"The Romano-British Villa and Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Eccles, Kent"

Front matter

The Romano-British Villa and Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Eccles, Kent

Nick Stoodley and Stephen R. Cosh = aN e e ~ S

This book is dedicated to the memory of William and Edith Oldham.

Contents

List:of Figtires and Tablesisiiciscssteisscscassaesdesssdésccbceslecdasacsssseed csdcanscedcaciisdaisabessecdasstuclacsdesdiessssibecsdcacanisoe cadsvosivadestecie v Acknowledgements wiisscciissccctecsctecletsngetdesseatenversecseisdeaisudecdosdestvdesdescsosuseutectecboruasovdascvsocdustestacdsaldsunsecdosaesasuansenavelse xi Chapter D Introduction siissiscsccstsciscsacadsavsdsssssisscassedesiscatesiices cobsscdecadsaiatisesiatdessccecaccdcotsslstesiesiseiecdbecessadcodasasetadsabsele 1 Nick Stoodley Aylesford, Eccles and the Medway Valley ENEE 1 The Lower Medway Archaeological Research Group and the investigation Of Eccles EEN) 4 Eeer 4 POSE=EXCAVAULON EAEE E E AE vous sescasysssdas sy cusese vpunavedaseasava edved cose T 4 REGOHETICLAWOTK E 6 The organisation of the monograph, EEN 6 Chapter 2 The Late [ron Age gereest vaisalacsovsshssdssbesshasiys disabesvensdhssdanteaieuidaudiessids 7 Nick Stoodley e EE 7 DISCUSSION ees ee ee 10 Chapter 3 The Roman Period iesscsesusiccsislivscssccssasatsuccssacdeiivstvsecasensatasusiesiaetibussnsstiyidvseselstesiedueavtanatineenseeasasdinees 12 Stephen R. Cosh

TG EE 16 Ee e Le EE 16 IDEENE EE 17 The timber bulding sessies dereen Ee Eege 17 Bertësse EE EE ee 17 The main HOUSE isa cdececcxstcactesesestasied seatseteckaes aAa AEREOS ANEETA EEE ETTE 18 DISCUSSION 0 EE 19 The first OACIAS sais cscsecavscansssdesescsstesteaclssucecevseslesssussvicavsesussasuscacesadeatsslessadsuetstvecatscasvtesd svaasdesecedese’diatsetsvdicaddessslesesessueesebess 21 Conjectural first Gäeren 21 Phase are eegene e 22 Phase E 29 Period Z . sssicasescsecistecescacaseactl cavalavseteccestsestosdavasiesesevtsstasessshpesdvdsvcstssiletsabecscadestetatssvectelecsdSescdvssudedadsievadsastelesi cetssisbeteviseet aaelsss 35 THE western POFEICUS so. siat lose caseseticandcig,Soealeddl TR EATARRA Ea E EE att uael baad aaa 35 RRE 35 The southern portit ossessi anian AEE EEEa EE ES EES 36 DISCUSSION BE 36 The north wing block / second baths ainsiisinsiniiiminiirniininiininannnii Ae 37 Phase SA ienesis niena TE AEA EAE ERTER EATER 37

Il E 39 Phase S Co sacescesscassesluessdeedeveecoucssessartavesbiuecaisesssscs edesevecsavlecealsivelsttsedeststescstsccssressursiiai ESAU AA EDEL Aa 42 The extension to the north: Rooms 8, 40, 10, 41 and 45 wiccsccccsssssscscscssssssvscscssssvsssvssscssssvssscssssessscssssssssvscscesess 44 The detached latrine (ROOM Si), 46

Chapter 1 Aylesford, Eccles and the Medway Valley

The village of Eccles, Kent, is situated in the lower Medway valley on the river’s east bank. It lies on the edge of the North Downs, in the fertile strip of the Holmesdale. Eccles is part of the parish of Aylesford, lying 1.5km north of the village’s centre and the same distance east of the river (Figure 1.1). The village is surrounded by arable farmland, and a reservoir is located a short distance to the north west. Burham parish is to the north of Eccles, and on the opposing bank of the Medway, are the parishes of Snodland and East Malling.

