Middle Roman small town at Elms Farm, Heybridge (EHER 81915)

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 Mid Roman period (late 2nd to early/mid 3rd centuries AD) at the site. It should be considered alongside the other records for settlement at Elm Farm, especially records EHER 17445, EHER 17446, EHER 81914 and EHER 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. 1993 and 1994-1995. Archaeological excavations. The prevailing impression derived from the Mid Roman period remains is of occupation activity contracting towards the settlement nucleus, which lies to the west of the temple complex, and that much of the area encompassed by the Elms Farm excavations is increasingly being given over to peripheral, perhaps purely agricultural, uses. Within this broad picture, however, some distinctions can be made. It is, for example, apparent that continuity is more manifest in those areas closest to the settlement focus. Thus, Open Area 23 (the temple precinct) and Open Areas 18, 19 and 28 seem to demonstrate least change from the Early Roman period (EHER 17445). Indeed, the continuing development of the temple complex is conspicuous against the general background of apparent contraction and change of use. There is little sign of significant alteration to the layout of the Northern Zone, although occupation seems to be generally confined to the roadsides - itself perhaps a sign of settlement contraction, although its outlying parts are presumed to function as fields and paddocks. It is possible that a major north-south aligned dividing line across the lower terrace is becoming apparent during the Mid Roman period. The cardinal feature of this alignment is the eastern boundary wall of the temple precinct. This alignment includes the eastern boundary of Open Area 28 and, less certainly, the possible eastern boundary of the adjacent plot (Open Area 33) within which Building 54 is set. Only within Open Area 19 are features on this alignment not readily apparent, but it is noticeable that both the Early Roman sub-enclosure ditch and Late Roman robbed wall line (Structure 44) do coincide with it. It may be that the eastern limit of the contracting settlement and the start of its agricultural hinterland is increasingly defined by this line. Evidence of change and contraction is strongest in the Southern Zone where the long-standing regular roadside enclosure boundaries are superseded by ditch 25177. Only Open Area 28 and its occupying Building 39 survive this. Open Areas 24-27 are amalgamated, forming a single new entity - Open Area 50 - that is seemingly completely devoid of buildings and may constitute fields. Other activity, almost exclusively pitting, is concentrated in the western part of the southern zone, again closest to the perceived focus of settlement. The presence of manufacturing processes further east, primarily represented by two pottery kilns, almost certainly demonstrates that this part of the lower terrace is now increasingly peripheral to the main settlement focus to the west. By the early to mid 3rd century AD, Building 39 may be the most easterly building within the Southern Zone. The continued existence of Road 3 any further east than the eastern boundary of the temple precinct is unlikely, though its approximate route may be perpetuated by a track. In the Eastern Hinterland there is a complete absence of significant Mid Roman activity and its distinction from the Southern Zone is probably not particularly meaningful by this time. The Northern Hinterland and the eastern part of the Southern Zone display increasing similarities. Both contain kilns and crop-processing structures, large fields and animal pens, and both demonstrate that functions such as rubbish disposal become scarcer away from the settlement focus. Across the settlement in general, the quantity of pits reduces in the Mid Roman period while the rubbish in them proliferates. At the same time, middening is more evident and the two phenomena may be linked and suggestive of a changing Mid Roman disposal practice. That part of the Northern Hinterland to the north of the watercourse may, conversely, exhibit increased occupation. Strip plots are laid out along the upper terrace edge and the Early Roman cemetery is abandoned, its site being levelled and crossed by a wood-lined channel - possibly a mill leat or else drainage from a major building such as a bath-house. Given the continuing development of the temple complex against the backdrop of contraction and/or apparent decline of outlying settlement areas, it is speculated that the religious focus is increasingly the raison d'etre of the settlement. However, settlement shift or emergence of poly-focal occupation remains a possibility. <1> <2> 1993. Metal detector survey. Metal detecting of the spoil heaps created by the removal of topsoil recovered a significant quantity of coins and small finds which spanned the Late Iron Age to Roman period. Notable finds include several illegible 'dupondius' coins from around the 1st-3rd centuries. Other finds include copper alloy brooches, lead weights and miscellaneous small finds. <3> Note: This record provides a broad summary of the character of the settlement activity at Elms Farm during the Mid Roman 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 <2> and <1>. 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. See also other published works and reports <4> - <9>. See newspaper articles <10> - <14>. See aerial photograph <15>. Area = roughly 13ha.