Appendix Jiv

Archaeology, arable landscapes and drainage in the Fenland of

Eastern England

John Honnor

and Tom Lane

© Archaeological Project Services, 2002

Oxford Archaeology May 2002 (revised December 2002)

ARCHAEOLOGY,

ARABLE LANDSCAPES

AND DRAINAGE IN THE

FENLAND OF EASTERN ENGLAND

Work Undertaken ForOxford Archaeology

Report Compiled byJohn Honnor

and Tom Lane

February 2002

A.P.S. Report No: 27/02

CONTENTS

List of Figures

List of Plates

Summary.............................................................................................................1

Introduction.........................................................................................................1

Geology, Topography and Soils .........................................................................2

Aims ................................................................................................................2

Methods ..............................................................................................................3

Brief Archaeological background .......................................................................3

Brief History of the Drainage..............................................................................5

Survey of the Landowners..................................................................................6

Results ................................................................................................................9

The Wider Perspective........................................................................................9

The Future ..........................................................................................................16

Conclusion..........................................................................................................17

Bibliography .......................................................................................................18

Appendices

1 Questionnaire

List of Figures

Figure 1 Location of main surface soil types

Figure 2 Location of holdings

Figure 3 Morton Fen, Lincs, with contours and sites of Roman and Iron age date

Figure 4 Deeping Fen as surveyed and divided in 1670

Figure 5 Ditched boundaries of the medieval landscape

Figure 6 Grassland on the silts of Holland, Lincs, 1931

Figure 7 Arable land on the fens of Kesteven and Holland, Lincs, 1931

Figure 8 Iron Age and Roman sites on the fens north of Bourne

List of Plates

Plate 1 Morton Fen, Lincs. Roman canal extending through peat onto silt

Plate 2 Plough damage to Middle Saxon settlement on silt in Gosberton Fen

Plate 3 Hacconby Fen, north of Bourne as earthworks and soilmarks

Plate 4 Roman earthwork and cropmarks at Horbling Fen, Lincolnshire

Plate 5 Roman saltern and settlement in Pinchbeck South Fen

Plate 6 Land drainage on Crowland Common

Plate 7 A’Fen Blow’ on Crowland Common

1

Archaeology, Arable landscapes and Drainage in the Fenland of Eastern England

by John Honnor and Tom Lane

Summary

Concern has been expressed by archaeologists over a long period regarding the effects ofintensive agriculture on archaeology of the Fenland. Acknowledging those concernsEnglish Heritage funded a large-scale survey and excavation project, the FenlandProject, the results of which emphasised the extent of the archaeological resource and itsvulnerability.

Using the results of the Fenland Project as a framework this paper set out to examine therecent agricultural histories of farms on three different fen soils - silts, clays and peats.Results of discussions with the farmers indicate that use of the fenland for arablepurposes has a longer history than sometimes stated. Intensification of arable agriculturein the second half of the last century and associated drainage works have served to causeirreparable damage to near surface sites. For the future the farmers see no reduction inthe intensive use of the land, although there is a move now to minimal cultivation of thefenland fields and stabilisation, rather than continual lowering of groundwater levels,

In addition to the agricultural histories rates of peat wastage, where recorded, arediscussed in terms of archaeological loss. Additionally, some of the lesser publicisedthreats to Fenland archaeology, such as deep rooting crops and loss of land (andarchaeological sites) to drainage features are considered.

Introduction

The Fenland of Eastern England is one of the most distinctive landscapes in Britain. Coveringc.400,000ha it is the country's largest area of former coastal wetland, extending some 120kmfrom Lincoln in the north to Cambridge in the south and 50km from Peterborough to the moderncoast. Characteristically low lying, with little of the land surface exceeding 3.5m OD, it is a basinthrough which flows the rivers draining the greater part of central England.

The twin threats to the archaeological resource of arable agriculture and drainage are nowheremore pronounced than in the Fenland. Despite an earlier reputation as the richest pasture land inthe country, the region underwent extensive drainage schemes, particularly in the 18th and 19thcenturies, and is now one of the Europe's most intensively cultivated arable landscapes, with thesurface silts, clays and peats all generating high crop yields.

Despite (or because of) its former wetland character, the Fenland has yielded some of the mostdensely distributed and best preserved archaeological sites in Britain. In recognition of thearchaeological potential of the region and the perceived threat from intensive arable agricultureand continued drainage, English Heritage selected the Fenland for investigation by means ofextensive field surveys, limited excavations and, where appropriate, the implementation ofmanagement policies. In addition to the published volumes detailing the results of this 20 yearprogramme, the survey has been summarised by Hall and Coles (1994) and the excavations byCrowson et al (2000).

2

Because of the high archaeological potential of the predominantly arable landscapes of theFenland Oxford Archaeology commissioned the following report as part of the Management ofArchaeological Sites in Arable Landscapes Project. The report sets out examine recenthistorical data from a small area of the Fenland and combine it with information supplied by localfarmers and Drainage Authorities in an effort to determine recent impacts on the richarchaeological resource within this working landscape and to assess how archaeology fits into orconflicts with the continued agri-industrial usage of the Fenland.

Geology, Topography and Soils

The geological history of the Fenland has been summarised most recently by Waller (1994, 7).While itself fascinating, the older, pre-holocene geological detail is not vital to this paper. What ismore relevant is the development of the region over the last 10,000 years. At its simplest levelthis has seen gradual increases in sea-level with the resultant deposition of silts and clays. In turn,this has affected the draining of the major rivers through the Fenland, causing increasedgroundwater levels and ponding back of the freshwaters. The resultant development of peats onthe landward side of 'marine' sediments is reflected in the modern map of surface soils (Fig. 1).In truth, the development of the Fenland deposits has been infinitely more complex than thatstated above. Sea level rise has not been at a constant rate, but has fluctuated, resulting inseparate periods of transgression and regression. Increased bed loads in the rivers, following de-forestation and initial cultivation of middle England brought sediments to the Fenland at the sametime as sea levels were rising. In addition, erosion of the coastline to the north of the Wash hasalso served to increase sedimentary deposition around seaward side of the Fenland. There hasalways been a battle between the freshwaters running off the surrounding high ground on threesides of the Fens and the sea on the fourth.

These events are reflected in the vertical stratigraphy of the Fenland deposits. Initial peat growthon the floor of the Fenland was overwhelmed by extensive 'marine' beds of clays and silts beforerenewed peat growth took place above the clays and silts. While this, the classic Fenland verticalsequence, is accurate for part of the region, in particular the southern Fens, Waller (1994,14 andPlate III) has emphasised the complexities of the sequence and the variations occurringelsewhere in the Fenland.

While the three main Fenland surface soil types of peat, clay and silt each have their owncharacteristics, overall they share one crucial element - they are all extremely fertile, all Grade 1and 2 land. Therefore, all have been and continue to be heavily exploited for arable agriculture.

Aims

The enormity and complexity of the Fenland region (400,000ha) prevents a detailed study of theagricultural issues in archaeology for the whole area in the short time available. Instead a smallarea (1200ha) has been chosen, in south Lincolnshire, which encompasses the three major soiltypes, silt, clay and peat, along with a length of fen edge gravel (Fig. 2). This area has beenselected for a study which will serve as an example of how farming in the Fenland currentlyimpacts upon the archaeological resource.

