A Time for Sharing...

Today's artefact is one that symoblises two things; the social nature of food consumption and the best wetland Iron Age site in England....

Image taken from the BBC

 

It is the lovely Glastonbury bowl! This bowl is probably one of the best known artefacts from the assemblage discovered at The Glastonbury Lake Village.  The Village is thought to have been established in c.300BC and had declined by 100AD to the point of disuse.  The Village was built upon a wooden platform and formed an artificial island in a peat bog, known in my part of the world as a Crannog.  It is thought by 100AD the water levels had raised so high that the site had to be abandoned and as such it was quickly lost.  Until 1892 when Mr Arthur Bulleid discovered the Village, though excavation was conducted until 1892.  During this excavation much of the Village was unearthed and the wood was in extremely good condition, knowing that the peat and water was required to keep the Village it was reburied and studied from field notes and artefacts that it was safe to remove.  On the whole the site and its' artefacts are cared for by The Glastonbury Antiquarian Society, founded by none other that Bulleid.  They ensure the site is kept wet and run a small museum to display the many artefacts.  This bowl is a beautiful example of Iron Age craft and serves as a reminder of day to day life and the need for food; however the ornate pattern and attention to detail may be an indication of more than the need for a bowl.  I'm sure many of you have used a bowl today, but none quite as fancy I'm guessing?  The decoration and material suggest that the consumption of food was a public affair in this Village, may be only certain times a year, but public none the less.  Been as we are in the festive period it is easier to consider the social importance of consuming food.  It is present at most parties and gatherings, we feel the need to prepare our own food more at this time of year, little things like making our own cake, pastry or pie, that we may be wouldn't do other times of the year...why? Because Christmas is special, it's the time of year we let people know how important they are and by making our own foods it's a way of expressing it, through the act of sharing what we have.  There is nothing to suggest that a similar psychology wasn't present in Iron Age Britain, it wouldn't have been for Christmas, but, it may have been for the Winter Solstice.  This bronze bowl is a good example of an artefact that, with a little thinking outside of the immediate box, can provide us with more information than functional activities. 

 

 

A little bit of bling....

Today I have a rather special little something....The Broighter Boat!

Image taken from www.100objects.ie

 

 

This beautiful gold boat is a particular favourite of mine and until very recently I thought it was an isolated find, however, it was in fact, part of a gold hoard dating to the first century BC.  This is by far the shining light of the deposited artefacts and now takes pride of place in the National Museum of Ireland.  The hoard was found near Limavady, Northern Ireland in 1896 by Tom Nicholl, interestingly Belfast only holds replicas of the hoard and this particular artefact does not feature in the Ten Major Pieces (as chosen by National Museum of Ireland).

 

The boat is modest in size reaching c.18cm in length and some c.7.5cm in width.  Despite this it is the best known model of a vessel of the period, particularly one that is truly sea-worthy.  In reality wood is the most likely material of construction though hide may be possible.  The Broighter Boat is complete with oars, two sets of 9, with 8 benches present.  It is thought that a bench may be missing this making it possible that 18 people we required to power a presumed real version.  The vessel also has a rudder allowing for control and tools were also found with it relating to grappling.  There were also 3 forks, a spear and a yardarm.  The details contained within the boat make it highly desirable for study into prehistoric vessels and the potential they had for trade and population movements...I certainly wouldn't say no! But it also illustrates the skills of the metalworkers involved and the importance of the piece.  The fact that this little boat survives so well is testiment to it being part of a hoard, I am of the belief it was made to be buried, possibly to please an Irish water deity such as Manannán mac Lir. 

