Chapter 4 Later prehistory by Timothy Champion Introduction some of which became towns in the Roman period, marked a similar major shift in the nature of the settle- This chapter will discuss the High Speed 1 (HS1) project’s ment record and of social organisation. contribution to our understanding of later prehistory, the As it happened, and as will be clear from this and the period of approximately 1500 to 100 BC (Fig. 4.1). Any following chapter, the assumptions about the nature of decision about how to divide up the continuity of the the archaeological record encountered in the HS1 project human past into sections invites questions about the were correct. There is plenty of evidence for extensive validity Of the preferred scheme and the particular woodland clearance and the ordering and division of the changes in the past that it prioritises. The original landscape in the centuries after 1500 BC, and also for a research agenda for the HS1 project was based on an widespread reorganisation of settlement at the start of assumption, derived from the limited evidence for the the Late Iron Age. The general approach adopted in the prehistory of Kent then available, that there would be a original research design is therefore retained in the marked change in the nature of the archaeological record discussion of the results in this volume. Thus, this in the middle Of the 2nd millennium BC, frOm a chapter avoids the more traditional division of the past landscape dominated by the barrows of the Early Bronze into Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman periods, in favour Age to a landscape of fields and settlements typical of the of one based on a period from the Middle Bronze Age to Middle and Late Bronze Age; and, at the other end, a the Middle Iron Age, followed by a period combining the further assumption that the emergence of central places, Late Iron Age and Roman. This framework has been Figure 4.1 Map of HS1 route showing later prehistoric sites 152 On Track:The Archaeology of High Speed 1 Section 1 in Kent used by some other recent accounts of later prehistory in The final section of this chapter will provide the Britain, though not by all; in the specific case of Kent, for opportunity for further discussion of these themes among example, Ashbee (2005) has followed a more traditional others and of the contribution of the HS1 project to the Three Age System structure, while the sub-division of development of our understanding of them. The signifi- prehistory in Williams (2007) has adopted breaks in the cance of that contribution can only be properly appreci- middle of the Bronze Age and at the start of the Late Iron ated in the light of the slow growth of our knowledge of Age, without completely linking that period with the the later prehistory of Kent as revealed by previous Roman. Though the periodisation adopted here reflects treatments of the subject. In contrast to certain other real changes in the nature of the archaeological record, in periods, especially the Lower Palaeolithic, the Roman particular the types of sites that regularly recur, it should and the Early Anglo-Saxon (though specialists in those not be assumed that the transitions that mark the periods would not necessarily agree), understanding of beginning and end of this period necessarily correspond the later prehistory of the county has been slow to to major changes in the nature of society. The sites and develop. In the first general survey, contained in the monuments constructed and used by past societies need archaeOlOgical cOntributiOns tO the VictOria COunty to be interpreted in terms of the organisation of those History, the prehistoric section was written by George communities, and changes in the nature of the record set Clinch (1908), and seems especially limited by modern against other evidence for the changing nature of social standards; he could do little more than list some of the organisation. better known finds of metalwork, especially the bronze In fact, when seen in this rather broader light, the and gold hoards; for the Iron Age he presented an transitions at the beginning and end of the period that is important discussion and plans of some earthworks, but the subject of this chapter show two rather different could assign very little else to this period except the patterns. Within the HS1 project the transition to the recently published Late Iron Age finds from Aylesford Late Iron Age is marked in the archaeological record by (Evans 1890). A quarter of a century later, Ronald an almost total non-continuity of settlement occupation Jessup’s (1930) chapters on the Bronze Age and the Iron and a new phase of settlement foundation characterised Age showed how little progress had been made: the by land divisiOn and enclOsure (see the fOllOwing former could include a larger number of bronze hoards, chapter); this cOincides very generally with Other and the latter some possible Iron Age settlements, but phenomena such as the beginning of the oppida, the there had been few major excavations of