Casting Long Shadows

The influence of Roman remains on early medieval society in

Sussex Adam Goodfellow

Casting Long Shadows

What impact did structures like this have on early

medieval populations?

The Roman baths at Bath (old-picture.com)

The RuinWere Roman remains something to marvel at?

Were they something to fear?

Were they something to use?

Were they irrelevant?Wordle of ‘The Ruin’, translation from OEPP

Rome to King, King to Rome

Previous studies such as Blair (1994), Bell (2005), and Crewe (2012), have discussed the donation of Roman enclosure by early medieval rulers for the establishment of religious structures, such as at Bradwell on Sea in Essex and Reculver in Kent (Brookes, 2007).

This highlights two points –

a)that Roman remains were often part of the ruler’s estate to dispose of, and that

b)they were seen as suitable places for the establishment of Christian structures

ResearchContext

ComparisonsThe importance of the role played by the historic landscape in shaping social interactions has been recognised for some time in early medieval archaeology, such as by Semple (1998), Williams (1998), and Crewe (2012). However, these have focussed on the influence of prehistoric remains. Uncleby, N. Yorks (Williams, 1998)

Landscape Approaches

In recent years, a number of studies have investigated early medieval society through its physical landscape.

- Draper (2005) looked at the development of parish boundaries in Wiltshire,- Brookes (2007) charted the economic development of early medieval Kent,- Chester-Kadwell (2009) assessed influences on the spatial distribution of early medieval activity in Norfolk, and- Crewe (2012) considered the importance of prehistoric monuments in the early medieval landscape of the Midlands

Big DataA number of important, large-scale data collection and publication projects have been completed in recent years, or are currently underway:English Landscapes and IdentitiesBeyond the Tribal HidageLandscapes of GovernanceFields of BritanniaThe Rural Settlement of Roman BritainELaId

The ResearchThe aim of this project is to understand the role, if any, played by Roman remains in the early medieval landscape, including:Their influence on early medieval settlement patterns, land use, and communication networksTheir association with social groups within the communityTheir agency in the social changes of the 6th and 7th centuries

Methodology

The Region

East Sussex:Digital Elevation Model (left)Estimated coastline with modern watercourses (above)

Coastline adapted from Hill, D (1988)

The SitesThe project aims to capture any 5th to early 9th century activity within the region, along with Roman remains that could plausibly have been visible in the landscape in the early medieval period.

In addition, prehistoric monuments meeting the same criteria will be collated to provide a reference for measuring the degree of influence on early medieval activity.

East wall of Pevensey Castle

The Sites Prehistoric

Funerary monuments; enclosures

Roman Roads; towns; industrial sites; military

sites; rural settlement; villas; temples; isolated structures

Early medieval Settlements; burials; industrial sites;

isolated structures; assembly places; early churches and minsters; pagan sites; place-names; portable antiquities

The Terrain- Chester-Kadwell identified a number of features as significant in the Norfolk landscape, notably elevation, degree of slope, soil type, proximity to soil boundaries, and proximity to watercourses (2009).- Brookes focussed on elevation, watercourses, and ‘pays’ in his work on early medieval Kent (2007).

Northern edge of the South Downs at Fulking (Bing)

The TerrainThe concept of ‘pays’ implies that each combination of underlying geology, climate, and land cover has its own unique economic character.

This implies a degree of isolation that may not apply to complex landscapes (Rippon et al 2014).

This project instead focuses on soil characterisations, reconstructions of land cover, and the presence of natural resources as separate, complementary, and overlapping elements of the landscape.

Data Collection East Sussex

Historic Environment Record

Portable Antiquities Scheme

National Soil Resources Institute

Sussex Archaeological Collections

ADS

Anderson, ‘The Hundred Names of the South Eastern Counties’ (1923)

Welch, ‘Early Anglo Saxon Sussex’ (1983)

EDINA

AnalysisTwo GIS applications used: -ArcGIS -QGIS

Produce data on elevation, slope, and distance between sites, and from natural features.

Data compiled in Excel, and processed using SPSS

Calculate mean values for spatial data, and identify which variations and correlations are statistically significant.

ANOVA, t-tests, chi-squared,Linear regression analysis

Research Questions Where are early medieval and Roman sites

located in the landscape? Which of these patterns are statistically

significant? Are there significant associations between

any particular types of site across the two periods?

Does the pattern change over time? Are there demonstrable associations between

any early medieval social groups, and Roman remains?

Further interest Did early medieval populations

recognise ‘Roman’ sites, and were they able to distinguish them from prehistoric enclosures?

To what extent can PAS data be meaningfully incorporated into landscape studies?

How applicable are the methods used in recent studies, and how well do they compare?

Multiscalar approach

Macro-scale – the county area Looking at general distribution patterns of

site types, against the natural and prehistoric landscape

Communication routes in and out of the region

Meso-scale – a transect Inter-site visibility Land use and re-use of field systems

Micro-scale – the vicinity of a site Intra-site visibility The arrangement of structures

Results

Prehistoric landscape

All of the prehistoric sites are distributed across the South Downs area.

The majority are at significant elevation, and consequently remote from watercourses.

Associated with soil types found on the Downs.

Prehistoric Funerary

Prehistoric Enclosures

Roman landscape Divided largely into settlement

sites around the South Downs, and iron extraction sites in the High Weald.

Villas spaced around foot of the Downs.

