marshy Grounds: A Survey of the Work of the Sewer Commissions for North and East Kent, 1531-1930’, in A.P. Detsicas and N. Yates (eds), Studies in Modern Kentish History, KAS, Maidstone, 29-48.
Bushe-Fox, J.P., 1925, Excavation of the late Celtic Urnfield at Swarling, Kent (Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. London 5).
Bushe-Fox, J.P., 1932, Third Report on the Excavation of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. London 10).
De Brisay, K., 1978, ‘The excavation of a Red Hill at Peldon with some notes on some other sites’, Antiq. Journ., LVIII pt.l, 31-60.
Detsicas, A.P., 1977, ‘First Century Pottery Manufacture at Eccles, Kent’, in J. Dore and K. Greene (eds), Roman Studies in Britain and Beyond, BAR 19-36.
Devoy, R.J., 1980, ‘Post-glacial Environmental Change and Man in the Thames Estuary: a Synopsis’, in F.H. Thompson (ed.), Archaeology and Coastal Change, The Society of Antiquaries of London, 134-48.
Dore, J. and Toomber, R., 1998, National Roman Fabric Reference Collection, Museum of London Archaeology Service, 166.
Elliston Erwood, F.C., 1916, ‘The Earthworks at Charlton, London S.E.’, Journal of the Brit. Arch. Association (new series), xxii, 125-91.
Evans, J.H., 1953, ‘Archaeological Horizons in the North Kent Marshes’, Archaeologia Cantiana, LXVI, 103-46.
Farrar, R.A.H., 1973,‘The Techniques and Sources of Romano-British Black-Burnished Ware’, in A.P. Detsicas (ed.), Current Research in Romano- British Pottery, Research Report 10, CBA, London, 67-103.
Fawn, A.J., Evans, K.A., McMaster, I. and Davies, G.M.R., 1990, The Red Hills of Essex, Colchester Archaeological Group.
Frere, S.S., Stowe, S., and Bennet, P., 1982, Excavations on the Roman and Medieval Defences of Canterbury (The Archaeology of Canterbury, Vol. II), Maidstone,
Gilham, J.P., 1973, ‘Sources of Pottery found on Northern military Sites’, in A.P. Detsicas (ed.), Current Research in Romano-British Pottery, Research Report 10, BAR, London, 53-62.
Green, R.D., 1968, Soils of Romney Marsh, Soil Survey of Great Britain, Bulletin No. 4, Harpenden, 8.
Hawkes, C.F.C, and Hull, M.R., 1947, Camulodunum (Rep. Res. Com. Soc. Antiq. Oxford 14).
Kelly, D.B., 1992, ‘The Mount Roman Villa, Maidstone’, Archaeologia Cantiana, CX> 175-235.
Miles, A., 1965, ‘Funton Marsh salt-panning site’, Archaeologia Cantiana, LXX, 260-265.
Miles, A., 1968, ‘Romano-British salt-panning hearths at Cliffe’, Archaeologia Cantiana, LXXXIII, 272-273.
Miles, A., 1975, ‘Salt-panning in Romano-British Kent’, in K.W. de Brisay and K. A. Evans (eds), Salt the Study of an Ancient Industry, Colchester, 26-31.
Monaghan, J.,1987, Upchurch and Thameside Roman Pottery: a Ceramic Typology, first to third Centuries A.D. (BAR(B), no. 173).
Pollard, R.J., 1983 ‘The Coarse Pottery, including the Kiln Products’, in P.D. Catherall, ‘A Romano-British Manufacturing Site at Oakleigh Farm, Higham, Kent’, Britannia, vol. XIV,121-38.
Pollard, R.J., 1988, The Roman Pottery of Kent, Monograph Series of the Kent Archaeological Society, Vol. V, Maidstone.
Swan, V.G., 1984, The Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain, RCHME, Suppl. Series, no. 5, London.
Williams, D.F., 1977, ‘The Romano-British Black Burnished Industry: an Essay on Characterisation by Heavy Mineral Analysis’, in D.P.S. Peacock (ed.), Pottery and Early Commerce, London, 163-238.
Wright, R.P., 1974, ‘Carpow and Caracalla’, Britannia, v (1974), 289-92.