At the outset the major aims stated were to gather data to assist in determining the current, andpredicting the future, rates of erosion of archaeological sites in the different Fenland regions.These included

3

* Examining the recent agricultural and drainage histories of major holdings which, in somecases, span the change from stock-based to arable agriculture

* Examining what farming practices apart from standard ploughing may have impacted onburied archaeology (eg ridging for bulbs)

* Examining how agricultural histories vary on the different soil/sediment zones

* Relating the farming histories and practises from the different areas to the results of the wide-ranging field and aerial surveys (and occasional excavations) conducted in the area.

Methods

In order to standardise the data where possible a set of questions was devised (Appendix 1).Four landowners and tenants with holdings covering the different sediment types were selectedon the basis of factors including:-* size of holding * location of holding* length of time in ownership of the holding (therefore first hand knowledge of changing

agricultural practices)* the holding having been walked as part of the Fenland Survey and therefore baseline

information on archaeological and broad palaeoenvironmental results are known* interest and availability of the landowner or tenant.

The locations of the holdings appear on Figure 2. In addition, two local Internal Drainage Boardswere consulted, the Black Sluice and Welland and Deepings.

Brief Archaeological Background

The surface archaeology and soil pattern of this part of the Fenland was recorded during theFenland Survey (Hayes and Lane 1992) and forms a framework for the results of this study.Lane and Hayes (1993) have also examined site distributions and boundaries on the fen edgenorth of Bourne in detail and separately discussed the Iron Age (Lane 1988) and Saxon (Hayes1988) periods in the immediate area. Palaeoenvironmental investigations have been conducted inMorton Fen, notably by Shennan (1994) who also made a study of Morton using remote sensing(Donaghue and Shennan 1987))

Together these earlier investigations have provided a detailed view of the patterns of archaeologyin relation to soils. In Morton Fen each of the surface soil types has characteristic archaeologicalevidence. In the west, is the narrow gravel margin which has attracted settlement of most periodsincluding Bronze Age and particularly Roman. These latter sites are east of the Car Dyke, aman-made watercourse which skirts the fen edge from Lincoln to Peterborough. No definitefunction has been agreed universally for this monument, although drainage, transport andboundary of Imperial Estate have all been championed at various times (summarised in Simmonsand Cope-Faulkner 1997).

In the southwest of Morton Fen is thin peat, part of a once more extensive tract which alsocovered the marine sediments in Deeping Fen and a 4-5km wide band along the western fenedge (discussed in more detail below). There has been little or no settlement on the peats. InMorton Fen the peats were at one time more widespread, extending for some 3km to the east.

4

Drainage has lowered and wasted all but the last vestiges of this organic mantle over the centralpart of Morton Fen (Fig. 3) and revealed the underlying patterns of former saltmarsh creeks(locally termed roddons) which date from the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age (Hayes andLane 1992, figs. 72 and 73). These sinuous, silty, infilled creeks, which once drained the watersrunning off the adjacent highland, extend through a silty 'marine' clay, laid down during inundationin the second millennium BC. One effect of the peat wastage in Morton Fen is the obliteration ofmuch of the central part of the Bourne-Morton canal (Fig. 3; Plate 1). Of Roman construction,this watercouse extended for 6.5km linking the upland fen edge settlement of Bourne withsalterns and settlements on the seaward silty clays, where it's channel survives to a depth of 2.6mbelow the current land surface. Midway along its course, in the peats of Dyke Fen, only the0.4m deep basal silt deposits survive, indicating a loss of approximately two metres of peat sincethe Roman period (Lane 2000a).

At the eastern end of Morton Fen is a probable small 'estuary' which flooded sometime after the2nd century AD depositing silt which partly sealed a saltmaking complex of 1st/2nd century ADdate (Trimble 2001). At the junction of the silt and former peat are the remains of turbaries ofprobable Iron Age or Roman date. North of the silt spread are a number of Roman settlementson the silty clay with roddon area, while along the north end of the parish are Roman salterns fedby the tail-end of a creek system draining northeast.

With its varied ancient environments, Morton Fen is almost a microcosm of the Fenland as awhole. Though larger, Deeping Fen is probably less complex in terms of its ancientenvironments. Its formerly extensive peat cover is now much reduced to little more than anorganic topsoil, again exposing underlying silty clays with roddons. Hardly any settlement tookplace on the peats and it is on the eastern and western margins of Deeping Fen, on the Fen edgeand clay with roddon zones, where archaeology is known. However, there remain traces of onemajor monument crossing Deeping Fen - a Roman road known as the Baston Outgang.Extending from a small promontory on the western fen edge the road took the shortest routeacross the fen to a major roddon, from where its continuation towards Spalding is recorded onair photographs as parallel ditches. Its route through the Fen is marked only by a narrow linearband of gravel, almost certainly the former capping of a now completely rotted woodentrackway.

In not wanting to compromise their chances of having land purchased for mineral extraction, anumber of landowners on the edge of Deeping Fen declined access to the Fenland Survey.Therefore, field surface information is lacking for the area. However, from archaeological worksconducted as part of planning conditions imposed in advance of mineral extraction, along withthe results of air photo plotting, it is clear there is a strong prehistoric and Roman presence onthe gravels bordering Deeping Fen. Excavation in advance of an irrigation pond in 1996 on theimmediate fen edge in Baston revealed the last remnants of a once more extensive peat coversealing vestiges of a palaeosol in which Bronze Age pottery and features were recorded. Had itnot been excavated this friable pottery would almost certainly have been brought up into theplough level by now as the peat gradually decays. The farmer knows from observation that theremnant peat is still wasting on the fen edge but not the shrinkage rate (N. Watts, pers comm).

Farther south, along the edge of Deeping Fen, indications of the pre-peat archaeologicallandscape appear in the form of round barrows protruding from the surrounding blackland whichonce covered it. One such barrow, excavated in 1991, revealed a central child burial and aseries of later inhumations and cremations (French 1994). Because of the earlier construction of

5

an adjacent quarry, the palaeoenvironmental record at this site was of poorer quality thanexpected. Both Watts' excavation and the barrow site indicate a diminishing archaeologicalpotential for physical and palaeoenvironmental remains on the edge of Deeping Fen.

Silty clay with roddon soils are predominant on the east of Deeping Fen. Salterns of both IronAge and Roman date are plentiful, along with Roman settlements. A similar pattern occurs inPinchbeck South Fen, where a thin surface silt cover probably derived from the same episode offlooding as the 'estuary' in Morton.

Brief history of the Drainage of Deeping, Pinchbeck South and Morton Fens

In order to give context to the changes in land use over the past 3-4 hundred years in these areasit is necessary to summarise the of the drainage schemes which enabled this change.

Deeping FenThe first Drainage Act for Deeping Fen was in 1603 and gave ‘Adventurers’ power to carry outdrainage works and raise taxes. Further Acts and works by Vermuyden and Venatti, the Earl ofBedford and others resulted in Deeping Fen being declared ‘Drained’ in 1637. All the firstscheme did was to extend the summer grazing and allow the growing of fodder crops. Most ofthe Fen was still inundated in winter.

Failure of the first scheme was due to the lowering of the peat surface and the tumult of the CivilWar. From 1664 new ‘Adventurers’ with new Acts tried again, this time with the assistance ofwind engines which, within their limited capabilities, overcame the continued lowering of thelandsurface (Fig. 4). By tradition, the rate of shrinkage was ‘the height of a man in the life of aman’.