The earliest known mention of the place-name Eccles is in the regulations for the repair of the bridge at Rochester, AD c. 975, of eclesse. In Domesday Book it is given as Aiglessa, Eclesse from 1166 and from 1208 Eccles (Cameron 1977: 1) (see below pp204-205). Listed as a manor in 1086, Eccles declined in importance, but the name must have continued locally, as on the Fryars estate plan of 1700 (Figure 1.2) ‘Eccles Field’ and several other ‘Eccles’ places are marked. The modern village of Eccles dates to the mid-19th century when the famous Victorian builder Thomas Cubitt erected a brick and cement works at Burham (Hann 2009: 111). The owner of Rowe Place Farm, Thomas Abbott, established a small housing development (Eccles Row) a short distance to the north of his farm for Cubitt’s workers (first shown on the Ordnance Survey County Series for Kent, 1868-1876). It was subsequently enlarged during the latter part of the century (Hann 2009: 111) (Ordinance Survey County Series for Kent, 1896), and the newly created village was called Eccles. Burham brick and cement works was responsible for supplying bricks to developments in London and elsewhere in southern England (Hann 2009: 111). However, the exploitation of the area’s natural resources for construction projects was nothing new. In particular, the upper Medway valley had had an important role in supplying London with building material from the earliest Roman period onwards (Detsicas 1983: 169; Elliot 2017: 108-119).

The modern settlement of Eccles is situated over a varied geology. The north half of the village overlies chalk of the West Melbury Marly Formation, the southern half is over Mudstone (Gault Formation) (Geology of Britain viewer: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/ home.html). The village and much of the surrounding area, especially to the east is covered with Head (clay, silt, sand and gravel) deposits, although to the south River Terrace deposits are found. Most of the soil cover is of a freely draining lime-rich loamy soil (Soilscape 5, see Soilscapes viewer: http://www.landis.org.uk/ soilscapes/, and Table 4.9 for key), which is suitable for arable farming, especially the production of springand autumn-sown cereals and other crops, including grass. The western part of the village is closer to the river and consequently extends over a lower-lying area, one that is characterised by slightly acid, but base-rich loamy and clayey soils which are slowly permeable and seasonally wet. With impeded drainage and moderate fertility (Soilscape 18), it is more suited to supporting livestock, with grass and cereals cultivated for feed. The area, therefore, exploits a range of natural resources, and it is no surprise that before Eccles’ development in the 19th century it was devoted to agriculture.

In earlier times the Medway would have run closer to Eccles, but the industrialisation of the valley resulted in changes to the landscape around the village, especially to the course of the river. In response to increased silting, embankments were created to the north of Aylesford to help prevent the flooding of riverside meadows (Hann 2009: 5). And at New Hythe, where the river straightens, the marshy inlets which can still be seen today resulted from excavations to improve the flow of the river channel (Hann 2009: 5).

Along with the Darent and Stour, the Medway is one of the major rivers of Kent, the source of which is found in the High Weald. It then flows northwards passing through Maidstone, Aylesford and Rochester before emptying into the Thames at Sheerness. Since prehistory it has afforded an important route into this part of Kent, not least because it linked the interior of Kent with the Thames coastline. The name of Hadlow Stair or ‘hithe’, recorded for the first time in 1327, suggests that the Medway was originally navigable almost to Tonbridge (Everitt 1986: 72). The main crossing over the river is marked by the possible oppidum and later Roman town, at Rochester. As the place-name indicates, there was a ford at Aylesford; it has been suggested that the Norman castle was located here to defend the crossing (Kent HER, See TQ 75 NW 24), which was a short distance above the later bridge and paved with heavy stones (Kent HER: TQ 75 NW 26). The river could also be crossed at Snodland, Halling and Cuxton (Bright 2010).

Eccles

@ Aylesford

River Medway

Figure 1.1. Location of Eccles in the Medway Valley (divisions are 1km).