Military sites along the coast. Roads running east-west and north-

south

Bignor Roman villa, West Sussex walkandcycle.co.uk

Settlement and Industry

Control and Communication

Early Medieval Sites

Divided largely into settlement sites around the South Downs, and iron extraction sites in the High Weald.

Particular focus on the River Ouse, both for lowland settlement and upland iron extraction

Sites of community and control more widely dispersed across all the economic regions

Settlement and Industry

Funerary Sites

Religious Sites attested before 1066

Assembly Places by 1066

Charter Estates 410-850

The Weald The maps make it immediately clear

that settlement was sparse in the Weald region.

Until later medieval times, this area was forested.

Woodland place-names from Domesday and earlier approximately support the Ordnance Survey 1935 estimates of historic forestation.

Forestation

Constructing a Terrain Mean

Significant relationshipsLandscape

Early medieval barrows are significantly higher than the terrain average, but other sites are not.

Mean slope, distance from watercourses, distance from soil boundaries, and soil type are all statistically indistinguishable from the terrain average.

Significant relationshipsPrehistoric remains Over the county area, barrows,

inhumation cemeteries, and isolated burials appear statistically significantly closer to prehistoric remains.

When considering only the non-woodland area, no site types are significantly closer to prehistoric remains than the terrain average, than Roman sites, or against other early medieval site types.

Significant relationshipsRoman remains

There is a pattern of close proximity between early medieval and Roman sites, with the mean distance for each site type ranging between 300 and 1600 metres – falling to between 300 and 900 metres for all archaeological sites except cremations.

However, direct overlap is rare.

Significant relationshipsRoman remains

The countywide data confirms the significant separation of iron extraction sites from early medieval churches, place-names with settlement indicators (e.g. -tun, -ham), and isolated burials.

These three, along with barrows, inhumation cemeteries, and assembly places, are significantly closer to Roman rural settlement.

Significant relationshipsRoman remains

In the non-woodland data, early medieval settlements, churches, assembly places, barrows, and isolated burials are significantly closer than the terrain average.

No early medieval site types are distributed significantly differently from the terrain average in terms of distance from villa sites.

Genuine or Coincidence?

Settlement in all three periods focussed on the South Downs area.

Agriculture and settlement require basic needs in relation to terrain: fertile soil, proximity to water resources, shelter, and communication routes

Genuine or Coincidence?

There are significant differences in soil type

Settlements associated with soil types

Genuine or Coincidence?

Taking possible early medieval settlement types together (archaeologically attested sites and settlement-based place-names), there is a significant difference in distance from navigable water (1900.20m for early medieval sites, compared to 4396.96m for Roman sites).

Change Over TimeBroad dating for funerary sites:

Cremations – 5th to 7th centuriesFurnished inhumations – 5th to 8th centuriesBarrows – 6th to 7th centuriesUnfurnished inhumations – 5th to 9th centuries

Some sites attributed dates based on grave goods.

Division into 50-year blocks from 400 to 800.

Change Over TimeLinear Regression tests used to separate

effect of burial type from broad date ranges.

Significant relationship between 8th and early 9th century funerary sites, and proximity to Roman rural settlement and villa sites.

Largely due to a cluster of cemeteries at Ocklynge Hill, Eastbourne.

Closest sites are actually from the 6th century.

Early medieval PAS finds against all PAS finds

PAS finds against terrain

Conclusions

Conclusions The pilot study presents some

evidence that there are significant relationships between early medieval and Roman sites.

There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on change over time, or connections to particular social groups – although there are suggestions.

Conclusions The data shows that landscape features

identified in prior studies as important attractions for early medieval settlement – such as soil boundaries and watercourses – are not supported by significant data.

The distribution of PAS finds is closely related to patterns of soil type and slope.

A riverside Anglo-Saxon villagestedmundsburychronicle.co.uk

Next Steps

Next StepsAnalyse spatial relationships for

individual burials – their ‘wealth’, and orientation against distance to landscape features.

Analyse the distribution of PAS finds, assess the use of stray finds in connecting areas of activity to social groups.

Conduct meso- and micro- scale assessments of a transect and a site.

Next StepsFinalise the methodology

and investigate Sussex as a whole.

Move on to the north-east frontier region for comparative data.

Intended study areas and comparative studies

Bibliography- Bell, T. (2005). ‘The Religious Reuse of Roman structures in Early Medieval England’ BAR (Brit) 390, Archaeopress- Blair, J. (1994). ‘Anglo-Saxon Oxfordshire’, Stroud- Brookes, S. (2007), ‘Economics and Social Change in Anglo-Saxon Kent, AD 400-900’ BAR (Brit) 431, Archaeopress- Chester-Kadwell, M. (2009). ‘Early Anglo-Saxon Communities in the Landscape of Norfolk’ BAR (Brit) 481, Archaeopress- Crewe, V. (2012). ‘Living with the Past: The re-use of prehistoric monuments in Anglo-Saxon Settlements’ BAR(Brit) 573, Archaeopress

- Rippon, S, Wainwright, A, & Smart, C. (2014). ‘Farming regions in medieval England: The archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological evidence’ Medieval Archaeology 58: 195-255- Semple, S (1998). ‘A fear of the past: the place of the burial mound in the ideology of the middle and later Anglo Saxon England’ World Archaeology 30 (1): 109-126- Semple, S (2003). ‘- Welch, M. (1983). ‘Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex’ vols 1 &2 BAR (Brit) 112. Archaeopress-Williams, H. (1998). ‘Monuments and the Past in Early Saxon England’ World Archaeology 30 (1): 90-108