The struggle to drain continued throughout the 18th century with continual improvements needed

just to maintain the status quo. A major scheme on the river Welland in the 1770s attempted toovercome the problem of siltation of the tidal outfalls. In 1801 came the Enclosure Act for‘draining and dividing and allotting’ Deeping Fen, all of which, except for the Adventurers landwas Common. In all this amounted to almost 14,000ha, including Pinchbeck South Fen. Therefollowed major drainage schemes incorporating steam engines at Pode Hole in 1826. Since thenpumps have been replaced, enlarged and lowered, followed each time by drain improvements.Today’s pumps were commissioned in 1957 (electric) and 1964 (diesel), followed by acomprehensive enlargement of almost all arterial drains. This is considered now to provideoptimum drainage and flood defence, allowing water level management to fine tolerances.

Pinchbeck South FenThis Fen lies adjacent to Deeping Fen but was hydrologically separate. Its drainage historyfollows closely that of Deeping Fen and it had its own Drainage Trustee until the formation of theInternal Drainage Boards in 1935, when it became Deeping Fen 4

th District. In 1830 it was

proposed to connect the catchment to the new steam engine at Pode Hole, but theapportionment of costs could not be agreed and therefore Pinchbeck built its own steam enginein 1832. The system was finally connected to Pode Hole basin in 1991.

Morton FenIn 1635 the Earl of Lindsey with his associates agreed with the Commisioners of Sewers to drainthe district stretching from Bourne to Kyme, including Morton Fen. This are was known as theLindsey Level until renamed the Black Sluice Level in the 18

th century. Various cuts were made

6

including the South Forty Foot Drain from Boston to Bourne, a distance of 39km. By 1639,However, ‘commoners and fenmen’ made a vain attempt to dispossess the Adventurers bypetition to Parliament. Failing with this they then broke down the newly erected banks in a‘riotous and unlawful manner’. This was not surprising as the draining deprived the locals of theirlivelihoods and food sources.

During the Civil War and subsequently the lands remained unreclaimed until the middle of the18

th century. The Black Sluice commissioners were constituted in 1765 and undertook a

comprehensive drainage scheme including further works on the construction of the South FortyFoot Drain and a new sluice at Boston. Another major scheme was undertaken in 1846. Thesteam engine erected in Morton Fen shortly afterwards was finally replaced by a gas oil engine in1932.

Following serious flooding in the 1960s the problem of containing the waters flowing off theadjacent high lands was finally addressed and 28 new pumping stations were built. The MortonFen system was redirected south to Dyke Fen where a new pump was installed to counteractthe further lowering of the peat surface.

Surveys of the Landowners

Based on responses to the questionnaires a summary follows of issues relating directly to theintegrity of the archaeological resource. Details of the farmers consulted appear below:-

7

Landowner Age Size of

holding

(ha)

Location of

holding

Date

family

first

farmed

Sediment

type

Reg Dobbs(RD)

80 47 PinchbeckSouth Fen

1930 silt and clay

JohnRichardson(JR)

66 502 Morton Fen 1921 Fen edge,peat, clay,silt

JohnWoodhead(JW)

70 108 Deeping Fen unknown Organictopsoil,former peat

NicholasWatts(NW)

58 556 Deeping Fen unknown organictopsoil -former peat

Table 1 Details of Farmers Consulted and Holdings

CultivationFollowing drainage Deeping Fen has been cultivated since the early 19th century. Initially, thiswas mixed arable and grass, but with the grass being seeded following the removal of the originalfen species. Most of the farms were worked by horses prior to the 1930s when kerosenetractors were introduced. Horse ploughing was approximately 20-23cm deep in both Deepingand Pinchbeck South Fens but 15-18cm in Morton Fen. The first tractors are thought to haveploughed little deeper in Pinchbeck and Deeping Fens, but at Morton these tractors ploughed upto 38cm deep for potatoes. Subsequent to the second world war larger tractors becameavailable and prompted ploughing up to 35cm deep in Deeping Fen (NW). This mixed theunderlying clay with the organic topsoil. In Pinchbeck, a steam powered 'Gyroytiller' was said tohave 'stirred' the land up to 60cm depth for a period around 1935, but was never widelyadopted. Nevertheless, the physical damage caused by this machine to archaeological depositswould have been permanent.

Between 1930 and 1950 deep ploughing to 38cm and subsoiling to 46cm was undertakenregularly in Morton. Excavations at the Bourne-Morton canal and the Roman saltern recordedarchaeology directly beneath a topsoil of 35cm and 40-45cm respectively. Where it occurstoday, ploughing in Morton is 30cm deep with 45cm deep subsoiling. In Deeping Fen, NWploughs 23-25cm with a pan-busting attachment which penetrates an additional 10cm. While thecurrent trend is for as little cultivation as possible (see below) it is clear from the above figuresthat the majority of near-surface sites on arable land in the Fenland have been subjected todisruption and truncation by ploughing (eg Plate 2).

DrainageDrainage has had a dual detrimental effect on the archaeology of the Fenland. The cutting ofnetworks of ditches, dykes and drains, along with the laying of underground ceramic drainage

8

pipes (under-draining), all affect the integrity of sub-surface archaeological sites and landscapes.Moreover, where the these dykes are deep, a low groundwater level can be maintained, causingthe drying of any organic deposits sealed in archaeological contexts.

Water levels are now regarded as at an 'optimum' level in Morton Fen (JR) at 120-150cm belowthe lowest landsurface. While this water level, which, like all levels in the Fenland is strictlycontrolled by the local Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs), leaves the lowest deposits of theBourne-Morton canal waterlogged (Lane 2000a), the level is well below the basal deposits of allthe features excavated at the Morton Saltern (Trimble 2001). In Pinchbeck Fen the ground watertable varies between one and two metres below the surface, depending on the time of year,recent rainfall and the IDB retention levels. These depths are insufficient to enable irrigation there(RD), although it is possible in Deeping Fen where the aim is to maintain the water table at least1.2m below the land surface.

Under-draining of the Fenland has continued over a long period. Pinchbeck South Fen isbelieved to have been under-drained since the '18th-19th century' (RD). The whole system atPinchbeck was renewed over a 20 year period with the insertion of clay pipes at 20m intervals.Depths were calculated to enable 0.9m cover of the pipes (ie 0.9m below the lowest land). InDeeping Fen, on the peat, the Watts farm was under-drained at 20m centres in the 1940s andrenewed between 1970 and 1980 some 60cm lower. Again, 0.9m of cover was the requireddepth, the same as at Morton. During the regular replacement of under-drains at Morton earlierdrains were encountered, indicating repeated cutting of new trenches and therefore further risk ofdamage to underlying archaeology.

Farm dykes were in regular need of maintenance, a regular winter job for the farm hands. Again,these dykes are of various widths and depths, the latter generally 1.2m on the arable land inPinchbeck. In Deeping Fen, farm dykes were enlarged from 0.9-1.2m deep to 1.5-1.8m in1969-75. In order to ensure effective maintenance deepening also means widening. Whileindividual dykes may be little more than 3m wide the larger main drains such as the Forty Footcan now be anything up to 25m wide. As an example of how much land this encompasses theBlack Sluice Internal Drainage Board maintain some 779km of watercourse over their area of45527ha. At a modest average of say 6m wide, this has seen the extraction of 467ha of land inan area where archaeological sites are numerous as anywhere in the country. In Morton Fen thesite density recorded on the Fenland Survey is approximately one site every 16ha. Add to the779km of watercourses maintained by Black Sluice, the many kilometres of farm and field dykes,which are not the responsibility of the IDBs (for example, see Silvester's plan of the medievalsiltland in the Norfolk Fens [Fig. 5; Hall and Coles 1994, fig.92]) and it is possible to imagine theloss of intact archaeology on a grand scale.