any type of adoption of formal cremation burial, the proliferation of monument. Even after another half century, further brOOches and distinctive new pOttery types. The progress had been disappointing: the contributors of introduction of coinage may have been somewhat earlier, both the Bronze Age (Champion 1982) and the Iron Age but these wide-ranging and brOadly cOntempOrary (Cunliffe 1982) chapters to a survey of Kent archaeology changes show a fundamental restructuring of society in bemoaned the lack of high-quality modern evidence. terms of personal identity and political power as well as The position changed dramatically in the 1980s as the settlement and economy. It may be justifiable, therefore, pace of development increased and the significance of whatever the arguments about the validity of the concept archaeOlOgical remains was recOgnised by PPG16 of an Iron Age as a technological stage, to have doubts (Champion 2007a). Quite apart from the HS1 and the about its coherence in terms of social organisation and to growth it stimulated, Kent saw some of the largest and accept that the Late Iron Age represents something most numerous development and regeneration proposals fundamentally different and more akin to what follows. in southern England, with a consequent explosion of At the start Of the periOd, the transitiOn frOm the Early fieldwOrk activity and eventually Of archaeOlOgical BrOnze Age is rather different. The archaeOlOgical recOrd knowledge. Not all periods have necessarily benefited to certainly shOws a majOr shift frOm burial mOnuments and the same extent; the archaeOlOgical benefits have largely invisible settlement tO a landscape Of fields and arguably been greatest for the later prehistoric period, for settlements, but this takes place during the cOntinued reasons perhaps as much to do with the lack of previous currency Of brOnze as a material with high symbOlic value. knowledge as with the economically driven non-random The cOncept Of a BrOnze Age makes sense as much as a quirks of the development industry. Some idea of the periOd Of sOcial attitudes tO the metal as it dOes as a progress that has been made in this period can be gained technOlOgical stage. The periOdisatiOn used here therefOre from a comparison of successive treatments of later has its prOblems. The transitiOn tO a cleared, Ordered and prehistory, which have drawn heavily on the unpublished settled landscape, which marks the beginning Of this grey literature as well as published sources; for a vivid chapter’s fOcus, and the implied cOntinuity thrOughOut the demOnstratiOn Of this rapid grOwth in knOwledge, rest Of the BrOnze Age and the Early and Middle IrOn Age, compare the maps of known Bronze Age evidence for dO nOt cOrrespOnd with the periOd during which brOnze fields and settlement in Kent in 1990 and in 2002 circulated as a valued material. The end Of this periOd at published by Yates (2007, fig. 3.2), which clearly arOund 800 BC (Needham 2007b) marks what must have demonstrate the quantitative growth in knowledge, but been a significant disruptiOn tO established sOcial values alsO hOw it was geOgraphically cOnstrained by the and practices, and we might reasOnably expect that this location of development proposals. A paper discussing wOuld have been reflected in Other areas Of the cOntempO- the distribution of settlement in Kent from 1500 to 300 rary archaeOlOgical recOrd. BC (Champion 2007b) was originally written for a Chapter 4 Later prehistory 153 Figure 4.2 Later prehistoric activity along the HS1 route by site and period 154 On Track:The Archaeology of High Speed 1 Section 1 in Kent Figure 4.3 Beechbrook Wood Railhead under construction conference in 2001 and subsequently revised; it drew on Mount Pleasant road scheme (Bennett et al. 2008), and the grey literature at a time when few of the major sites the Neolithic, Late Bronze Age and Iron Age sites at had been published and knowledge of the HS1 excava- Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey (Allen et al. 2008), with tions was still at an early stage, before most of the assess- others too in preparation. All of these sites lie on the ments had been completed. A more general account of north Kent plain, the chalklands east of Canterbury or the prehistory of Kent (Champion 2007c) was completed the offshore islands of Sheppey and Thanet, parts of Kent in 2005, using the same range of sources but with new not traversed by the HS1 route. For the north Kent sites discovered and knowledge of older sites updated. region west of the Medway and more particularly for the Many of the themes covered in these earlier works are Greensand vale to the south of the Downs, the HS1 route dealt with in the rest of this chapter, and comparison of represents a linear transect through landscapes that have what is written here with what was written earlier is not seen the same intensity of development and archaeo- instructive about the growth of our understanding even logical activity as other parts of the county, with the in a period of five years.