Rh d P? Qí ` 3 K f J iog d EN į J } al P KL EA OG 28 e AO Vey | \ awe \ A EN e FA \ A d BW

NICK STOODLEY: INTRODUCTION

A em

A

N

Figure 1.2. Part of the Fryars estate plan as surveyed in 1700, showing Eccles field names: Field 17 ‘Eccles Wood’; 18 ‘Little Eccles Meadow’; 19 ‘Great Eccles Meadow’; 20 ‘Eccles Pond Meadow’; 21 ‘Eccles Field’, the site of the Eccles Roman villa. “An exact mapp of land belonging to the place called The Fryars in Aylesford in Kent being formerly the estate of Sir John Banks...with an account what land is now in occupation with the Fryars and what is now letten with Roe Place (alias Parkhouse) with a true designation.” Reproduced by kind permission of Father Francis Kemsley, The Friars, Aylesford.

Undoubtedly the river was an important routeway permitting access along the valley and southwards to the Weald, but roads and tracks also facilitated the movement of people. Prior to the Romans, the valley could be reached by either the North Downs trackway or Pilgrim’s Way, and a network of local trackways also criss-crossed the valley. Running almost parallel to the North Down trackway, but on the crest of the Downs, was an earlier ridgeway (Margary 1951); the choice of route probably dictated by the weather and conditions under foot (Bright 2010: 4-5). Two major Roman roads served the valley. Watling Street crossed the Medway at Rochester on a bridge, and about 2km to the east of the centre of Eccles is the modern A229, which follows the line of the Roman road (Margary 13) from Rochester to Hastings. Plus, there would have been minor roads and trackways linking estates and settlements with the wider transport network.

Given the fertile land and choice of communication routes, it is no surprise that the area around Eccles is rich in archaeological sites. About 1.5km east of the centre of the village are the chambered long barrows known as Kit’s Coty House and Little Kit’s Coty House, which are part of a larger group of Neolithic monuments clustered within the Medway valley. In 1886 the famous La Téne Iron Age cemetery was discovered a short distance to the north west of Aylesford. By late prehistory, and certainly Roman times, the Medway valley contained numerous agricultural settlements, ranging from simple farmsteads to palatial villas. In addition to the large and important villa at Eccles, other Roman remains have been discovered at Snodland, Burham and at a location between Wouldham and Burham. They are nestled between the Roman road to the east and the Medway to the west. There is also an important group of villas in the Maidstone area. By early Anglo- Saxon times, Kent was split between the kingdoms of East and West Kent, with Eccles lying on the western extremity of the former. As a dividing line between the two territories, the Medway valley must have had political and military significance. The two kingdoms were joined, probably in the later 6th or earlier 7th century, uniting the once opposing frontier lands.

The Lower Medway Archaeological Research Group and the investigation of Eccles

The Lower Medway Archaeological Research Group was founded in 1961 to promote archaeological research and publication around the Medway valley and towns. The group was involved in a variety of projects, including area surveys, prehistoric field systems, medieval houses and other buildings, watching briefs and excavations of Romano-British sites, such as the rescue dig at Snodland and investigations at Rochester (Ocock 1965), The group commenced the excavation at Rowe Place Farm, Eccles in 1962 but responsibility was later passed to the independent Eccles Excavation Committee, ending in 1976. The work was carried out by volunteers and financed by grants and public donations. The Group was wound up in 2016.

The excavations (Stephen R. Cosh and Nick Stoodley)

The Roman villa at Rowe Place Farm, Eccles, is located south west of the village, 0.75km east of the river Medway (TQ 722605), Roman artefacts and structures were encountered at the site at least twice during the 19th century. Yet it was not until 1961 that aerial photography by Michael Ocock (2006) revealed the cropmarks of what appeared to be a large villa. Later in that year, trial trenching by the Lower Medway Archaeological Research Group confirmed the presence of a Roman villa. Excavations took place over the next 15 years under the auspices of the Eccles Excavation committee, directed by Mr (later Dr) Alec Detsicas. The main house proved to be exceptionally large and included two detached wings, linked to the main building by corridors; between them lay a long pool, rectangular in plan. The archaeology was very complex to the north where three successive bath-houses were superimposed, each with multiple phases. The villa had a long history, having been established within a few years of the Claudian conquest; occupation continued to the late fourth century and perhaps beyond.