If there is a positive side to dyke cutting it is that their construction and maintenance has enabledthe discovery of previously buried sites, albeit sites now damaged. Usually the method is byfieldwalking along recently cleaned or deepened dykes. Examples of sites found during thisprocess include a Bronze Age site sealed by marine alluvium in Rippingale, Lincolnshire (Hayesand Lane 1992, 76) and a number of Roman salterns in Marshland, Norfolk (Lane and Morris2001). Recognition of the possibilities of examining and recording newly cut or cleaned dykes forarchaeological features resulted in initiation of programmes of dyke survey in Lincolnshire(Chowne 1980) and Cambridgeshire (French and Pryor 1993). Perhaps the best known sitefound under such circumstances is the timber platform and associated trackway at Flag Fen, nearPeterborough (Pryor 1991).

9

CropsWheat, potatoes, sugar beet and rape are the chief crops on the Fenland farms noted above.Some speciality crops occur, notably the growing of daffodils on the light siltland. Although notwidely regarded as a threat to underlying sites some root crops will penetrate up to a metre downwhile the roots of wheat crops can descend some 1.8m in search of water in drought years (RD).Potatoes and, on the silts, tulips and daffodils, require ridging, but this is done to a depth of 15cmin the ground and 15cm out.

Root penetration can have a twofold effect in the Fenland, disturbing the integrity of buriedfeatures and introducing contaminants into either the deposits within features or, in areas ofdeeper overlying sediments, into the buried prehistoric soils. Similarly, while appearing to sealand protect archaeology, some overlying sediment types, in particular the alluvial deposits nearrivers on the Fen edge, allow contaminants to access the underlying archaeology through cracksin the soil structure during dry periods. Alluvium overlying a Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age siteat Welland Bank Quarry on the edge of Deeping Fen was severely cracked(Pryor1998a;1998b) and samples taken on a grid basis on the underlying buried soils containedmany modern seeds. A similar situation was recorded on the northern fen edge at Dogdykewhere 0.8m of alluvium from the river Witham sealed a palaeosol on which lay early Bronze Agepottery (Lane 2000b). Samples again contained unmistakably modern seeds.

Grass may be regarded as a Fenland crop though little now survives. In 1930, Reg Dobbs' farmin Pinchbeck South Fen was approximately 20% permanent pasture and 80% arable. Usually,the grassland was sited next to the farm for ease of feeding the livestock. Factors contributing tothe ploughing of permanent grassland at Pinchbeck South Fen were cited as:-

* Directives from the War Agricultural Executive (War Ag) to bring all grassland (exceptthat reserved for livestock) into cultivation to grow potatoes and wheat.

* Ploughing of 'horse pastures' following the increased use of tractors at the expense ofhorses (although horses were still used there for carting and harrowing until 1955)

* The reduction of dairy and breeding herds which were previously kept to use up thestraw and produce manure

* The increased use of artificial fertilizer in place of animal manure

* Arable farming (so-called cash crops) becoming more profitable than livestock farming

Underpinning all of these factors was the fact that, after the second world war, drainageimprovements continued apace and reduced, if not prevented, the catastrophic winter floodingthat had previously been a regular feature of Fenland life. These improvements lessenedconsiderably the risks of losing arable crops to winter flooding

Results

Results of the questionnaire and the associated research go some way to contradicted the often-cited belief that much of the Fenland had remained in pasture well into the last century and thatthe large-scale conversion of pasture to arable was only undertaken during the Second WorldWar. Instead, the landowners indicate that there was cultivation in Deeping Fen from the early

10

19th century and in Pinchbeck South Fen it was estimated that 80% was arable by 1930(although it is not known when the initial ploughing took place). Only in Morton was it confirmedthat pasture did predominate into the 20th century but soon much of that underwent cultivation.However, only a small part of the Fenland is being examined here. On the southwest Fen edge inNorfolk, for instance, many fields around Feltwell were only brought into cultivation in the 1960sfollowing the construction of a major cut-off channel (Healy 1988, 23).

Certainly some sites, including the multi-period barrow cemetery and settlement on the fen edgeat Dowsby, were ploughed under the instructions of the 'War Ag' (Lane 2000c). Elsewhere,during the Fenland Survey, the second author had been told by farmworkers of first ploughings ofwhat are now merely artefact scatters in arable. Huge sherds of Roman vessels were describedfrom the times that earthwork sites had been levelled in Gosberton Fen. A complete greywarevessel bore testimony to the first ploughings in the 1950s of a site in Thurlby Fen, while atCowbit, also in the 1950s, the 'large areas of red soils' exposed during initial cultivation equatedto extensive Iron Age and Roman salterns (Lane and Morris 2001). The same decade also sawthe initial ploughing of a Roman earthwork site in Hacconby Fen (Hallam 1970, Plate XI) (Plate3). These sites have now undergone half a century of intensive cultivation.

It is likely that the size and scale of the earthworks of the Roman Fenland sites and, therefore, theextra efforts needed to convert them to arable, had resulted in many of those sites being retainedas pasture when all around them had long been ploughed. Occasionally, such sites still remainsurrounded by expanses of arable and are visible as both earthworks and adjacent cropmarks,as at Horbling (Plate 4). However, the earthworks at Horbling are an extremely rare survival.

Apart from Horbling some other earthwork sites survived intact even later than the 1950s andone field in Morton Fen was not ploughed until 1970. It contained several Roman salterns and'ploughed out hearths' were noted on the Fenland Survey fieldwalking record sheets from the visitin 1985. Large pieces of of briquetage were noted at the time although the mean piece size of thematerial collected was little different from the material on other sites which had been ploughedearlier.

The approximate date that saltern sites were ploughed for the first time in Cowbit Wash isknown. As embanked washland (areas on to which the rivers were allowed to flood in winter toprevent the flooding of the arable land), the area remained pasture until the early 1950s, whendrainage improvements at Spalding reduced the risk of winter inundation from the adjacent riverWelland. It is difficult to assess the extent of the damage to the sites from the mean piece size(mps) of the briquetage (ceramic debris from the saltmaking sites). The mps of the Romanbriquetage from Cowbit (ploughed 1950s) was 4.4g compared to 3.9g from the more recently(1970) ploughed site in Morton. In Pinchbeck South Fen, briquetage from the site ploughed c.1920 (Plate 5) has a mps of 8.1. Not all of the briquetage was collected for each site though andthe policy of retrieving only a representative sample of the different types of briquetage couldhave skewed the results. However, all of the Roman pottery was collected and these sherdsprovided a mps of 13.9g from the Pinchbeck site (c.1920), 13.1g from Morton (1970) and 8.9gfrom the Cowbit Wash site (1950s). Only a small quantity of sherds was present on the Cowbitsite. Other, non-saltern, Roman sites in Cowbit Wash provided an average mps of 15.4g whileoutside the Wash the equivalent Roman sites, which had been ploughed at an earlier butunknown date, gave an average mps 9.1g.

Many factors affect the size of sherds collected from the field surface. Not least among these is

11

the possibility that fresh, large sherds are brought up from previously undisturbed archaeologicaldeposits over the years, thereby ‘renewing’ the quantities of larger, unabraded sherds in thetopsoil. Moreover, there appears to be a higher than usual percentage of shelly wares among theRoman vessels of the Fenland. These may not survive ploughing as well as, for instance, thegreywares. The lack of surface ceramic finds of Iron Age date, in particular, was noted on theFenland Survey (Hayes and Lane 1992, 233) and also on sites where excavations demonstratedan Iron Age presence undetected in earlier fieldwalking (eg, at Billingborough [Chowne et al2001] and Dowsby [Lane, 2000c]). Where found, the Iron Age pottery was invariably in a shellyfabric, but little survived on the surface.