 

I hope you have enjoyed the Broighter Boat as much as I do, but today I have a little bonus for you, particularly Iron Age fans....Many of you may have seen posts relating to an Iron Age helmet and associated brooch and spike, but for those that haven't I wouldn't want you to miss out so be sure to visit Annie at: http://beadsboatsandflowerbeds.blogspot.co.uk/

North Foreland

What seems like forever ago I told you all about Mysterious Margate, so now as promised it is the turn of North Foreland.  For those not in the know, North Foreland is an area within the locality of Broadstairs.  It has a well defined Iron Age past and provides a nicely sized area for discussion.  There are several sites for us to explore; St Stephen’s College (Boast et al 2006), Stone Road (Moody 2005a), Bishops Avenue/Hamilton Lodge (Moody 2005b), Lanthorne Road (Hurd 1913), Albert Lodge (Hart 2006a), Castle Keep Hotel (Hart 2006b) and ‘Beauforts’ (Hart 2005).

 

St Stephen’s College (Boast et al 2006)

 

 St Stephen's College, site plan, The North

St Stephen's College, Site Plan, The South

This site is particularly complex so we will approach it one phase at a time.  It is rich in Iron Age archaeology and the principal features consist of post built structures, linear features (including 50 post holes), rectilinear enclosures and a number of pits.

 

Phase 1

 

This phase dates to c.500-300/250BC so can be characterised as being Middle Iron Age in nature.  It was suggested by Boast that the sporadic nature of the features may mean that this was a seasonal site.  There are several large, air-tight storage pits which bolter this theory as they are likely to have contained foodstuffs.  They provided an area of storage away from the nucleated settlement; however I am unsure as to the seasonality of their use.  The area in which they are located has soil well suited to growing crops and an expanse of land that can be used for animal husbandry, it therefore seems as though seasonality in this instance leads to a waste of land.  The climate remains constant across the Isle and as such there seems little reason for the site to be undesirable at any given period of the year.  Environmental sampling suggests that the level of chaff present is consistent with cereal processing, thus meaning that the site may be related to industry.  This is enhanced from the variety of animal bones that are present; the sample is indicative of animal husbandry rather than feasting.  A further point of interest is the presence of marine shell.  Within Britain there is a distinct lack of evidence relating to Iron Age peoples exploiting the sea, with the exception of salt production.  Therefore their discovery is something of a mystery, particularly as the site offered potential examples of net sinkers.  If fishing was occurring, it is unlikely that it would have been conducted off the jagged coast of North Foreland, instead I would suggest that it was taking place further South towards Joss Bay or along the coast of Margate.  In these areas the sea is far more accessible, yet the evidence of fishermen is currently missing from these locations.  It is possible that wide scale storage was taking place at St Stephen’s College; however, I am more inclined to suggest that this was a small nucleated settlement and that the excavation missed the area of occupancy.  It seems illogical to store so much, so far away from a settled area.

 

The pottery assemblage for this phase enhances the link the residents had with the sea.  There are several examples of localised pottery; however, there is a strong Continental flavour.  The highlight of this is a sherd from a vessel which has distinct parallels with those known at Neuville-sur-Escaut, particularly around the 450-300BC mark.  Along with the ceramic evidence noted at Hartsdown, Margate, it is becoming increasing clear that Middle Iron Age Thanet had strong Continental links, despite it generally being accepted that Britain as a whole was relatively isolated during this period.

 

There is also burial evidence for this period, firstly in Pit 4228; sadly this is the final resting place of a neonatal, this can often be interpreted as infanticide, however, I do not feel this is the case in this particular instance.  The site is also the resting place of an individual with unilateral ankylosis; this means the person in question would experience a great deal of discomfort when pressure was applied in the mouth.  The result would be that large pieces of food and meat in general may have been particularly difficult to consume.  The survival of the individual into adult life suggests a tolerant and compassionate society, willing to care for others and assist them with their needs.  I therefore question why they would practice infanticide and conclude that the neonatal remains were a result of nature’s cruelty as oppose to that of society.

