THE SITES AND THEIR REGIONS

The Pegswood Moor site (abbreviated P) is situated in the Northumberland Coastal Plain and contributes to our expanding knowledge of the range and density of rural settlements in the North-East. Settlement on this multi-phased site begins in Phase 3 (fourth to second centuries b.c.), when there was an unenclosed settlement comprising four circular structures. Phase 4 (second century b.c. to first century a.d.) now consisted of an enclosed farmstead but with a number of sub-phases of development relating to roundhouses, boundaries and zones of activity. In the north-western part of the site there was a string of at least eight roundhouses but only a few would have existed at any one time. In Phase 5 (late first to early second century) the site was reorganised with a massive complex of ditches and boundaries across it and Enclosure 11 cutting through the earlier string of roundhouses. The enclosure does not appear to have contained any domestic structures and may have been for keeping animals. By the end of the second century, the site appears to have gone out of use altogether. The most documented form of site in this area, especially through the work of George Jobey, is the rectilinear enclosed settlement dating from the mid-first millennium b.c.Footnote ¹ The later work of Colin Haselgrove and others, however, has advanced our knowledge of the range of settlements demonstrating the dynamic and sophisticated nature of this region which can no longer be regarded as an area of uniformity and backwardness.Footnote ²

The Marsh Leys site in Kempton, Bedfordshire (abbreviated M) contributes considerably to our knowledge of rural settlement in central-eastern England. Phase 2 represents the start of settlement with an undated enclosure but Phase 3 consists of two farmsteads (2 and 3) dating from the late Iron Age to early Roman periods. There were ditched enclosures, roundhouses and a possible shrine (see below). In Phase 4 the farmsteads (now 4 and 5) were reconstructed and consisted of rectangular timber structures, systems of ditched enclosures and field boundaries. Only Farmstead 4 appears to have continued into Phase 5 (now Farmstead 7); although some ceramic building material was found on the site, the buildings continued to be constructed in timber and so these materials may have been used for something else. Again, this site demonstrates the range of settlements and outcomes that existed in this part of the countryside which was at one time thought to have been largely uninhabited (M, 168).

The third volume documents not an excavation of a single site but a fieldwalking and geophysical survey project which covered an area of 60 square km in the Upper Witham Valley in Lincolnshire (abbreviated U). The magnetometry surveys especially were able to identify a large number and range of previously unknown settlements, filling in this landscape, including a possible villa (labelled HV) which appears to lie on the site of an earlier farmstead (U, 28–31). While coin and pottery finds can to some extent be used to estimate the length of use of a site, it is difficult to assess development and phasing from survey work alone and care is needed in formulating arguments relating to settlement continuity, change and disuse. A point well-made, however, is that every site had a unique footprint (U, 188) representing the lives and identities of inhabitants and the possibilities that existed for them.

WIDER ISSUES

Since the 1980s especially there has been a strong movement in Roman rural studies in Britain away from a focus on villas and Francis Haverfield's model of Romanization (drawing so heavily on Britain's own imperialist context) to instead documenting the huge range of rural settlements that existed in Britain and the people that they represented;Footnote ³ this has been advanced especially by developer-funded excavations and the increasing availability of geophysical survey. With the vast amount of material available, however, it is important for studies to move beyond descriptive accounts and embrace theoretical frameworks that can help us to interpret it. JohnsonFootnote ⁴ has reminded us that we need to be more critical of our image of the countryside of the past, including the use of terms such as village, farm and farmstead, which tend to draw on perspectives and ideals arisen from social changes in the post-medieval world. The Roman countryside is a far more unfamiliar place and it is important to recognise the difficulties in site interpretation that this causes.

All the sites cross the Iron Age to Roman period transition and the two excavation reports appear to demonstrate that there were few initial changes as a result of the conquest — also a reminder of the need to break down traditional divides between Iron Age and Roman archaeological practice and theory. There were more marked later developments: Proctor argues that the change in use of the Pegswood Moor site, and then its abandonment by the end of the second century, may relate to the increasing military presence in the area (P, 36). Luke and Preece note that while the change to rectangular buildings is a fairly common occurrence on farmsteads in the region, at most other examples this change occurred around half a century earlier (M, xiv), while Jolliffe's magnetometry report demonstrates a range of sites where roundhouses continued in the Roman period. There was clearly a huge variety of outcomes relating to individual sites and these data are important to engage in debates relating to identity, continuity and change as Britain became part of the Roman Empire.Footnote ⁵ Settlement ownership is one such debate, and while Marsh Leys may appear to represent generational continuity through continued boundary ditch alignments (M, 15), and Pegswood Moor a period of change cutting through earlier features in the late first/early second century (P, 36), there is no direct evidence to provide definite answers.