Right from the outset of the excavation, human burials were encountered within the villa. The remains of at least four inhumation burials, believed to post-date the main period of Roman occupation, were found to the north of the main house and in the baths. In 1970, two burials were found in the fill of a ditch to the north of Rooms 118 and 121, and several were also uncovered over the walls of these rooms. In the same year, excavation revealed further burials immediately south and east of Room 121, and it was clear that a large post- Roman cemetery had been discovered (Figure 1.3). Some interments were found at subsoil depth, but two lower layers of burials were also encountered (Detsicas 1971: 32-2, fig. 1). Over the following years the investigation of the cemetery continued, again revealing three layers of burials, in addition to recovering numerous disarticulated bones (Detsicas 1972-74). Compared to the detail provided for the Roman phases, only brief summaries of the cemetery were included in Detsicas’ interims. The most thorough account was published by Rachel Shaw, in 1994, which contains cemetery plans, a burial catalogue and a relatively detailed discussion of the burials from each area of the excavation.

The site was excavated using the box-grid system of eight-foot (2.44m) square trenches separated by two-foot (0.61m) baulks, which were sometimes removed allowing trenches to be extended. This was especially the case in the complex baths area, but the trenches were more spaced out over the house itself where unexcavated walling could be inferred more easily. Unfortunately, medieval disturbance led to much destruction of the site, and because the remains lie close to the surface ploughing has removed later Roman stratification, often to below floor level. Recording was by way of day books with the drawn record consisting of plans and sections, supported by photographs.

The box-grid method was also employed in the investigation of the cemetery. The trenches occasionally resulted in the partial excavation of burials, the foot or head end remaining unexcavated. Moreover, where the concentration of burials was particularly heavy, it often proved difficult to trace the remains of an individual through a baulk. The baulks were eventually removed, and the cemetery was treated as a single open area (Shaw 1994: 166). Other problems were caused by the aforementioned disturbance to the site. The uppermost layer of burials was particularly affected, and this made it very hard to discern grave outlines in the dark soil.

Post-excavation

Over 40 years have passed since the excavations at Eccles were brought to a close, but it has yet to benefit from full publication. Post-excavation work, aided by grants awarded by the Kent Archaeological Society, began in earnest after Detsicas’ retirement in 1986. Many of the specialist reports were commissioned, in addition to the drawing of the small finds. At the time of writing, less than half the reports are complete, the remainder are recorded as ‘not received’ or ‘partially finished’ (copies of the completed reports are in the archive). Shortly before his death in 1999, Detsicas arranged for the finds to be taken to Canterbury Archaeological Trust where they were catalogued and their conservation requirements assessed (Ocock 2006: 3). This was only intended to be a temporary arrangement. Detsicas also approached John Williams (the then Kent County Archaeologist) and Peter Kendell (English Heritage) regarding the publication of the site (Ocock pers. comm.); along with Paul Bennett (Canterbury Archaeological Trust) they investigated funding

NICK STOODLEY: INTRODUCTION

"Sapo" ‘Wey IIL] J IMOY Je (U99143 UI papeys) Aiaiaa2 UOXKS-O[SUY 944 Jo vare ay} pue LU) STOZ UI pajou suoryepunoy arqissod "LU A1974 ‘(d) L19440d ‘epa ayy Jo Gool IYL CT ang opportunities. No grants were secured, and subsequently the large sums of money required to publish the work prevented its publication. Despite this setback, minor post-excavation tasks have been undertaken at the Trust, such as organising the photographic and paper archive, cataloguing the finds, and along with Rachel Shaw, the day books have been converted into context records. The Trust continues to curate the material archive and will do so until a permanent home can be found for it. The paper and photographic archive is held by Rachel Shaw. From an analysis of the records, she has produced a database of contexts and finds and has created a sitewide matrix (Shaw 1994: 167).