Phase 2

Broadly speaking this phase encompasses c.300/250-50BC, there is some overlap with Phase 1, but it interestingly ends before the Roman invasion.  The principal features relating to this phase is an enclosure running parallel to a hollow way and a 50 post palisade.  The interpretation of this phase is debated, but, on initial observation I sided with a cattle kraal, until I looked deeper.  The cattle kraal, for me, was certain from the palisade and the formation of an extensive boundary, however, pottery found within the post holes was of an Early Iron Age nature.  This makes me doubt the cattle kraal theory, but at the same time I am not ready to embrace the enclosure as being a defended enclosure for times of trouble.  Firstly the enclosure is only 0.1ha, which I feel is too small an area to sustain a community, secondly there is limited evidence that such a protective enclave would have been required.  Further to this there are limited 4 and 6 post structures, so where would people have sheltered?  These structures are interpreted in the report as being granaries; this would be in keeping with a potential defended interior, however in this case I do not think it is the case.  Instead I propose that these structures are in fact housing, there is a distinct lack of roundhouses upon Thanet, this is possibly due to ploughing and the loss of the tell tale drip gully.  I however believe that it may be a case that they were never there in the first place.  Instead I think that the population of Thanet lived it houses similar to those on The Continent, this would mean they would leave rectangular traces consistent with the long-house culture.

 

If the 6 post structures are related to dwellings, those that are 4 post may well be granaries, but why would one nucleated settlement need so many and why would they be enclosed?  Maybe this relates to the economic expansion of the area, possibly even by the decedents of those in Phase 1.  Increased production, would require increased storage, perhaps the dwelling was that of a merchant, a trader, even an Iron Age entrepreneur?  Okay so maybe an entrepreneur is pushing it and I should watch a little less of The Apprentice and the Junior version, but, I hope you are following my point!  I believe this enclave to be a centre for trade, whether there was power for the people who may or may not of lived there I do not know and I am not overly concerned by it either.  What I do know is nearby a potin coin hoard has been found, the original Phase 1 site has seemingly progressed and the levels of external influences speak for themselves.  The pottery assemblage is key to this; Flanders’ La Tène III inspired pottery is present, particularly the S-profile noted on a number of locally produced sherds.  This suggests prolonged contact with the Continent, the pottery of Flanders is considered to be so accepted that it was becoming a feature of Late Iron Age Thanet.  People were so accepting of it that it had almost become their own.  There is also evidence for pottery indigenous to more localised regions, with several sherds consisting of fabrics associated with Folkestone.  This suggests a level of contact with East Kent; however, it is notably rare in comparison to vessel sherds inspired by Flanders.

 

So far, St Stephen’s College is depicting the region as being affluent, secure, complex and economically developing, while highlighting a community that was able to trade and demonstrate compassion.

 

Stone Road (Moody 2005a)

Stone Road, Site Plan

 

This site does not demonstrate the richest collection of Iron Age features, particularly in terms of occupation evidence.  However it remains of interest.

Firstly I will discuss the presence of a high number of animal bones.  The species present included cattle, sheep/goat, pig, dog and horse.  A study was conducted to determine if the bones were evidence of a butchery site, due to such high volumes.  The study concluded that the gnawing was consistent with general domestic consumption and the notions of wide scale butchery are quickly lost.  However, there is a distinct lack of domestic occupation evidence; the site lacks pits, linear features and post holes.

The site did produce further features, most of which are Roman and are found much higher than the numerous bones, so it is safe to assume that they are unconnected.  The site does contain 6 prenatal inhumations, each with sherds of Late Iron Age pottery, which acts as dating evidence.  These inhumations are truncated by Roman features, so it can be assumed that there was no settlement present when Roman construction began.  The graves were presumably unmarked to the invaders eye, or it is unlikely that they would have been disturbed.  The presence of pottery and the nature of the burials are indicative of deliberate acts, suggesting that it was a form of traditional practice, at least in this region.  It is possible that the site is at the edge of a Late Iron Age burial ground, but what about those bones?  Well there is plenty of evidence of feasting at Iron Age funerals, so why should these 6 tiny individuals be any different; time had been taken to bury them, so surely they would have received all rites.

