M.A.A.G. East Farleigh: Roman Site Update
Many of you will be aware that Maidstone Area Archaeological Group (M.A.A.G.) has been excavating a Roman site in East Farleigh since 2005, and update articles have appeared in this newsletter from time to time.
The site has been challenging in many ways, not least because much of the archaeology is deep; the clay soil tends to bake hard in the sun, and the trees take up what moisture is left. Interpreting the archaeology has also been difficult, with many phases evident, from the first century AD through to the end of the fourth. Recent interest in the site follows an antiquarian reference from 1838 referring to a ‘Roman Villa’, accompanied by a partial, rudimentary plan.
To date, we have been unable to locate the building found in 1838. We have, however, found six other previously unknown buildings, none of which appear to be a ‘Villa’. That is not to say that there may not be a villa nearby or associated with what we have found so far, but what we do know is that we have yet to find the full extent of the site. For those not familiar, the site sits on a relatively flat natural promontory on the southern side of the Medway, overlooking the river about eighty-five meters away, and this proximity to the river is a factor in its original siting.
During the 2016 digging season, two exploratory trenches were opened in the northeastern corner of the site adjacent to the trackway running down to the river (see fig 1) The trench uncovered a narrow, yet well-made wall footing, running roughly north/south. This leads us on to discover a small building (building 6), approximately 5m x 5m, sitting astride another more substantial wall, oriented south-west/ north-east. Though we have no confirmed date for construction, this new building probably underwent several phases of use indicated by signs of alterations and repairs in different mortar types (figs 2 & 3).
The north side of the building has not survived well but we can speculate that the ground surface on the southern side had built up with hillwash, so when the structure was demolished, a portion of the southern side survived intact. The central wall appears to have been built as part of the building from the outset. There are two chambers on either side of this central wall each with large openings. There was no evidence of being able to get from one chamber to the other through the central dividing wall, although there is a narrow channel through the wall that appears to have been for drainage.
In the eastern chamber, there are what seem to be stone seats built into the alcove. The floor in both chambers is metalled, comprising small stones rammed into the earth. The eastern chamber contains evidence of repair and resurfacing, while the western chamber is heavily disturbed. There is also remains of an external metalled surface leading to the two entrances. However, the make-up of each was different; more broken tile used in the western track than its eastern counterpart. There is also a distinct gulley marking the edge of the track to the west.
The central wall was removed at some point, making the internal space into one chamber. It is not clear whether the wall external to the building was removed at the same time, leaving the building free-standing, but the small ‘seats’ remained and can be seen to survive at a different level to both the outer walls and the removed central wall. We know that the central wall was removed separately to the rest of the building because there is a ‘niche’, a small rectangular inset in the internal side of the southern wall made with a different reddish-orange mortar. There is also a small narrow wall abutting the northwestern corner of the building, which must have been constructed when the building was standing as it would have been unnecessary had the other larger central wall still been in situ.
During our final excavation days of 2017, we were able to trace the central wall 5.5m to the north of the building and 7.5m to the south. No additional returns to this wall were evident, though the other nearby trenches where the wall was absent suggest that we are not far away from confirming the shape of the western extent of this complex.
It is possible that the building was initially constructed as an entrance to the enclosure to the east. However, there are no signs of wheel ruts or extensive wear in the stones of the central wall that remained at ground level. It has also been suggested that the building was a shrine, and given the other buildings on the site, this seems plausible. However, the building was used for different purposes late in its life prior to demolition around 275 AD. There is a long shallow feature running roughly east/west that cuts through the floor and what remained of the central wall and terminating in the largest of several pits in the centre of the building. It is hard to discern its function as there is no sign of burning so that it may have been some sort of water sluice, perhaps for cleaning.
At the end of a long and exciting year in 2017, the ownership of the site changed, and it remains unclear whether M.A.A.G. will get chance to continue its work at East Farleigh. This is, therefore, an opportunity to pull together the 12 years of material and concentrate on compiling and publishing a full excavation report. To see how we get on and for more details of the site go to the MAAG website: http://www.maag.btck.co.uk/
[fg]jpg|Fig 1|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Fig 2|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Fig 3|Image[/fg]
[fg]jpg|Fig 4: A fragment of Roman glass found at East Farleigh|Image[/fg]