Recent fieldwork

In 1996 a geophysical survey was carried out at the site to explore its wider environs (Figure 2.3). One aim was to survey the area to the north of the villa, to try to trace the Iron Age site northwards. A series of ditch-like anomalies were detected and have been interpreted as belonging to the prehistoric site. Another aim was to discover whether any of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery remains unexcavated. This was less successful, but not altogether surprising given how difficult it is to detect graves using archaeological geophysics, coupled with the damage sustained to the uppermost burials. Fieldwork in the area north of the site by Wessex Archaeology in 2015 found a range of features: a Roman quarry pit, Roman field boundaries, wall footings of probable Roman date and other features that may relate to the wider environs of the villa (WA 2015).

The organisation of the monograph

This monograph mainly comprises an account of the excavation of the Romano-British villa (Chapter 3) and Anglo-Saxon cemetery (Chapter 4), with limited discussion of some fragmentary late Iron Age evidence (Chapter 2) and an Anglo-Saxon building and associated features (Chapter 5). The chapter on the villa is not intended to be a site report: much work remains to be done on the finds and the site archive. Rather, it aims to be an overall account of the development of the villa, based largely on Detsicas’ published interim reports, with additional evidence provided by the excavation archive. The emphasis falls mainly upon the architectural details, which in places provides re-assessments of the evidence along with fresh interpretations. The excavated evidence is followed by a consideration of the site in the context of the Medway valley during the Roman period, as well as a comparison with other large and early country villas, both in Britain and on the continent. It is hoped that this account of the villa may promote the publication of the full report that the site deserves.

The chapter on the Anglo-Saxon cemetery is intended to serve as a site report. It is based on the catalogue and cemetery plans produced by Rachael Shaw (1994), which were compiled from site notebooks, field plans and the photographic archive. Shaw stated that her report was only a preliminary account, yet it has proved a solid foundation for this project and over the years has been a valuable resource for students of the site. For the purpose of this project, the cemetery archive was also studied; additional evidence for burial practice and the grave goods was identified, which has enabled the creation of a more detailed burial catalogue. The nature of the evidence is discussed and a chronological framework set out, supplemented by a radiocarbon date. The task was also aided by the fact that most of the specialist reports are complete. Furthermore, shortly after the material was sent to Bradford University a report on the human remains was prepared, and since then various aspects have been studied by post-graduate students. As with the villa, the cemetery is also considered in the context of the Medway valley, which affords an understanding of its type and the nature of the community that it served.

The two following chapters are devoted, respectively, to a study of the pre-English place-names of the Medway valley (Chapter 6) and the documentary evidence for the Aylesford region during the Anglo-Saxon period (Chapter 7). As a pre-English survival, the place-name Eccles is valuable to an understanding of the local area because it strongly suggests the continuation of a late Roman Christian community into the post-Roman period. The chapter also considers the survival of a group of pre-English names in the Rochester area, which may point to a sub-Roman native territory. Although Eccles is poorly served by historical sources, Aylesford is mentioned in a range of different documents, for example, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Rochester Bridgework List and the Domesday Book. These sources allow the territorial and administrative importance of the place to be examined and questions about the regional importance of Aylesford to be posed. A crucial issue regarding the origins of Aylesford, and by implication Eccles, is whether it formed the centre of an earlier regio, which pre-dates the conquest of the region by East Kent.

The volume is rounded off by a general discussion, which draws together all the strands of evidence and evaluates the importance of Eccles and the Aylesford area within the Medway valley. The chapter is organised chronologically. For each major period, the evidence is organised around several themes that reflect current scholarly interest, and which highlight the contribution that the area makes to national research priorities, especially the continuity between different periods.