 

Bishops Avenue/Hamilton Lodge (Moody 2005b)

 

Bishops Avenue, Site Plan

 

This site dates from the Middle to Late Iron Age and consists of linear ditches and 4 post structures.  The fill from the linear ditches yielded high amounts of faunal remains and as such comparisons have been made to Stone Road.

Despite the presence of structures and animal bone, there is very little in the way of material culture.  28 sherds of a single rusticated storage jar, with parallels to those found in Ebbsfleet, were discovered at date to c. 500-300BC.  This gives the earliest date for potential landscape use; however, due to the amount of the vessel that survives it is potentially a deliberate deposit.  There is little else to suggest a hoard, just a single vessel in an unusual location.  There are several sherds of Later Iron Age pottery associated with the 4 post structures, suggesting that they are secondary to the activity relating to the rusticated storage jar.  There is also a single potin coin, c.150-50BC, but it is unlikely that this is representative of anything more than casual loss.

I have already mentioned the faunal comparisons and the findings are supportive of the limited material culture.  The bone assemblage at this site is in far poorer condition than those at Stone Road.  This maybe indicative of two things, firstly the deposition was much earlier, making the bones contemporary with the vessel or secondly the soil is more acidic and that has caused the damaged.  There is little evidence as to the purpose of the bone assemblage at Bishops Avenue, but, I ma inclined to believe that the assemblage is related to the rusticated jar in some way and entirely unrelated to the structures.  The purpose of this site is very difficult to untangle with such limited evidence and as such it needs to be further considered in relation to other local finds and more importantly excavations.  Unfortunately the inhabited nature of the environment makes this unlikely.

 

Lanthorne Road (Hurd 1913)

 

This excavation took place in the early 1900’s and there is little in the way of a record and definitely no site plan.  I have included it though…you are probably wondering why, while thinking I may have gone a touch mad, but there is a method…I promise!

All that was recorded was the discovery of a vessel; it was black ware, local and nothing particularly special.  It was decorated with ‘nail marks’ and had some comb detail on a number of sherds.  Its interest comes with its parallels to vessels in Dumpton, hardly a million miles away I know, but when I couple it with a mixture of faunal remains and geographical positioning, I think it gets interesting.  During this time Thanet, much like today, had a network of tracks.  Some of these we know, whereas other areas seem isolated, this is one of those.  The evidence is suggestive of a route way that we were possibly unaware of, this is very tentative and possibly circumstantial, but considering the high presence of potin coins in the area, entirely possible.  North foreland lacked a sea connection, but Dumpton did not…see there is some method!

 

Albert Lodge (Hart 2006a), Castle Keep (Hart 2006b) and ‘Beauforts’ (Hart 2005)

The location of these sites in North Foreland, made me certain when I picked up the reports that I would find more archaeological gold…but there was nothing, not a single Iron Age sherd, not one tiny coin, not even a post hole.  Either this was not the place to be in Iron Age Thanet, or something is a miss.  Well I’m going with the latter…I do not believe that nothing happened here, in such close proximity to other evidence, instead I think it is lost.  This area has been agriculturally significant for hundreds and hundreds of years and it has been a desirable spot for construction.  So, imagine the amount of ploughs that have turned that soil, the amount of holes dug for foundations.  Now consider how our post holes, pits and ditches would survive it.  It is hardly surprising that we have a feature free zone.  I have included this to make the point that a lack of evidence is not always evidence for a lack of landscape use…an important archaeology lesson!

 

What does all this mean?

 

Well unlike Hartsdown, North Foreland is complicated and little bit messy.  It clearly saw Iron Age life, definitely in the Middle and Late periods and we know the Romans found it too.