Overall, on reasonably robust material, there seems to be little obvious correlation between meanpiece size of ceramics and the number of years the land has been in cultivation. However, withthe fragile prehistoric wares exposed by peat wastage on the Norfolk fen edge the story isdifferent (see below).

The Wider perspective

Because of the limited data sample of farmers it is pertinent to examine a few wider sources todetermine the effects of agricultural activities on archaeological sites in the Fenland through time.Because of the differences in land use potential and exploitation, each of the three main soil-typeswill be examined in turn.

SiltsAlthough the roddons within the claylands are silt-filled this section concentrates only on theextensive arc of surface silts bordering the Wash coast. Given the lack of Roman pottery on thefield surfaces but the presence of Late- and sometimes Middle-Saxon pottery it is reasonable toassume that the silts were laid down in late- or immediately post-Roman times. It is unlikely thatthe silts are the result of a single inundation but there are difficulties in determining the phases ofsilting, particularly from the surface deposits. However, it is not crucial to this study to know thedepositional history of the silts - just to know broadly when they became available for settlementand how they were used through time.

These silt lands are now almost entirely in arable use and the district has some of the most fertileand valuable land in Britain. It is renowned for the production of high quality potatoes, fieldvegetables and horticultural produce (Robson 1990,1). Such is the fertility of the soil that 'doublecropping' (three crops in two years) is possible in some areas (Robson 1987, 70).

At 3-4m OD the silts are higher than the peat and clay zones further inland and of sufficientelevation to have enabled settlement from the 7th century AD onwards in Lincolnshire (Hallam1965; Hayes 1988). Distribution of Late Saxon pottery on the fields in Quadring (Hayes andLane 1992, fig. 19) suggests manuring of fields by that time, almost certainly for arable use.Scattered pottery suggests that arable use has continued on the silts and expanded on to areasreclaimed from sea and fen. Excavation has indicated that arable crops were being grown in theMiddle Saxon period on the silts of Lincolnshire and Norfolk (Murphy 1993), though the ditcheson these sites contain evidence for brackish/marine deposits. By 1189, the 'Men of Holland', onthe silts south of Spalding, had reclaimed land from the sea and fen and, in a famous encounterwith the abbots of Crowland, 'strongly desired to have common of the marsh ofCrowland....for since their own marshes have dried up they have converted them intogood and fertile ploughland' (Hallam 1965, 166). Darby (1970, 55) remarked on'considerable cultivation in the villages of the south Lincolnshire silt lands between 1257 and

12

1321' and concluded that 'during the Middle Ages, this silt zone, between sea and peat fen,seems to have been amongst the most prosperous parts of England' (ibid 130). This wealth,reflected in the splendour of the siltland churches, was by no means confined to the Lincolnshiresilts, with Norfolk (Silvester 1985, 114) and Cambridgeshire included to make the Wash siltsoverall 'the richest area of England in 1334' (Williams 1982, 89).

Land-use on the silts in the second half of the 13th century was calculated by Hallam (1965,195) to be 69% arable, 11% meadow and 20% pasture. Thirsk's (1965) assessment of the areain the 17th century sees a much more even split between arable and pasture with clearly aconsiderable reversion to pasture, partly because of the high quality of grassland on the silts(Grigg 1966, 68). This is reflected in the quality of the livestock and in 1724. Daniel Defoedescribed the countryside around Boston as supporting 'prodigious numbers of large sheep, andalso oxen of the greatest size...' (quoted in Darby 1940, 138).

Arable farming is therefore not a recent innovation on the siltlands. While the medieval ploughingin the arable silt lands would not have been as deep as that of the last century the siltland had itsown variation of the upland ridge and furrow. Termed ‘Dylings’, the Fenland strips were notformed in the same manner as those on the upland, with ditches being hand dug to provide spoilto elevate the intervening lands. Hallam (1965, 152) suggested that these ditches may have beensome 0.6-0.9m deep and up to 1.8-2.7m across. They would, therefore, have impacted on near-surface archaeology. Moreover, the creation of dylings was not confined to land for arable use.In fact Hallam (ibid) suggests that some had no traces of cultivation and may have been dykedmeadows.

Following drainage and enclosure from the 17th century onwards the land has again becomealmost exclusively arable. Changes in the percentages of pasture to arable continued through the20th century with the 1913 records for the Holland District of Lincolnshire (90% of which issiltland) showing 73.3% arable and 26.7% pasture. By 1933 arable had increased to 79.8% withpasture down to 20.2% (Smith 1937, 76) (Figs. 6 and 7). In 1973 the arable in Holland hadrisen to 92.5% with only 5% permanent grassland and 2.5% other land use. These are the lastfigures available for Holland.

Roman sites of the siltlands remain buried, with only occasional glimpses during constructionworks, for example at Spalding where Roman sites have been revealed recently at 0.8m and 2mbelow ground level. Sites of a later date, which lie on post-Roman silting, have been subjected toup to a millennium of cultivation, the most recent of an unparalleled intensive nature. While itwould be foolish to write off sites in this landscape completely, there is every likelihood that manyof the near-surface sites have already sustained serious damage (eg Plate 2). However, there aremany indications that the Roman landscape continues beneath the later silts.

Clays (with roddons)Very little has been written specifically about the clay lands, partly because much of the area hasbeen peat-covered in the past. However, south of Sleaford through into Cambridgeshire the claywith roddon zone has one of the highest known densities of Roman sites in Britain (Hallam 1970;Hayes and Lane 1992; Hall 1996).

For example, between Billingborough and Bourne (Fig. 8), in the Fen edge and clay with roddonzones, some 241 site locations of Iron Age and/or Roman date were recorded during theFenland Survey. This equates to a site every 34ha.

13

Such a density is in striking contrast to the peat areas. There was little or no settlement actuallyon the peatlands until after the post medieval drainage. Deeping Fen is a good example. TheFenland Survey map of the Deeping Fen indicates that Iron Age and Roman sites were confinedto the clay with roddon zone on the eastern part of the parish, leaving several kilometres of blankpeat fen (Hayes and Lane 1992, fig. 102). The threats to the peat areas continues to be to theprehistoric sites beneath the peat. Similarly, the site densities are different on the silts. TheRoman landscape on the clay with roddon zone shelves beneath the silts and is thereforeprotected, but also inaccessible to archaeologists. More of the siltland has been walked inNorfolk than in Lincolnshire and therefore the Norfolk results offer a better comparison.Silvester’s (1988) maps of the Marshland area of Norfolk indicate Early/Middle Saxon, LateSaxon and Medieval silt sites, the latter unsurprisingly the most numerous. However, as with theLincolnshire siltland, some Roman sites are known from beneath the silts, particularly whenexposed during dyke cutting (Silvester 1988, 154).

