Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:42:05.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV.—Excavations on the Iron Age Hill-fort of Oldbury, Near Ightham, Kent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2011

J. B. Ward Perkins
Get access

Extract

In 1938 the Kent Archaeological Society carried out extensive excavations on the site of the important Iron Age hill-fort of Oldbury, above Ightham, Kent. An abridged report of the work has already appeared in Archaeologia Cantiana, li (1939), 137–81. But in view of the more than local importance of some of the results obtained it has seemed advisable to republish them on a considerably expanded basis. The actual work of excavation, recorded in detail in Archaeologia Cantiana, is here more briefly summarized; whereas the bearing of the results obtained upon more general problems is considered at rather greater length.

Type
Research Article
Information
Archaeologia , Volume 90 , 1944 , pp. 127 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1944

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 127 note 1 Since the outbreak of war the author has been on active service and has, in consequence, been unable to make reference to publications which have appeared since that date.

page 139 note 1 Antiq. Journ., xxi (1941), 265–70.Google Scholar

page 142 note 1 A plan of the work done has been deposited for reference and record at Maidstone Museum. The only structural features calling for comment were the traces of two sleeper-beams and a cobbled floor.

page 144 note 1 Mr. A. W. G. Lowther informs me that he has recently found vessels of this type on yet another Surrey site, at ‘Purberry Shot’, Ewell. Other pottery from this site includes ‘Patch Grove’ ware (see p. 175) and bead-rim bowls of Charlton type (see p. 176). A second site, at Walton-on-the-Hill, has yielded Caburn II ware and other pre-Roman wares on the site of a Roman villa; no certain footring bowl has yet turned up, but a remarkable painted vessel, closely analogous to those found at Keynes, Horsted (Sussex Arch. Colls., lxxviii (1937), 257, fig. 1), puts the Sussex connexions of this site beyond any possible doubt.Google Scholar

page 146 note 1 In addition to the great deal of help that Mr. Hawkes has given me elsewhere in the preparation of this report I am particularly indebted to him for allowing me, under very difficult circumstances, to see the page-proof of his article.

page 148 note 1 A possible exception is the earthwork at Boughton Monchelsea. Its form is unusual; and its situation near Maidstone and discoveries of early material in the immediate neighbourhood both suggest the possibility of a date rather earlier than that of the rest of the series.

page 149 note 1 With the exception of Saxonbury, which is structurally unique and appears to have been held in connexion with the working of the local iron-mines, none of these camps has produced evidence of continuous occupation. At Dry Hill, Lingfield, extensive excavations yielded only a number of slingstones.

page 150 note 1 See check-list of pottery-finds from Kent, west of the Medway, pp. 170–2.

page 154 note 1 Sir Evans, John, Ancient British Coins (1864); Supplement (1890). References are to the numbers on the plates of this work.Google Scholar

page 155 note 1 Numismatic Chronicle (1933), pp. 88–138, ‘The Philippus in the West and the Belgic Invasions of Britain’; Antiquity, vii (1933), pp. 268–89, ‘The Distribution of Gaulish and British Coins in Britain’.Google Scholar

page 155 note 2 Jewitt, L.English Coins and Tokens (1886) (Young Collector Series). A section on Greek coins was written by B. V. Head. This is presumably the coin mentioned in Evans (p. 435) as having been found at Oldbury in 1885.Google Scholar

page 155 note 3 While this report was being written, a coin of this type, found some years ago at Mainfield, near Ightham, was presented to the British Museum.

page 155 note 4 Evans, p. 436.

page 156 note 1 Evans A 1–8.

page 156 note 2 Evans A 9, etc.

page 156 note 3 Transactions of the International Congress of Numismatists (1936), pp. 351–7: ‘British Tin Coinage of the Iron Age.’Google Scholar

page 156 note 4 Evans B8.

page 156 note 5 Evans B9–10.

page 156 note 6 Brooke, , Num. Chron. (1933), p. 104.Google Scholar

page 156 note 7 Evans B 9–10.

page 156 note 8 Evans B 12, compare 3.

page 157 note 1 Evans IV. 13, 14, XIII. 12. The last type was wrongly read by Evans as CA. A fine example from the Carlyon Britton Sale, lot 103, gives the true reading S. Examples have now been found at Richborough, in Thanet, and near Kits Coty House.

page 157 note 2 Brooke, , Antiquity, vii (1933), p. 288.Google Scholar

page 157 note 3 Collingwood, R. G. and Myres, J. N. L., Roman Britain and the English Settlements (1936), pp. 58, 76, 78.Google Scholar

page 157 note 4 My views on the chronology of Ancient British coins as a whole form the subject of a paper in Archaeologia, lxxxix. This note on coins found in Kent was written before the broader study was set on paper and was intended as a final presentation of the views more fully expounded there.

page 157 note 5 Confusion has been caused by the omission from Brooke's map of the coins mentioned in Evans's Supplement, p. 521. The coin there recorded from Wallingford was actually found at Watlington. The coin from Wallingford is recorded in Ashmole's Antiquities of Berkshire (1736), p. 29, and may probably be identified with a silver coin in the British Museum.

page 158 note 1 Curwen, E. C., ‘The Calleva of Eppillus’, Antiquity, xi (1937), p. 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 175 note 1 In the compilation of this list I have received much help from Mr. A. W. G. Lowther and from Mr. G. C. Dunning.