From the evidence we have seen it seems that St Stephen’s College was the place to be, it was multi-phase and expanding, suggesting a strong and stable economy.  The presence of Continental material culture and inspiration was clear and life was seemingly good.  However, it is difficult to place Stone Road and Bishops Avenue into that picture, were they areas of industry? Or of trade? Do they hint at a regional house form? Maybe it is the possible missing evidence at Castle Keep, ‘Beauforts’ and Albert Lodge that held the answers.  As in the case of Hartsdown, consideration needs to be given as a whole, the geographical area considered is not huge; there is a danger of missing big picture through looking at little ones.  Stone Road and Bishops Avenue could have easily have been one site, focusing on the exact same thing during the Iron Age.  North Foreland is without doubt thriving, but this evidence has provided more questions than it has answers.

 

The next area I will explore is Central Broadstairs, but be sure to keep North Foreland in mind while reading…I have a feeling it has a lot more to offer. 

 

Until then keep exploring and keep in touch via Facebook, Twitter and email: musingsofanunemployedarchaeologist@hotmail.co.uk

Infleuntial Reading

Boast et al. 2006 Excavations at St Stephen's College, North Foreland, Broadstairs Kent: Archaeological Excavation Report Thanet Archaeological Trust Unpublished

Hart, P.C. 2005 'Beauforts', North Foreland Avenue, Broadstairs, Kent: Archaeological Report Thanet Archaeological Trust Unpublished

Hart, P.C. 2006a Groundworks Associated with the Construction of a Swimming Pool at Albert Lodge, North Foreland, Broadstairs, Kent: Archaeological Watching Brief Report Thanet Archaeological Trust Unpublished

Hart, P.C. 2006b The Construction of a Block of 16 Self-Contained Flats, Former Castle Keep Hotel and Forelands, Joss Gap Road, Broadstairs. Kent: Interim Archaeological Watching Brief Report Thanet Archaeological Trust Unpublished

Hurd, H. 1913a; 1913b; 1913c. Some Notes on Recent Archaeological Discoveries at Broadstairs Thanet Archaeological Trust Unpublished

Moody, G 2005a Land to Rear of 103 Stone Road, Broadstairs, Kent: Archaeological Report Thanet Archaeological Trust Unpublished

Moody, G. 2005b Hamilton Lodge, Bishops Avenue, Broadstairs: Archaeological Report Thanet Archaeological Trust Unpublished

Mysterious Margate

This one has taken a while to reach you and I can only apologise for that.  I have been fortunate enough to be involved in some interesting, but time consuming, projects of late and wanted to make sure that my Thanet research was done properly.  I’ve been missing the Isle of late and yesterdays Dreamland announcement gave me the blog nudge that I needed.  I hope you have enjoyed my other bits and bobs, but, now we return to the research that I was so frantically trying to tie together this time last year…how time flies!

For those of you that don’t know Margate is a relatively small town located on the Northern coast of Thanet, once popular with seaside holiday makers, it now finds itself in the heart of the art scene thanks to the Turner Contemporary.  Was it that much different in the Iron Age? Well here are a few case studies…I’ll let you make your own mind up, but I may give a few handy hints along the way.

The top triangle marks the point of the Margate coast line, pop back to … if you need a little recap on the environment.

The circles marked 1,2 and 3 provide a rough location of the sites that will be considered, time will be spent considering their features, finds and interpretations, before I give you a round up of Iron Age Margate.  (My apologies for the size of this image causing the post to become untidy, but it is the only way that numbers can be made out)

The Hartsdown area of Margate is the area featured, its’ relatively compact and encompasses an area of land either side of the B2052.  The sites to be featured are Tivoli Park (Perkins 1996), Hartsdown Technology College (Gardner and Gibbon, undated) and Hartsdown Park (Boast 2007).  Original site drawings will be reproduced in order to provide clarity.  I also wish to take this opportunity to explain to you my chronology…

Early Iron Age (c800-500BC)

Middle Iron Age (c500-300BC)

Late Iron Age (c300BC-AD43)

Belgic Phase (c150BC-AD43)

As you can see these dates all overlap, this is because the dates were not determined by the Britons themselves, instead they are decided by those that study them.  You may read other texts, blogs etc that have a varied dating system to mine, I certainly experience this during my research…but these are the periods I found to be most frequently attested to within Thanet.