Chapter 2 The Late Iron Age

Detsicas investigated a small number of features, which interim reports. The excavation notebooks, trench plans he believed belonged to an Iron Age farmstead (Detsicas and section drawings have also provided information. Periods I-II). Several other ditches were sampled: they

pre-date the construction of the earliest (pre-villa) Periods I-II: Late Iron Age ditches

buildings but are later than Period I-II and appear to

comprise a separate phase (Detsicas Period III). The A ditch (1) was found to the north of the earliest bath evidence discussed here mainly comes from Detsicas’ building (Detsicas 1966: 45-46) (Figure 2.1). It was

——

! lI } \ Ditch tit Í | \ t ł H ty] l i i \ `. Periods V-VI. E? i ia 5 E Ne ae ee d SC E Ki bag wage | d i TT DC" "ei ! SS ae | Í Í i Pit | H RAN wil Ll! 1] \WKR C7C?#HW?WWG = S =; del E H H N | j i 3 N | N N )

E

Wess

SS ri

1 Px f xe i Le i gon EE E

ASS dé o

P

E

Figure 2.2. Post-holes in the base of Ditch II (photograph by R. G. Foord).

aligned east to west, before it turned to head westnorth-west; it was cut through by Ditch II and sealed by a stone platform before it passed beyond the area of the excavation. Although it had been disturbed by later activity, its width was estimated to have been about 0.8m.

Ditch I represents the earliest known evidence at Eccles, and it may have defined the edge of an Iron Age settlement that lay to the west of the villa (Detsicas 1965: 70). It was probably dug early in the first half of the 1st century AD, and an examination of its stratification indicated that it remained open until about the time that Ditch II was cut (Detsicas 1966: 46). No other evidence for this putative settlement was forthcoming, except perhaps for a small pit found about 10m from the ditch and situated inside the area enclosed by Ditch I. The pottery from the pit suggests that it was filled in before the ditch.

Underneath the Roman granary, a long rectilinear ditch (II) had been cut into the Gault clay subsoil and was orientated north-east to south-west (Figure 2.1). Because of later disturbance, its width had to be estimated: it could have originally been as wide as 2.40m, but in most trenches it only survived to 0.60- 1.20m. It had a profile that varied from rounded to

V-shaped, and Detsicas (1966: 45) thought that its depth did not exceed 1.8m. The pottery from the primary and secondary fills included sherds with pre-Roman characteristics and some Romano-British coarse ware fragments that comprised Patch Grove, furrowed and shell-filled wares. There was imported pottery, in addition to domestic rubbish comprising oyster shells and animal bones. Two coins of Cunobelinus were also retrieved, as well as several fragments of embossed bronze, which could have been fittings for a wooden casket (Detsicas 1966: 45). Ditch II was probably dug shortly after Ditch I, but in the middle of the 1st century AD it was infilled with refuse, clay and pottery that included late Iron Age wares. Detsicas (1965: 70) stated that: ‘the pottery types contained in its filling show strong Belgic influence and can hardly have lasted in use much beyond Claudian times. In consequence, the dating of the close of this period to c. A.D. 55 is based on secure grounds.’ A small number of post-holes had been found approximately in the centre of the base of Ditch II, and it seems that following its infilling a fence had been erected over its line (Detsicas 1966: plate I) (Figure 2.2).

As mentioned, Detsicas (1965: 70) assumed that most of the Iron Age settlement lay to the west of the villa, and in 1996 a geophysical survey was carried out over this area (Barker 1996) (Figure 2.3). It identified a series of anomalies that have been viewed as ditches, gullies and pits and are interpreted as evidence for the wider Iron Age settlement. Two of the anomalies form angles and probably belonged to enclosure ditches. However, they are dissimilar and could belong to separate phases of rectilinear enclosure: the corner of the eastern example makes a sharper angle, and the ditch is also narrower than its counterpart to the west.

Period III: Late Iron Age -?earliest Roman

Several other ditches were found beneath the villa (Table 2.1). It seems unlikely that they belonged to the Iron Age settlement, because they appear to comprise linear features that cut across the site. Detsicas (1972: 102) suggested that their purpose was to drain the land before the construction of the earliest house. Alternatively, they may have been part of a short-

Table 2.1. Details of the pre-villa ditches (depths were not recorded).

Ditch ` Length (m) | Width (m) | Alignment | Profile VI IX 53.70 2.25 NE-SW X 86.25 2.10 ENE-WSW_ | V-shaped XI 25.75 1.74 NW-SE U-shaped XIII 52.20 2.20 NW-SE Gully ` "Aen 0.65

NICK STOODLEY: THE LATE IRON AGE

RE lived phase of activity that post-dated the Iron Age occupation but pre-dated the establishment of the villa.

