Latest Roman to Early Saxon transition settlement at Elms Farm, Heybridge (EHER 17446)

Archaeological excavation in 1993 and 1994-1995 recorded an extensive Late Iron Age to Roman/early Saxon small town at Elms Farm, Heybridge. This record presents the evidence for the latest Roman evidence and the Early Saxon period (late 4th to 5th centuries) at the site. It should be considered alongside the other records for settlement at Elm Farm, especially records EHER 17445 and EHER 81914-81916 which record the other Roman evidence.

The following is a brief description of the work which has been undertaken at the site (see note below). 1993. Geophysical survey. Some of the features described below were detected during a geophysical survey, see EHER 81889. 1994. Trial trenching. Trench 1 comprised blue-grey waterlain clay deposits with a single Saxon pot sherd from the surface. <1> 1993-1994. Archaeological excavation. The continued decline and contraction of the Roman settlement toward its core to the west of the area of investigation is evident. The main thoroughfare of Roads 1 and 2 probably survive in an unmaintained state to the end of the Roman period, but all around the infrastructure of enclosures fragments. It is likely that the settlement core, including the temple precinct, retains a degree of structure. Indeed, the religious focus functions into the late 4th century; the temple cella itself endures and is supplemented by a new small building positioned to its west, deposition of ritual-related items continues along the northern precinct boundary, and the well to the east of the temple now develops into a votive pool. However, changes occur before the end of the 4th century, when the precinct wall and adjacent monumental post are removed and a substantial building placed over the former boundary. Although the relationship between the temple cella and this new structure is somewhat equivocal, it is posited that the imposition of the latter is not entirely unsympathetic. It is likely that the cella endures as a revered ruin, with the new building either supplementing or replacing its function. The latter is more likely; it is tentatively conjectured that the new structure could be an early Christian chapel. Adjacent Open Area 18 remains part of the settlement core, and a clear distinction between what remains of the Central and Northern Zones is maintained along its northern boundary. However, the occupation and use of this enclosure is indistinct. Beyond the core of Open Areas 18 and 23, settlement infrastructure further fragments in the late 4th century to the point at which the labels of 'Central, Northern and Southern Zones' becomes fairly meaningless (although this construct is retained in the following text to provide a degree of structure). Lacking meaningful systems of subdivision, the utilisation of the lower terrace outside the contracted settlement focus seemingly continues to decline; crop-processing, manufacture and disposal activities diminish, as does the incidence of buildings. Similarly, the field systems of the Northern hinterland fragment, though there is some hint of continuing occupation north and east of the course of the defunct watercourse. What remains of the former Roman settlement into the 5th century, and whether there is continuity of occupation into the Early Saxon period, are particularly unclear and problematic questions. Distinct Early Saxon material, almost wholly restricted to very small quantities of pottery in the tops of former Roman settlement remains, is scattered across the lower terrace, though is conspicuously absent from Open Areas 18 and 23. Two buildings are identified; one located on Road 1 and clearly signalling a disregard for the former Roman settlement, the other positioned toward the lower terrace edge and probably associated with a pit that is deliberately cut into the top of a former well. This activity is perhaps peripheral to an occupation focus that avoids the presumably wholly defunct Roman settlement and is located on higher ground to the north. Three further sunken-featured buildings are located to the north and east of the defunct watercourse and are part of the wider Early Saxon settlement identified from previous and subsequent investigations along Crescent Road (EHER 7796 and EHER 81894, see also EHER 46151). This is the final episode of occupation at Elms Farm and it does not appear to endure beyond the 5th century. This phase of activity is regarded as a transition period, and it is extremely difficult to draw a clear line between what is Roman and what is Saxon. The paucity of diagnostically Early Saxon artefacts among overwhelmingly larger Late Roman assemblages cannot necessarily be taken as denoting an absence of tangible activity of this date. Indeed, many of the late and latest Roman ceramic assemblages are highly fragmented, abraded and include significant residual components. These are very similar to assemblages from identifiably Saxon features, such as sunken-featured buildings (SFBs), and it is conceded that some deposits may appear superficially latest Roman but are actually later in date, simply lacking the few sherds of diagnostic Saxon pottery. Indeed, one of the SFBs lacks Saxon pottery among its residual late 4th century assemblage, but on morphological grounds is clearly 5th century. Furthermore, reuse of later Roman settlement remains by Saxon occupants cannot be disregarded. Given the high incidence of small quantities of Saxon pottery within the tops of Roman pits and ditches, it is likely that somewhat different mechanisms for rubbish disposal are adopted and that much of the material culture is spread over the land surface rather than buried. This clearly has implications for survival and legibility and it must be conceded that a significant proportion of this latest occupation evidence may have been removed by machine. Although the precise date of the abandonment of settlement at this location on the river gravel terraces is not clear, it would appear that it occurs in the Early Saxon period, when it is assumed that settlement activity shifted to the opposite side of the River Chelmer and onto the high ground where a burh (EHER 7766) was later founded in AD 916 by Edward the Elder, and now occupied by the town of Maldon. No Saxon-period occupation remains occur within the Elms Farm excavations that post-date the 5th century. This apparent absence is substantiated by a similar lack displayed by the other investigated sites in the Crescent Road/Langford Road vicinity. <2> <3> Note: This record provides a broad summary of the character of the settlement activity at Elms Farm during the latest Roman and Early Saxon period. The excavated evidence is vast and cannot easily be summarised in this record. For a more detailed discussion of the excavated evidence from the 1993 and 1994-1995 excavations please refer to the Open Access monograph <3> and <2>. It should also be noted that it is not possible to confidently ascribe a discrete division between each phase of occupation at this site and, as such, the information described here should be considered alongside the other records for Elms Farm (EHER 17444-17446 and EHER 81912-81917). The remaining is a general description of the site gathered from several sources. The Saxon features comprise three sunken featured buildings, a well, a clay-lined pit, a substantial ditch revetted on both sides with modern planks and a long line of very large post holes running down the northern half of the Roman town. These must represent a major Saxon land boundary. Finds included 5th century sherds of Saxon pottery; these included five forms such as carinated bowls. No diagnostically Saxon metalwork was recovered. <4> <5> <6> It was originally thought to be the site of a Roman town and port. It turned out to be a village - and a fairly scruffy one at that, at least in its latter years. Boggy in places, lots of weeds and mud; not perhaps the nicest place for a Romano-Briton to live. Settlement at Heybridge began in the Late Iron Age (around 50BC). The village survived the Roman period but was abandoned soon afterwards. <7> See also other published works and reports <8> - <10>. See newspaper articles <11> - <15>. See aerial photograph <16>. Area = roughly 13ha.