Firstly we shall investigate Tivoli Park; throughout this section reference will be made to Perkins’ site plan below…

 

 

You maybe wondering why the area consists of 13 individual sites while I am considering it as one, well the area was excavated as part of the Community Woodland Project and was conducted through the use of test trenches.  What we see on the above site plan is what was excavated and mapped.  It is estimated that we have only discovered approximately 2% of Tivoli Park’s archaeology, in terms of area.

Tivoli Park appears to have been occupied in one form or another from the Bronze Age right through to the Romans.  The area is pottery rich making the dating of features particularly secure, in turn this allows for a site narrative to develop.

Early Iron Age activity appears to be directly following activities undertaken within the Bronze Age; it was probably even conducted by the same people.  All that was likely to have changed for them was the pottery they were using.  Site 2 provides an area where a possible wooden structure was situated, but, the lack of adjacent features suggests that it was not used for settlement purposes.  There is a lack of ditches and pits associated with domestic sites.  Further to this Early Iron Age material has been found within ditches forming Bronze Age Barrows.  With this in mind I would suggest that the postholes found at Site 2 represent a structure that was in someway related to the ritualised landscape of Bronze Age Tivoli Park.  The ritualised nature of the landscape maybe characterised by the presence of the Shottendane River, water is thought to have been particularly important to the Britons and their predecessors.   It is possible that there was a spring or unusual feature within the river in this area, making it a particularly attractive location for the commemoration of the dead. 

In close proximity is Site 3, these interlocking semi-circular structures are interpreted by Perkins (1996) as being animal corrals of an Early Iron Age date.  Much like the structure in Site 2 it appears to be a particularly isolated feature, this leads me to associate it more with a ritualised landscape than that of a settlement.  With the exception of pottery the feature yielded little in the way of finds, this would make it an extremely clean settlement and furthers my suggestion that it is related to Bronze Age landscape.

Some 400m to the West is a sub-rectangular ditch enclosing a posthole.  The purpose of this is also ambiguous; however, its location upon the natural ridge is unusual.  It did contain sherds of Early Iron Age pottery and has the potential to be associated with the Bronze Age landscape.  It does appear to be out of use and not considered important by the Late Iron Age as it seems it has been truncated by a ditch which forms an alignment with the known Late Iron Age enclosure.  This is unlikely to have occurred if the inhabitants were consistent as they would be aware of a social significance to the structure.

The centre of the Site Plan is the focus of Middle Iron Age activity, more specifically Sites 5-9.  This covers some 200m of the entire excavated area, revealing features such as rectangular enclosures, multiple ditches, clusters of postholes and pits considered to be for storage purposes.  In my opinion this is strong evidence of a settled community, further supported by the discovery of a shale bracelet, cowry shell and weaving comb within Site 5, along with two spindle whorls in Site 7.  Site 7 also yielded a fragment of an Early Iron Age brooch, the occurrence of this could suggest that the settlement is associated with features in Sites 2 and 3; however, a single fragment is not enough to form an entire settlement.  At the very least I would expect a presence of contemporary pottery.  Instead I would suggest that the brooch was a treasure possession, possibly an heirloom which broke beyond repair. 

Sites 5-8 appear to be on a varied alignment to that of Site 9, this is suggestive of two phases of construction or even two separate communities.  It is possible that the natural ridge acted as a boundary marker for differing social groupings, however, both Site 6 and Site 7 encroach this ridge.  It is also likely that the settlement stretches in both a Northerly and Southerly direction, suggesting that we only have a snippet of the overall Middle Iron Age activity within the area.