The surface sediment in the clay with roddon zone is a silty clay, dissected by a dendritic networkof creek channels of the former saltmarsh now infilled with silt and fine sand (eg Dunsby Fen,Hayes and Lane 1992, fig. 51). During their active stage the creeks overflowed at high tidedepositing fine sand, silt and clay, the smallest particles being deposited furthest from the bank.Levees or banks of silty deposits eventually built up and it is here that settlements were created,particularly in the Roman period when the density of Roman sites in this landscape wasremarkably high. Moreover, the roddons served as transport arteries, for boats when thechannels were active and, later, as high ground on the levees connecting settlements, for overlandtraffic. Occasionally there is evidence to suggest that the larger roddons were used as ploughlandin the Roman period. One example, in the northeast of Deeping Fen, has a sparse (manuring?)scatter of Roman sherds associated with a series of ditched fields or enclosures visible on airphotographs (Palmer 1995, fig. 3). Overall, though, there are few scattered sherds and pottery isusually found on the roddons and in the Fenland generally only in 'site' clusters, suggesting apredominance of pastoral rather than arable agriculture. Benefiting from the natural elevation ofthe levees, almost all early settlement in the Fenland was restricted to these roddons. Thesesinuous micro-topographical features are up to a metre above the surrounding land, though manyare much lower. In places this height variation has been emphasised by shrinkage of adjacentpeat. In a few places the roddons have been bulldozed level, the machinery destroying the sitefeatures, although leaving a general artefact scatter. On Reg Dobbs’ farm ‘the creek beds haveover time been deep ploughed and vigorously cultivated until now you can hardly tell thedifference or where they are’. Most though remain in danger from ploughing, the machinerydigging in to the lighter textured higher ground. Some sites, particularly the Middle Saxon sites inGosberton, are themselves slightly mounded. Again, this presents an additional threat fromploughing. At Chopdyke Drove, Gosberton, traces of a rectangular structure on the east side of aslight mound just survived, three sides as shallow negative (cill-beam) features but the forth andlowest side, at the base of the low mound, as no more than a stain in the silts (Crowson et al2000, fig. 37).

Peats'Peat is the accumulated remains of plant materials formed under waterlogged conditions wherethe organisms responsible for the decay of plant material are suppressed' (Burton and Hodgson1987, 3). Much of the southern Fenland still retains surface organic deposits, along with isolatedtracts in Bourne and Thurlby Fens (between Deeping and Morton Fens), in East Fen, north ofBoston and in the Witham valley south of Lincoln. There are a few conflicts about the definitions

14

of what are peat lands. In Figure 1 the area of peat is taken from the Soil Survey map of EasternEngland (Hodge et al 1984). This is 'blackland', where the surface soils remain organic.However, the map accompanying the Soil Survey's Lowland Peat Survey indicates a much morerestricted area (Burton and Hodgson 1987).

As with the silts, the peats formed diachronically, with dates of their formation dependant on arange of possibilities such as proximity to rivers, height of the underlying fen floor andcontemporary height of sea-level. As with the silts, the various dates of peat formation are notcritical within this paper (for summaries of dates of peat throughout the Fenland see Waller1994).

What is crucial here is that the loss of freshwater peats continues to be the greatest threat to thearchaeology of the Fenland (Plates 6 and 7). 'Shrinkage' of these organic deposits, due largely todrainage and arable agriculture, has both a vertical and horizontal dimension. Whilecomparatively little settlement has occurred on the peats in the past, the underlying pre-peatprehistoric landscape beneath the peat was in places densely settled.

The effect of peat shrinkage on underlying archaeology has been demonstrated graphically on theeastern fen edge in Norfolk. Following improved drainage and the conversion of permanentgrassland to arable a local artefact collector, Frank Curtis, began retrieving finds. He noted theevent which started his excavating career as follows: 'Greens [three fields] ploughed up. Oldpottery, Beaker, Rusticated. Bones, bone needles, awls, stone amulets, scrapers, axe, adze,bracer, one nearly complete pot unidentified' (Healy 1988, 23; 1996, 11). This rich cataloguegives some indication of the artefact density and quality on the newly broken up sandy fen edgehummocks. The more the peat shrank the more was revealed and the older the sites were,reflecting the earlier advance of the peat. During the Fenland Survey Silvester (1991, 80)observed that 'When Frank Curtis was working in the 1960s artefacts and sites of the LateNeolithic/Early Bronze Age predominated. Now many of the more prolific sites have astrong Early Neolithic component '

Numerous records exist of peat shrinkage following drainage in the Fenland. Of these, perhapsthe most dramatic and well known is at Holme Fen, Cambridgeshire. Prior to the draining ofWhittlesey Mere in 1851 a solid iron post was driven into the underlying Jurassic clay less than akilometre from the Mere. The top of the post was left level with surface of the fen. After the firsttwelve years following drainage the top of the post protruded by 1.45m and more recently in theregion of 4.27m of the post has become visible. Skertchly (1877, 156) records various peatlosses following drainage in the Fenland, including at Wood Fen where the 'compression' wasrecorded as 0.94m in 8 years, at East Fen (0.61m in 60 years) and Whittlesey Mere (1.85m in18 years).

At Bourne South Fen, between Deeping and Morton Fens, land levels and shrinkage rates havebeen calculated more recently at 30cm in 10 years (Miles 1976, 24). Nearby, Skertchly (1877,135) had recorded 'turf of sufficient thickness to afford fuel' in Bourne, Morton and DunsbyFens. This band of peat along the fen edge north of Bourne had been described earlier by Young(1813, 218) 'From Sempringham down to Deeping a line two or three miles broad of rich grazingland made in a long course of time..'. The extent of peat surveyed in the later part of the 19thcentury and depicted on Skertchly's map of this region appears on Figure 8 along with the sitesrecorded during the Fenland Survey. The loss of this peat since the 1870s has exposed to theplough some 77 known archaeological sites chiefly of Roman date and including settlements,

15

salterns and two canals.

The rate of peat loss in the area was considerable at the time of Skertchly's survey. Three timesbetween 1847 and 1904 the scoop wheels of the steam drainage pumps in Deeping Fen werelowered to account for the shrinkage. Skertchly (1877, 134) realized that the loss was set tocontinue, observing that 'within the last 20 years it [peat] has vanished from considerabletracts in the neighbourhood of Bourne, Spalding and Croyland and there is little doubtthat 20 years hence the peat boundaries drawn by me will include areas over whichscarcely a trace of peat will be found'. What Skertchly was unable to do was calculate a fixedrate of peat loss. Subsequently, some estimates have been made. During soil survey, Seale(1975) calculated that 55% of the Ely District had organic soils with a thickness greater than0.3m but, at a wastage rate of c.18mm per year, he suggested that only c.20% of these soils willremain by c.2000-2010. Whether this is proving an accurate estimate is not known. Robson andHodge nd, 5) quoted reported wastage of 1.8cm per year. Their colleague on the Soil Survey,A. Herbert, recorded wastage of 0.75cm per year on shallow (<90cm) cultivated peat and2.1cm per year on deeper (>90cm) cultivated peat at undisclosed locations in the Fenland.During dyke survey in Borough Fen, south of Deeping Fen, French (1993, 12; 2000,5) notedthat the thickness of peat recorded in the British Geological Survey's earlier borehole logs haddeclined from 50-60cm to 20-30cm, providing an average of c.20-30mm per year for wastage.A number of Bronze Age barrows are now protruding through the thinning peat in Borough Fen(e.g. Hall 1987, plate II) and losing their once preserved physical shape, in addition to likelyreductions in their palaeoenvironmental record. Presumably, somewhere beneath this wastingpeat and still protected at present, are the occupation, ritual and industrial sites that accompanythe barrows.

During their survey of Lowland Peat for the Soil Survey, Burton and Hodgson (1987, 91)suggested that in AD1630 there existed in the Fenland some 1480km2 of peat which, in 1985,had reduced by a remarkable 84% to only 240km2. If wastage of cultivated peats continues atthe current average rate (as calculated by Richardson and Smith 1977) it is estimated that, by theyear AD2050, the area of remaining peat will be reduced by a further 66%. The map of thepeatland in 1985 (Burton and Hodgson 1985, fig. 7) demonstrates that much of the remainingdeeper peat, rather than organic remnants (see French 2000, 5) lies in embayments at theperiphery of the Fenland rather than on the 'marine' clays in the more central area. Therefore, asit wastes, more of the once-populated prehistoric landsurface will be revealed and fragile sitesdestroyed.