Ditch VI passed beneath the house and is later than Ditch X, which it intersected to the south west of the villa (Detsicas 1976: 158). The fact that there was hardly any silt in its base indicates that it was open for only a very short time before it was infilled and the construction of the earliest villa building commenced (Detsicas 1976: 158).

Ditch IX was beneath the north-east wall of Room 114. It extended across the line of the earlier Ditch X in the area of Rooms 127 and 128 (Detsicas 1972: 102, fig. 1). Only a little silt was found in the bottom of the ditch, again indicating that it had not been open for very long (Detsicas 1973: 74).

Ditch X had a V-shaped profile, and in its base was a shallow cleaning channel reminiscent of the boxgutter found in military trenches (Detsicas 1975: 42, fig. 1). The backfill contained sherds of early samian ware, plus coarse pottery. Some of the latter had been manufactured on-site at the kilns (Site D), giving a date of c. AD 50 for this action (Detsicas 1975: 42). The feature either joined, or intersected, with Ditch XI (Detsicas 1972: 102). The small amount of silt in its base demonstrates that the feature had not been open for very long (Detsicas 1975: 42) before it was cut by Ditches IX and VI, and it must have been infilled by the time the first house was constructed (Detsicas 1973: 74).

Ditch XI had a U-shaped profile, and it was earlier, or contemporary, with Ditch X. It had been filled with yellow clay, which had subsided towards the middle of the ditch and had been levelled by depositing a layer of debris, consisting mainly of loose tesserae (Detsicas 1973: 74). Further work on the line of this ditch revealed that its filling mainly comprised clean subsoil and that there was hardly any silt in its base (Detsicas 1975: 42, fig. 1). Although aligned north-west to south-east, a slight deviation to the west is noted at its northern end where Ditch XIV runs over it.

Ditch XIII was first encountered edge of Ditch X and terminated in the area of the Anglo- Saxon cemetery (Detsicas 1974: 120) (see below p199).

Iron Age Eccles had been sited close to the Medway, on a small plateau at 25m OD, over moderately fertile soils that were seasonally wet and suffered from impeded drainage. Other Iron Age sites in the Medway valley occupied a variety of topographic and environmental settings, and in contrast to Eccles most exploited more fertile soils that also benefitted from better drainage (Table 2.2), In addition, the average distance from the river was 960m, with three sites over 1km away. By comparison, the location of Eccles seems odd, but its proximity to the Medway suggests a livestock-based economy that required a readily available source of water. However, the site was adjacent to more fertile soils, where fields were probably located - a mixed agricultural regime cannot be ruled out.

Despite the lack of structures, Detsicas (1965: 70) thought that the evidence from Eccles represented a late Iron Age farmstead. As so little is known about the site, it is impossible to reconstruct its environs, although the geophysical evidence indicates that it extended to the north west and perhaps included two phases of rectilinear enclosures. This is possibly supported by the fact that Ditches I and II belong to separate phases. Sub-rectilinear and rectilinear enclosures are more common than those of an irregular type; examples of the former have been found in Kent at Thurnham and Snarkhurst Wood, among other sites (Booth 2011: 267). In common with Eccles, many late Iron Age sites have not produced evidence for buildings and related structures (Booth 2011: 267-270), and as was the case at Eccles, it seems that the investigations mainly focussed on areas outside the actual settlement.

An idea of the character of Eccles can be provided by considering evidence from better-understood examples in the Medway valley (Table 2.2) (Historic

Table 2.2. Iron Age sites of the Medway valley, summary details (for Soilscape types see below the water basin in the Table 4.9). middle of the villa’s courtyard S SS aes er Distance from the (Detsicas 1974: 120, fig. 2). It was ite p Medway m traced for about 55mm running EO E EE 5 e = roughly north-west to south- ides a Q = = east, but the area where it should Robin Hood Lane | TQ 7485 6248 175 3.5km have intersected Ditch VI was ` ` HermitageLane | TQ7295 5554 7 80m 1.7km not excavated.