Late Iron Age activity is present within the site but limited in nature.  Site 1 is a Roman trackway, frequented with Late Iron Age pottery, suggesting its construction was in fact earlier.  This is also supported by the presence of the Bronze Age Barrow landscape; they are known to be located along trackways and are thought by some, including myself, to provide a means of navigating wider landscapes.  Site 10 is also Late Iron Age in date, the purpose of the rectangular enclosure containing two large pits is unknown, but it appears to face a South-Easterly direction and extended investigation into that area may have provided us with further answers.  The lack of extensive Late Iron Age material culture could mean one of two things that the Middle Iron Age community curate their wares well or the site was largely abandoned.  I personally feel abandonment is more likely, with the potential for a new occupation area to have been constructed in an unexcavated area in close proximity to Site 10.

 

Now we turn our attentions to Hartsdown Technology College.

 

As the Site Plan indicates there are relatively few features within this excavation and in comparison to Tivoli Park the area excavated is tiny.   The archaeology is still insightful and the two curvilinear ditches both appear large enough to be considered of a bounded nature.  Their varied direction suggests that they are separate and possibly provide an insight into agricultural practices.  The presence of a gully and pit in association with enclosure 1 certainly enhance this idea.  A considerable amount of environmental studies have been conducted within this assemblage.  Firstly there are low numbers of animal bones; this suggests that the processing of livestock is unlikely to have taken place here.  Secondly there is a presence of wheat and barley but not chaff, this is indicative of cultivation, but, again not of processing, suggesting that the produce was transported in order for that to occur.  This evidence furthers conclusions that this was not a settled area but instead an agricultural one, demonstrating Iron Age field systems.

The dating of this site is particularly problematic, its’ agricultural nature means that there is little need for material culture, at least not in the forms that survive.  There is some material culture, which is of particular interest when considering the nature of socio-economic trends.  Within Pit 2009 a large amount of an individual ring based vessel, of La Tène influence and possibly even of origin was discovered.  The vessel dates loosely to the 5^th-4^th centuries BC and as such tentatively dates the field system.  There is also some evidence of contemporary fine and coarse wares, which could be indicative of more than a field system.  When this is taken into consideration with the crouch inhumation located within the large ditch of Enclosure 1 a clearer picture maybe painted.  The style of the inhumation is contemporary with both the La Tène influenced vessel and the other known pottery; it is therefore possible that despite varied location they are associated with the burial of the individual.

Interestingly the La Tène vessel was not the only object yielded by Pit 2009; it also provided two awls and an annular brooch fitting.  The awls are known to be of Early Iron Age date, but, were also used within the Bronze Age.  The annular fitting has not previously been attributed to an Iron Age context and Gardener and Gibbon (Undated) suggest that the objects were deliberately deposited in this location.  They further this by noting that they are related to the inhumation, however, if this were to be the case the objects would have had to have been passed through several generations, this I feel is unlikely and instead the items placed within a Late Bronze/Early Iron Age context, likely to be in relation to the Bronze Age hoarding tradition apparent across Thanet.  It is possible that upon burying the known individual these items were disturbed and the La Tène vessel placed as an additional offering.

 

Hartsdown Park

The final site to be considered is that of Hartsdown Park, Football Pitch (Boast 2007).  Unfortunately there is little information regarding the site due to a lack of funding for post-excavation analysis.  What is known can be found within the 2007 edition of Archaeologia Cantiana within the area given to Thanet Archaeological Trust in order to document their annual work.  The archaeological record is still particularly interesting, presenting us with thirteen individual inhumations dating from the Late Iron Age into the Early Roman Period.  The individuals buried across such as wide time span show a continuity of land use, this is suggestive that the same community remained in the area.  Further to this it illustrates that during a period of assumed upheaval, this community at least, continued their burial practices and retained their sacred lands.  In addition approximately twenty pits were found in close proximity, each filled with a variety of pottery and animal bone.  There is suggestion that some of the pits provide evidence of Late Iron Age stone quarries, this is however tentative and should be viewed with an air of caution.

