Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T06:12:12.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Early Iron Age Site at Crayford, Kent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2014

J. B. Ward Perkins
J. B. Ward Perkins
Affiliation:
London Museum, Lancaster House
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Iron Age Site at Crayford, Kent, was discovered in 1936 during the development of the Glebe Building Estate. This Estate lies to the west of St. Paulinus' Church, between Watling Street Old Road and Manor Road, and Nos. 103, 105, 107 and 109 Watling Street Old Road now mark the site. The circumstances of the discovery did not permit of scientific excavation, but the finds were reported to Mr S. Priest, F.G.S., curator of the Dartford Public Museum, and thanks to him and to the facilities most generously afforded by Mr Roys ton Phillips, the owner of the Glebe Estate, a large quantity of pottery and other objects was preserved and is now in the possession of the Dartford Public Museum. To Mr Priest the writer is particularly indebted for the opportunity to examine and report upon the discoveries, and for help in the preparation of that report. It was Mr G. C. Dunning, F.s.A., who first drew attention to the largely unpublished comparative material, and a number of his drawings are here used. The writer is also indebted to Dr R. E. M. Wheeler, V.P.S.A., for much help and criticism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , July 1938 , pp. 151 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 151 note 1 O.S. 6 ins. Kent IX, N.W.

page 151 note 2 cf. Fee, Twitty, Danbury, (Ant.J., XIII, 59–62Google Scholar; xiv, 186–90), Bromley, Great (Ant. J., XVII, 194–5Google Scholar). The pottery from Hulbury, which is not yet published, is in the Dartford Public Museum.

page 154 note 1 Arch., 76, 1926, p. 21Google Scholar, figs. 11 and 12.

page 154 note 2 Arch., 76, p. 21Google Scholar, fig. 13A third from left; for the earliest appearance of the ‘eyebrow’-motif see Curwen, , Archaeology of Sussex, p. 277Google Scholar. The decoration of this sherd strongly recalls that of the Horsted Keynes pottery (see p. 167), and the chevron-ornament of the fragment on the left of the same figure may perhaps therefore be quoted in connection with Crayford, fig. 9, nos. 1–3.

page 154 note 3 Ant. J., II, 354–6Google Scholar.

page 155 note 1 e.g. Arch. 76, p. 22Google Scholar, fig. 16.

page 155 note 2 e.g., At Hulbury, above Lullingstone Park (see p. 151), where it is found in a ware indistinguishable from that of Crayford, fig. 7, no. 8. (Dartford Public Museum); perhaps at ‘Caesar's Camp,’ Wimbledon (London Museum); at Bigbury, from an occupation-area containing Belgic material (Arch. Cant., 48 (1936), 161Google Scholar, fig. v, 11.

page 155 note 3 Sussex Arch. Colls., LXXI, 254–7Google Scholar; Curwen, , Archaeology of Sussex, pp. 280–1Google Scholar.

page 155 note 4 Curwen, loc. cit.

page 155 note 5 Evidence of such development is to be seen in the existence of strongly differentiated local sub-groups, such as that represented at Castle Dore and at Milber Down; also in certain parallels between the decoration of the pottery and that on late pre-conquest metalwork, e.g., Bulleid and Gray, Glastonbury, II, pl. LXXXIC, P 253, cf. V.C.H. Bucks, 1, 186Google Scholar, a scabbard from Amerden, Bucks.

page 156 note 1 Curwen, , Sussex, p. 277Google Scholar.

page 156 note 2 See Déchelette, , Manuel,2 pp. 973–80Google Scholar. That the resemblances between the pottery of Brittany and of Glastonbury are not wholly satisfactory has more than once been noted. The only comparable Breton vessels (e.g., St. Pol-de-Léon, Plouhinec, Hénon, op. cit., fig. 663, 1–3) are far too early, and the decoration of the remainder (op. cit., figs. 664, 666) is of a purely formal character, more reminiscent of that of the Crayford group or of Hengistbury class E (Soc Ant. Report, Hengistbury, p. 41, pl. xx) than of the Lake-Village ware. The Breton Iron Age culture, however, was clearly as complex as that of southern England,and scientific survey and excavation alone will justify further speculation.

page 156 note 3 When Mr Hawkes stated his classification (Antiquity, v (1931), 60 ff.Google Scholar), only three sub-groups of B were recognized, of which that of Glastonbury naturally bulked largest. Cornish pottery has since been discovered on half a dozen sites in the middle Severn Valley (Tr. Bristol & Glos. Arch. Soc., 58 (1936), 159–65Google Scholar: Proc. Prehist. Soc. III, 1937, 450Google Scholar); and the importance of the Yorkshire invasion upon the development of metalwork is becoming apparent. The excavations at Maiden Castle have revealed another important B culture (Ani. Journ., xv (1935), 274Google Scholar), and it is here suggested that the Crayford group of pottery represents yet another. These B cultures are not all of equal importance; but they are defined and distinct. In some regions, e.g., in Sussex, in Oxfordshire and in many parts of the south-west, more than one of these groups are represented, and here the terms ‘B’ and ‘AB’ are no longer adequate (see Myres, , Oxoniensia, II (1937), 27Google Scholar). The same difficulties undoubtedly apply to the use of ‘Iron Age A,’ and here again a classification into sub-groups is urgently required.