The Future

The Farmer's ViewThe farmers consulted were agreed on a number of trends for the future. In particular the movetowards minimum cultivation is recognised (on the grounds that 'cultivation costs money'),particularly for autumn sown crops. Wheat and rape were cited as 'no-till' crops for which directdrilling was employed. Winter cereals already occupy some 70% of the land. The lack ofcultivation for weeds, however, is at the expense of more spraying, a procedure which is likely toincrease in the quest for quality and appearance of crops.

Ploughing will still be required for spring-sown crops and sub-soiling will remain a part of theoverall ploughing process. An increased use was forecast for power harrows, which impactvigorously the top few centimetres, where fragile artefacts may lie.

16

A consensus among the farmers saw the size of land holdings increasing, with local farmingremoved from the community. Following the record price of Fenland farm land in 1980 ofc.£3000 per acre the price dropped to £1200 pa by 1990. Prices have now recovered to in theregion of £2000 per acre, again reflecting renewed interest. One consultee saw Grade 1 landbeing farmed more intensively with Grades 3-4 becoming more extensively used. However,another thought it not possible to be more intensive, with the land being 'pushed hard' already.

Government/European support and subsidy directives are thought likely to influence the cropsgrown with the exchange rate of sterling a major factor in farming in the next decade. The drivingforce will remain livelihood and profit and one consultee felt that the next decade will see the nextgeneration of farmers having less regard for conservation, wildlife and archaeology. It was agreedthat old buildings, yards, cottages, piggeries and 'paddy huts' (the dormitories which formerlyhoused the itinerant, chiefly Irish, potato pickers) are disappearing fast and will soon be gone.

The Internal Drainage Board's ViewLittle change is anticipated by the IDBs in respect of their policies and preferences for waterretention levels. Some farmers would like a little more water in the drains during the summer,providing it can be removed quickly when necessary, but overall there is no major changeperceived. This means a continuation of low levels and a necessity to reduce OD heights of waterin the remaining peat areas in line with shrinkage.

The Archaeologist's ViewArchaeology and arable agriculture are uneasy bedfellows and it is impossible to reconcile theneeds of both parties. Individual monuments can be preserved and protected in a number ofways, from the relatively inexpensive permanent cessation of cultivation on sites with littlepalaeoenvironmental potential, to the costly bunding and introduction of an artificially high localwater levels on sites with good organic preservation. However, there is less that can berealistically achieved for whole archaeological landscapes. Recent initiatives for managing theheritage of wetlands are welcome (eg Coles 1995; Coles and Olivier 2001) but, for much of theFenland, wetland initiatives come too late. In the words of Charles French (2000, 5) 'The spongecannot be rewetted'.

The Fenland has always been a dynamic landscape. As it was in the past when the freshwaterenvironments and concomitant peat expanded across the land so it is now, but in reverse. Whereonce these peats enveloped the Bronze Age sites so now they are exposing them.

The Fenland Project has indicated the broad extent of archaeological development of the regionthrough time. However, some of that initial walking of the peat fen edge in Cambridgeshire wasundertaken by David Hall as long ago as 1978. Just as Skertchly had foretold in 1877 that 'thereis little doubt that 20 years hence the peat boundaries drawn by me will include areas overwhich scarcely a trace of peat will be found' then Hall's boundaries must surely be differentnow and in need of re-assessment. And what of the peatlands that were not surveyed at all in theFenland Survey, such as the Witham valley in Lincolnshire? The recent finds there at Fiskerton ofmore of the Iron Age timber causeway first identified by Naomi Field (1986), along withassociated log boats and metalwork indicates that many high quality finds are still present in thepeatland.

The future threats to wetlands listed by Coles (1995, 12) include changing climate, changing sea-level, acid rain, water abstraction, water pollution and drainage. All are also potential threats to

17

the great extinct wetland of the Fenland. However, the greatest threat to the archaeology on allareas of the Fenland remains arable agriculture, and all that goes with it.

Conclusion

Interviews with farmers, which were to provide the framework for this paper, have been usefuland indeed form a backdrop, but the need to examine other sources was soon apparent in orderto attempt to determine rates of erosion. Few of these sources examined related to work that hadbeen undertaken originally for archaeological purposes and the results of peat wastage inparticular was the work of geologists, soil scientists and drainage engineers. Initial exposure andgradual destruction of prehistoric sites once sealed beneath peats on the fen edge is andcontinues to be the most dramatic loss to the archaeological record. To predict the precise rateof loss of these sites would be difficult and would require a series of programmes measuring peatloss over periods of time at locations around the fen edge and the islands in the fen (during whichtime more sites would be exposed and damaged). A quick fix would be to re-walk some of thefen and island edge areas surveyed during the Fenland Survey to re-plot the peat boundaries andrecord the number of new sites exposed. This would give a baseline calculation of peat loss andnew sites exposed since the original fieldwalking, enabling new predictive models to be created.However, knowing what is about to be destroyed is one thing, stopping the destruction isanother.

While recent farming trends favour minimal cultivation and therefore minimal impact on near-surface sites, the intensification of crop production in the latter half of the 20

th century caused

irredeemable damage to many sites on the fen itself. Moreover, the realisation that arablecultivation in the Fenland has a long history, highlights the length of time that the damage has beenoccurring. While it is easy to be pessimistic about the future of the sites, particularly given the‘divergence between the expectation and realisations of the [excavated Fenland] sites’ (Hall andColes 2000, 241) and the farmers’ conclusion (above) that the next generation of farmers maybe less archaeology-friendly, at least some comfort must be taken from the proposed reduction inploughing and cultivation generally. Moreover, the post-Roman silts blanket and preservephysically a large, but unquantifiable, number of Roman sites and landscapes. Much of thisRoman landscape is beyond the reach of the plough and is visible only in some deep drains andoccasionally during construction works, chiefly on the western edge of the silts.

The problem with the Fenland is that it has always been resource-rich and that is the reason thatit has been so heavily settled. Where once the main attraction was, salt or peat or fish, fowl,reeds or rich grazing it is now high grade arable land and it is being exploited with the samevigour as were the earlier resources. Maximising the present day agricultural resource while managing the archaeological resource would seem at odds. Satisfying all parties will be achallenge.

