Early Co-axial Field Systems on the East Anglian Boulder Clays

Williamson, Tom

doi:10.1017/s0079497x00006319

Cited by 32 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This regular, co-axial layout is also shown for other parts of the country (Riley I978;Rodwell 1978;Drewett 1978;Hinton 1997;Rippon 1991;Williamson 1987;I998). On the uplands of Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire little work has been published on field shape and layout.…”

Section: Roman Fieldssupporting

confidence: 58%

Landscape Continuity and the Fossilization of Roman Fields

Upex¹

2002

Archaeological Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Excavation has increasingly highlighted aspects of the continuity of settlement from the fourth into the sixth centuries. This paper offers an additional set of evidence to show that continuity of the field and cropping units associated with settlement is also detectable from this period using excavation, landscape and later manuscript evidence. The recognition that some late Roman ditches underlie later medieval headlands of open:field systems has been well explored already. In the east Midlands area of Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire recent work indicates that in some cases a fossilization of Roman _fields took place. 71wt fossilization is indicated by areas of small medievalfurlongs associated with sites oflate Roman and early medieval date, and could indicate continuity within the farmed landscape with little intermption to the farming system.In the last twenty years archaeological excavation and extensive field-walking programmes in the areas of the middle and lower Nene valley of north-east Northamptonshire, northern Cambridgeshire and the lower Weiland valley have shown increasing numbers of sites where late Roman and early medieval material suggests a continuity of occupation. Until now it has been thought possible to deal with the transition from Romano-British to early medieval on sites only from the evidence of changes in pottery, building character and layout. The traditional massproduced ceramic wares of the fourth century cease with the supposed arrival of migrant families who introduced their own styles and forms of vessels that were handmade with markedly different fabrics and decorative forms. New traditions of pottery also heralded new building forms of wood and thatch which replaced the Roman stone-built structures. Personal items, such as brooches, pins and weaponry, also show marked differences between the fourth, and the fifth and sixth centuries. This supposed changeover is still poorly understood and relies on the traditional view of a 'replacement' population with all of the problems that it entails. To some scholars the 'Saxon invasion and settlement appear more as the political take-over of a disintegrating society rather than a mass replacement' (Taylor I983, I I I).Recent work presented within this paper has attempted to examine different aspects of the available evidence and link sites which exhibit a continuity from late Roman to the fifth century with later medieval and post-medieval field layouts. Such field systems demonstrate that there is, in some cases and in isolated areas, evidence to show that the shape and size of medieval and post-medieval furlongs may perpetuate the Roman fields which had continued in use through to the fifth and sixth centuries. These fifth-and sixth-century fields later evolved into more developed field systems. Such field systems are well attested in many parts of the country by the ninth century.Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 03:

show abstract

Section: Roman Fieldssupporting

confidence: 58%

Landscape Continuity and the Fossilization of Roman Fields

Upex¹

2002

Archaeological Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsequent research elsewhere in the country revealed many landscapes with similar attributes -large-scale cohesion and/or a non-comformable relationship with Roman military roads or early linear earthworks -which either survived as hedged fields or, more rarely, were documented on early maps as patterns of open-field furlongs. Examples were published from parts of Norfolk and Suffolk (Williamson 1987;Davison 1990;Hesse 1992); western and south-eastern Cambridgeshire (Oosthuizen 1998(Oosthuizen , 2003(Oosthuizen and 2006Harrison 2002); north-west Essex (Bassett 1982, 4-9); Lincolnshire (Bassett 1985); the dipslope of the Chiltern Hills in Hertfordshire (Williamson 2010); the London clay uplands in the south-east of that county (Hunn 2004;Bryant et al 2005); and the Arrow valley of Shropshire, around Hergest and Lyonshall (White 2003, 37-47;73-75). Most of these landscapes displayed a distinctive 'coaxial' form -that is, they had a dominant 'grain' -with axes running for much longer distances in one direction than another, so that they resembled in plan rather wavy and irregular brickwork (Illus.…”

Section: Arguments For 'Continuity'mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 The 'Scole-Dickleburgh field system' in south Norfolk: a coaxial landscape apparently 'slighted' by the Roman Pye Road. Based on the earliest known maps for the various parishes in the area, with the pattern enhanced by selective removal (see Williamson 1987) though their overall form is structured by the broader disposition of rivers and watersheds. Livestock are more easily moved in a direct line up moderate slopes, en route to distant grazing grounds, than wheeled vehicles.…”

Section: Are Coaxial Landscapes 'Planned Field Systems' ?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ancient Origins of Medieval Fields: A Reassessment

Williamson

2016

Archaeological Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article questions the suggestions that have been made by a number of archaeologists and landscape historians concerning the Roman and prehistoric origins of large tracts of the medieval rural landscape in lowland England. It suggests that arguments for large-scale continuity of field systems, mainly based on the evidence of excavations and topographic analysis, are flawed because they fail to take fully into account the topographic contexts, and the practical functions, of field boundaries. When these matters are given due weight, much of the evidence cited in support of ‘continuity’ instead appears to suggest a significant degree of discontinuity, at least in terms of systems of land division, between Roman Britain and medieval England

show abstract

“…They do not appear to have been tightly defined settlements but sprawled over wide areas. In recent years the establishment of field systems and the layout of an organised landscape have been recognised in parts of the county (Williamson 1987). Williamson has described extensive co-axial field systems of late prehistoric origin.…”

Section: Settlement In the Late Iron Agementioning

confidence: 99%

Where Eagles Dare: the Iron Age of Norfolk

Davies¹

1996

Proc. Prehist. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey is presented of the Iron Age in Norfolk, the area containing the heartland of the tribal territory of the Iceni during the Late Iron Age. It makes use of new information from prolific artefact finds from recent excavations and fieldwork, and employing unpublished data from the county Sites and Monuments Record. Settlement evidence and artefact distributions are analysed and used to construct a model for the development of settlement from the Early Iron Age to the Boudican rebellion of AD 60-61. The model emphasises a process of continuous change, showing the population expanding, moving from west to east and finally onto the central claylands. Evidence for field monuments is reviewed, revealing regional groupings and an association between hillfort-type and rectangular enclosures and linear earthworks with strategic locations on the boundaries of better soils. Three zones are thus defined. Artefact types including tores, coins, coin hoards, and horse equipment also reveal distinct regional patterning. Some larger sites are identified as serving more than simple agricultural functions, playing a key role within and between the three defined zones. The importance of ritual and religion within Iron Age society is emphasised and is considered to underlie the deposition of artefacts and hoards around Snettisham and in the vicinity of the south Norfolk border; a practice later revived in the Romano-British period.

show abstract

Early Co-axial Field Systems on the East Anglian Boulder Clays

Cited by 32 publications

References 7 publications

Landscape Continuity and the Fossilization of Roman Fields

Landscape Continuity and the Fossilization of Roman Fields

The Ancient Origins of Medieval Fields: A Reassessment

Where Eagles Dare: the Iron Age of Norfolk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About