The perception of status is another significant issue in dealing with rural settlement. While Proctor makes it clear that we can no longer consider the North-East of Roman Britain as a cultural and economic backwater (P, 101), Jolliffe still has the tendency to apply the top-down viewpoint where roundhouse construction in the Roman period on sites is interpreted as a ‘regressive phase’ (U, 33); and he places more emphasis on the identification of a new villa. Comparing finds assemblages is often used to judge relative status: Luke and Preece note the different pottery assemblages from Farmsteads 2 and 3 (M, 15), but differences may also relate to personal preferences, traditions and site functions; samian ware, for example, may not always have been regarded as desirable.

By identifying increasing numbers of settlements within regions it is possible to start to develop more ideas on the social relationships between them, building on earlier work.Footnote ⁶ The relationship between Marsh Leys Farmsteads 4 and 5, which lay c. 400 m apart, is an obvious example. The large area of excavations here is also important because of the level of detail that could be discerned relating to possible field boundaries and the wider estates of the settlements. Large-scale geophysical survey can also be useful for these analyses. Jolliffe compares rows of apparent tenements containing one or more roundhouses with Irish eighteenth- and nineteenth-century rundale and clachan settlements (U, 38). Analytical frameworks are needed to address issues such as land ownership, tenurial links and slave presence; and analogies can provide a useful and more vivid image to work with but can only ever be regarded with a degree of caution. A related and equally complex issue is that of households. What is clear, however, and identified by the authors, is that it cannot be assumed that each household, including villas, comprised a nuclear family.Footnote ⁷ Household composition may well have been more varied, including non-immediate family members. Analysis of the tasks carried out in the settlements should also not be influenced by current gender and age prejudices.Footnote ⁸

All three volumes make useful contributions to our understanding of the economic functioning of these sites through studying animal bones and plant remains, indicating typical mixed economies. The finds from Pegswood Moor suggest that the settlement was largely self-sufficient with probably locally made pottery and there were loom weights, hone stones and other objects indicating daily activities. Three fragments of briquetage, however, suggest that the settlement was engaged with an exchange network and salt was traded in the region (P, 86). At Marsh Leys, the authors have argued that the site may have had a specialisation in iron-working activities since there is considerable evidence for smithing hearths and residues but no evidence of pottery manufacture which is more usual for these types of sites (M, 163). It is possible, then, that there may have been some form of local networking and exchange taking place. The iron-working activities were long-lived on the site suggesting that the skills were handed down to successive generations.

Perhaps more could have been made of the implications of studying dietary evidence and foodways for accessing aspects of identity construction.Footnote ⁹ Burial evidence can also be important for studying the identities of the inhabitants but no human remains were found at Pegswood Moor. There was a variety of burials at Marsh Leys with urned and un-urned cremations and inhumations; one burial had a greyware jar placed within the left hand (M, 86). There were also cases of human bone in other contexts including roundhouse ditches and enclosures, indicating that there were other methods of body disposal perhaps relating to the identities of the individuals involved.

The way in which these settlements were experienced by their inhabitants is an avenue of research that is becoming more feasible through the level of detail now recorded in excavations. A noticeable element of the Pegswood Moor and Marsh Leys publications is the attempt to mark on the plans all the possible entrances, pathways, barriers and directions of access for both humans and animals (e.g. P, 30, fig. 19). Such work, though always with a probability of error, can start to produce a more vivid image of the lived experience of these sites. A holistic and fully contextualised approach to artefact assemblages can also help to develop an understanding of the way in which sites were structured. It is clear that careful thought went into the deposition of quernstones, body parts and other items across the settlements (e.g. P, 89). Ritual activity took place across the sites but both the Pegswood Moor and Marsh Leys excavations have identified possible shrines based on the difference between these structures and others on the sites which, if correct, would emphasise a range of religious practices and beliefs which needs more investigation. The wet conditions of all the sites make them suitable for the study of palaeoenvironmental remains and perhaps more could have been made of this. One notable finding from a late Roman deposit at the Marsh Leys site is leaf fragments of Buxus sempervirens (box) which might indicate that there were ornamental hedges on the farmstead or bushes were being cultivated (M, 129).

A significant aspect of these reports is their engagement in the current archaeological debates that are taking place within non-commercial archaeology indicating that there is also now much more useful dialogue between the two.