the rural settlement of roman england · 2015-04-23 · rural settlements up to end 2014 2523...

The Rural Settlement of Roman England

Settlement morphology and regional

diversity: establishing a new modelAlex Smith

Roman settlement at Claydon Pike © Oxford Archaeology

Aims of Project Phase 1

To gain a more nuanced understanding of Romano-British regionalism, on the basis of rural settlement characteristics

– Create/enhance a model of morphological classification based only upon analysis of excavated settlements

– Create new geographic zones which will form the basis for regional characterisation

– Test the model against associated settlement architecture, material culture, and environmental signatures to try and understand more the economic and social relations of people within different settlement types

Study of Romano-British rural settlement

• Major studies by Hingley (1989)

and Taylor (2007)

• Taylor’s survey recorded 28,000

rural settlements from HER data,

including cropmarks, earthworks,

finds scatters and excavations (Map from Taylor 2007 fig. 4.1)

The impact of developer-funded archaeology:quantity and distribution of reported Roman rural sites to date

Pre-1950 Up to 1989 Up to 2014

All excavated and

recorded Roman

rural settlements up

to end 2014

2523 individual

settlements

Relative density of Roman rural settlement

1920 Farms

Defined as small agricultural

based settlements without

villa architecture

• Huge increase in excavation

since 1990 but still poorly

understood

Main database settlement site types:

314 villas

Defined as mostly agricultural

based settlements with

architectural characteristics

associated with prominent

display, e.g. tiled roofs, painted

plaster, mosaic floors and often

associated baths


56 villages

Defined as larger nucleated

rural settlements (usually)

over 3ha with multiple areas

of occupation and not directly

associated with the main

Roman road network


175 roadside

settlements

Defined as nucleated rural

settlements directly

associated with the main

Roman road network


Classification of farming settlements

Classification of farming settlements

• Based upon Taylor’s tripartite broad

divisions of morphological types (gained

from HER descriptions) but used more

selectively just for excavated smaller

farming settlements

• Classification by subjective visual analysis

of the site plan

• Overall, 1719 of 2188 farming settlements

within the database had plans (78%)

• From this 742 (34% of all farming

settlements) could be placed into a broad

morphological category

(Taylor 2007, Fig. 3.6)

Farming settlements – issues with

classification

Farming settlements that cannot be

classified:

• lack of excavation (including wall

chasing of villa buildings)

• lack of understanding/definition of

the phasing

• truncation of archaeological features

• no site plan

Land off Greet Road, Winchcombe, Glos

Irby, Wirral, Merseyside

RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

Evaluation

(n=467)

Watching

Brief (n=90)

Excavation

(n=1605)

Pe

rce

nta

ge

(%

)

Classification of farming settlements by

type of investigation

Unclassified

Classified

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

<0.1 (n=693) 0.1-0.5 (n=590) 0.5-1 (n=216) 1-2 (n=151) 2+ (n-212)

Pe

rce

nta

ge

(%

)

Area of investigation (ha)

Classification of farming settlements by area of excavation

Unclassified

Classified

Vast open area excavation at NW

Cambridge © Cambridge Archaeological Unit

Unenclosed ‘open’

settlement

• Evidence for occupation not

obviously contained within a system

of enclosure

• Enclosures and field system ditches

may still be present on site, but do

not bound primary areas of

domestic activity

• Few identified and well dispersed

Blagdon Park 1,

Northumberland

43

Enclosed settlement

Penhale Round, Fraddon, Cornwall

• All or majority of domestic activity

contained within 1 or 2 enclosures

• Internal space not sub-divided to a

significant degree

• Dominant form across most areas

especially in upland zones, but

significant variety in size and form

517

Complex settlement

Strood Hall, Essex

• A complex of conjoined

enclosures or major enclosure

extensively sub-divided

• Multiple activity zones

• Trackways and field-systems tend

to be incorporated within

settlement system

• Restricted distribution

265

Variation in complex

settlement forms

Manor Farm, Humberstone, Leics:

agglomeration of multiple enclosures

Wavendon Gate, Buckinghamshire:

major internal divisions of space

Enclosure complexes

Complex ‘planned’ enclosures

142

62

Hengrove Farm, Staines, Surrey

NIAB, Huntingdon Road, Cambs

Winnal Down, Hants

Stamford Bridge, Moor Lane, East Riding

Pingewood, Burghfield, Berks

Farm enclosure complexes

• Often regular system of

‘paddocks’ observed on periphery

of settlements

• Minimal material culture when

excavated

• Association with waterholes &

trackways/droveways

• Relating to stock movement?

Gill Mill, Ducklington, Oxon

Fleet Marston, Aylesbury, Bucks

Longdales Road, King's

Norton, Birmingham

‘Paddock’ enclosure complexes from

nucleated settlements – large scale stock

movement?