 

What does this all mean?

Well firstly with some certainty I can say that the Hartsdown area of Margate was occupied from the Bronze Age to the Roman Period, what appears to change is the intensity of this occupation.  It is thought that the Shottendane River would flow in the Winter, but, provide marsh land through the Summer months, this coupled with the spring would have made this a fascinating place to the Bronze Age inhabitants of Thanet and as such it is easy to understand why it featured within a ritual landscape. 

By the Middle Iron Age a well established settlement had developed, this is potentially due to its’ proximity to a broad bay harbour.  The ability to access the sea allowed inhabitants to access the world, well the Wantsum, Thames and North Sea at least.  Aerial photography has prompted discussions relating to larges ditches, commonly associated with defended settlements; in this instance possibly a promontory settlement, such as that suggested at North Foreland.  This is supported by the inter-regional connectivity demonstrated at both Tivoli Park and Hartsdown Technology College.  The former provided evidence of contact with Western Britain in the form of shale bracelets, along with more distant contacts in the form of a cowry shell, originating in the Mediterranean or even Northern Africa.  The latter yielded a vessel of La Tène style, this shows not only contact but lasting influence, suggesting that contact and cultural exchange had been occurring over a longer period than we may have originally thought.  This illustrates the importance of considering sites in conjunction with one another as oppose to individually, it has allowed for a clearer image of the Middle Iron Age to be produced.

For Middle Iron Age Margate to be receiving such commodities it must have been providing something in return.  This takes us back to the College, the environmental samples coupled with the features points to an organised agricultural society, working within a field system allowing for the production of surplus.  Such surplus becomes as valuable as the grain required for sustenance as it creates an economy which allows the community to benefit.

By the Late Iron Age we appear to have a settlement shift with the known Tivoli park settlement, at least in our section, being abandoned.  However there is evidence for Late Iron Age activity including a metalled trackway, this suggests change and with known increase in Roman contact this is easily understood.  The desire to move slightly further inland is however slightly baffling and at present I can offer little in the way of an explanation.  Traditional this would be viewed as being as a result of an influx of Belgic peoples, however I fail to see how this would see an end to a well established community, instead I would expect to discover an extension of it.  Further to this the Hartsdown Park site is within relatively close proximity to the Middle Iron Age settlement and agricultural land, thus suggesting that there was a sustained population living within the area during the Late Iron Age and into the Early Roman Period.  I have little doubt that community remained the same during these late stages due to burial continuity, but, unfortunately many of their secrets remain just that.

 

From our first set of case studies it is clear to see that Margate was home to a vibrant community throughout the Iron Age.  Its’ geographical location is likely to be key to this; however, the settlement size is far larger than I ever thought I would find within Thanet for the period.  Traditionally the Middle Iron Age is viewed as a mysterious phase in Iron Age histories, its’ not quite proto-historic and is too close to be considered prehistoric, this ambiguity leads to an inability to categorise and such often leaves it forgotten.  Margate is beginning to shed some light on this forgotten era, but as ever has provided so many unanswered questions! I guess we will just have to keep digging….

 

I hope you have all enjoyed our return to Thanet and her beautiful Iron Age past, feel free to provide me with your thoughts and suggestions on the material discussed in this post.  As always it would be lovely to hear from you all…so until we explore North Foreland, it’s bye for now :o)

Influential Reading

Boast, E. 2007. Bronze and Iron Age Occupation: Hartsdown Park, Margate in Archaeologia Cantiana Vol. 127 pp429

Perkins, D.R.J. 1996. The Trust for Thanet Archaeology: Evaluation Work Carried outin 1995, Hartsdown Community Woodland Scheme Margate in Archaeologia Cantiana Vol. 116 pp 265-281