Plan of all phases (1st-4th C AD) from Longdoles field, Claydon

Pike, Glos: unclassified, complex & enclosed settlement

Changes in settlement

patterns over time

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

% o

f a

ll f

arm

ing

se

ttle

me

nts

in

use

Percentage of all farm types in use over

time

complex farms

enclosed farms

open farms

Chronological patterns

0200400600800

1000120014001600

Rural farming settlements in use over

time (no. settlements)

villas

Farms (all)

Creation of regional

landscapes for analysis

Data collection

from eight English

administrative

regions and Wales



New regions ‘created’

using project data,

Natural England

regions & Welsh

topography



Eight new regions

created for the

purposes of broadly

assessing rural

settlement regionality

Regional characteristics: farming settlement morphology

= enclosed = complex = open

52%36%

12%

North-East (n=94)

49%

48%

3%

Central belt (n=280)

55%39%

6%

East (n=51)

68%

26%

6%

South (n=167)

Regional characteristics: farming settlement morphology

= enclosed = complex = open

84%

14%

2%

Northern England (n=55)

88%

7%5%

West Midlands (n=43)

93%

7%

Upland Wales & West (n=45)

87%

3%10%

South-West (n=40)

Central belt case

studyLincoln

Leicester

VerulamiumCirencester

Gloucester

Caerwent

Geological and

topographical context

• Complex farms more prevalent

on lower lying superficial

geologies (sand & gravel

terraces of major river valleys)

• Enclosed farms more varied

locations but prevalent on

higher chalk and limestone

areas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

<50m 50-100m >100m

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

farm

ty

pe

Height above sea level

Elevation data for classified farms in

the central Belt region

complex farms

(n=134)

enclosed farms

(n=138)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No

of

sett

lem

en

ts

Bedrock geology groups

Farm morphology by bedrock geology

complex

enclosed

Central belt chronological patterns

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

M-LIA LIA AD50 -100 AD100 -

150

AD150 -

200

AD200 -

250

AD250 -

300

AD300 -

350

AD350 -

400

% f

arm

ing

se

ttle

me

nts

in

use

Percentage of central belt farms in use over time

complex farms

enclosed farms

open farms

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

M-LIA LIA AD50 -100 AD100 -

150

AD150 -

200

AD200 -

250

AD250 -

300

AD300 -

350

AD350 -

400

AD 400+

Central Belt: Farming settlements in use over time (no. settlements)

villas

Farms (all)

Central belt

Late Iron Age

Central belt

Later 2nd century

AD

Lincoln

Leicester


Gloucester

Caerwent

Central belt

Later 4th century

AD

Lincoln

Leicester


Gloucester

Caerwent

Lincoln

Leicester


Gloucester

Caerwent

• 1626 buildings recorded on 542 rural farming settlements

• Increase from 39% to 53% of farming settlements in use with evidence for

architecture from late Iron Age to 4th century AD

• Includes c 500 buildings from 153 villa complexes

Rural

architecture

© Oxford Archaeology

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

LIA (n=167) AD 100

(n=172)

AD 200

(n=283)

AD 300

(n=328)

AD 400

(n=281)

%

arc

hit

ect

ure

in

use

Date (no. of sites with architecture)

% Circular

% Rectangular

Changes in architectural style

718 circular buildings 908 rectangular buildings


http://www.strollingguides.co.uk/scripts/pushers/photo.php?refNo=1100885&z=660_500

Intra-regional

architectural

styles

• Rectangular architecture becomes

dominant earlier in the SW

• The north-east (fens, Ouse & Nene

Valleys) has a much greater

circular building tradition which

lasts longer

• No significant correlation between

architecture & morphology

Rectangular

Circular

Lincoln

Leicester


Gloucester

Caerwent

Villas

10% 7%

83%

Central belt: villa farm morphology

(n=151)

complex

enclosed

unclassified

2%

9%

89%

South: villa farm morphology (n=113)

complex

enclosed

unclassified

• Most villa

morphology =

unnclassified

• Classified villas

conform to

regional ‘norms’

for farmstead

types

Lincoln

Leicester


Gloucester

Caerwent

Villa types

• Wide variety in

villa types

• ‘Lower order’ villas

widespread

• Courtyard &

palatial villas very

specific

geographical &

chronological

patterns

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

1st C (n=11) 2nd C (n=51) 3rd C(n=80) 4th C (n=94)

Relative proportion of villas types over time in Central

Belt (%)

palatial

courtyard

winged corridor

corridor

cottage

Architectural continuum

0102030405060708090

No

. o

f si

tes

Masonry 'domestic ' building types in Central Belt

An integrative approach to rural settlement


the rural settlement of roman england · 2015-04-23 · rural settlements up to end 2014 2523...

Documents