18

Bibliography

Burton, R.G.O. and Hodgson, J.M., 1987, Lowland Peat in England and Wales (Harpenden,Soil Survey)

Chowne, P., 1980, ‘Bronze Age Settlements in South Lincolnshire’, in Barrett, J. and Bradley,R., (eds), The British Later Bronze Age, British Archaeological Reports British Series 83, 295-305 (Oxford)

Chowne, P, Cleal, R.M.J. and Fitzpatrick, A.P., 2001, Excavations at Billingborough,Lincolnshire, 1975-8: a Bronze-Iron Age Settlement and Salt-working Site. East AnglianArchaeology 94

Coles, B., 1995, Wetland Management: A Survey for English Heritage. WARP OccasionalPaper 9

Coles, B. and Olivier, A., 2001, The Heritage Management of Wetlands in Europe. EACOccasional Paper No 1

Crowson, A., Lane, T. and Reeve, J., 2000, Fenland Management Project Excavations1991-1995. Lincolnshire Archaeology and Heritage Reports Series No 3

Darby, H.C., 1940, The Medieval Fenland (1974 re-print. Newton Abbot, David and Charles)

Darvill, T., 1987, Ancient Monuments in the Countryside: an archaeological managementreview. English Heritage Archaeological Report No 5

Donoghue, D.N.M. and Shennan, I., 1987, ‘Remote Sensing in Morton Fen, Lincolnshire: ASummary of Recent Research’. Fenland Research 4, 46-52

Dudley Stamp, L., 1942, The Land of Britain. The Report of the Land Utilization Survey ofBritain. Parts 76-77, Lincolnshire (Parts of Lindsey and Kesteven). (London, Survey ofGeographical Publications)

Dudley Stamp, L., 1962, The Land of Britain – its use and misuse (London, Longman’s)

Field, N., 1986, ‘An Iron Age Timber Causeway at Fiskerton’. Fenland Research 3, 49-53

French, C.A.I., 1994, Excavation of the Deeping St Nicholas Barrow Complex, SouthLincolnshire. Lincolnshire Archaeology and Heritage Reports Series No 1

French, C., 2000 ‘Dewatering, Desiccation and Erosion: An Appraisal of Water and Peat Fen inthe Fenlands’ in Crowson, A., Lane, T. and Reeve, J (eds), Fenland Management ProjectExcavations 1991-1995. Lincolnshire Archaeology and Heritage Reports Series No 3

French, C and Pryor, F., 1993, The South-West Fen Dyke Survey Project 1982-86. EastAnglian Archaeology 59

Grigg, D., 1966, The Agricultural Revolution in South Lincolnshire (Cambridge University

19

Press)

Hall, D., 1987, The Fenland Project, Number 2: Fenland Landscapes and Settlementbetween Peterborough and March. East Anglian Archaeology 35

Hall, D., 1996, The Fenland Project, Number 10: Cambridgeshire Survey, Isle of Ely andWisbech, East Anglian Archaeology 79

Hall, D. and Coles, J., 1994, Fenland Survey: An Essay in Landscape and Persistence.English Heritage Archaeological Report 1

Hallam, H.E., 1965, Settlement and Society: A Study of the Early Agrarian History of SouthLincolnshire (Cambridge University Press)

Hallam, S.J., 1970, ‘Settlement Around the Wash’, in Phillips, C.W. (ed), The Fenland inRoman Times. R.G.S. Research Series No 5, 22-113Hayes, P. P., 1988, ‘Roman to Saxon in the south Lincolnshire Fens’ Antiquity, 62, 321-6

Hayes, P.P. and Lane, T.W., 1992, The Fenland Project Number 5: Lincolnshire Survey,The South-West Fens. East Anglian Archaeology 55

Healy, F., 1988, ‘Fieldwork in the Norfolk Fens 1959-60: A glimpse of what might have been’.Fenland Research 5, 23-7

Healy, F., 1996, The Fenland Project Number 11: The Wissey Embayment: Evidence forPre-Iron Age Occupation Accumulated prior to the Fenland Survey. East AnglianArchaeology 78

Lane, T., 1988, ‘The pre-Roman origins for settlement on the fens of south Lincolnshire’. Antiquity, 62, 314-21

Lane, T., 2000a , ‘Cross Drove, Morton’ in Crowson, A., Lane, T. and Reeve, J., FenlandManagement Project Excavations 1991-1995. Lincolnshire Archaeology and HeritageReports Series No 3, 129-34

Lane, T., 2000b , ‘Ferry Farm, Dogdyke’ in Crowson, A., Lane, T. and Reeve, J., FenlandManagement Project Excavations 1991-1995. Lincolnshire Archaeology and HeritageReports Series No 3, 95-9

Lane, T., 2000c , ‘Hoe Hills, Dowsby’ in Crowson, A., Lane, T. and Reeve, J., FenlandManagement Project Excavations 1991-1995. Lincolnshire Archaeology and HeritageReports Series No 3, 99-107

Lane, T. and Hayes, P., 1993, ‘Moving Boundaries in the Fens of South Lincolnshire’, inGardiner, J. (ed), Flatlands and Wetlands: Current Themes in East Anglian Archaeology,East Anglian Archaeology 50, 58-70

Lane, T. and Morris, E.L., 2001, A Millennium of Saltmaking: Prehistoric and Romano-British Salt Production in the Fenland. Lincolnshire Archaeology and Heritage Reports Series

20

No 4

Miles, W.D., 1976, A History of the Drainage of Bourne South Fen and Thurlby Fen(Boston, Ingelow)

Murphy, P., 1993, ‘Anglo-Saxon Arable Farming on the Silt Fens – preliminary results’,Fenland Research 8, 75-8

Palmer, R., 1995, ‘Integration of Air Photo Interpretation and Field Survey Projects’,Archaeological Prospection, Vol. 2, 167-176

Pryor, F., 1991, Flag Fen. Fenland Prehistoric Centre (London, Batsford)

Pryor, F., 1998a, Farmers in Prehistoric Britain (Stroud, Tempus)

Pryor, F., 1998b, Welland Bank Quarry, South Lincolnshire. Current Archaeology 160, 139-45

Richardson, S.J. and Smith, J., 1977, ‘Peat Wastage in the East Anglian Fens’, Journal of SoilScience, 28, 485-489

Robson J.D., 1990, Soils of the Boston and Spalding District. Mem. Soil Surv. (Harpenden)

Robson, J.D., 1985, Soils in Lincolnshire IV, Sheet TF 45 (Friskney), Soil Survey Record No88 (Harpenden)

Robson, J.D. and George, H., nd, Peat Soils of the Witham Fen. Unpublished paper

Seale, R.S., 1975, Soils of the Ely District, Mem. Soil Survey England and Wales (Harpenden)

Shennan, I., 1994, ‘Morton Fen’, in Waller, M., The Fenland Project, Number 9: FlandrianEnvironmental Change in Fenland. East Anglian Archaeology 70, 272-7

Silvester, R.J., 1985, ‘West Walton: The Development of a Siltland Parish’, NorfolkArchaeology 39 (part 2), 101-116

Silvester , R.J., 1988, The Fenland Project Number 3: Norfolk Survey, Marshland and NarValley. East Anglian Archaeology 45

Silvester, R.J., 1991, The Fenland Project Number 4: The Wissey Embayment and the FenCauseway, Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology 52

Simmons, B.B. and Cope-Faulkner, P., 1997, The Lincolnshire Car Dyke. Past Work,Management Options and Future Possibilities. Unpublished Document, ArchaeologicalProject Services

Smith, G.I., 1937, The Land of Britain. The Report of the Land Utilization Survey of Britain. Part69 – Lincolnshire (Parts of Holland). (London, Survey of Geographical Publications)

Thirsk, J., 1957, English Peasant Farming (London, Routledge and Keegan Paul)

21

Thirsk, J., 1965, ‘Fenland Farming in the sixteenth century’. Leicester University PressOccasional Papers 3

Trimble, D., 2001, ‘Excavations of an Early Roman Saltern in Morton Fen, Lincolnshire’, inLane, T. and Morris, E.L., A Millennium of Saltmaking: Prehistoric and Romano-BritishSalt Production in the Fenland. Lincolnshire Archaeology and Heritage Reports Series No 4,99-161

Waller, M., 1994, The Fenland Project, Number 9: Flandrian Environmental Change inFenland. East Anglian Archaeology 70

Williams, M, 1982, ‘Marshland and Waste’, in Cantor, L., (ed), The English MedievalLandscape (London and Canberra, Croom Helm)

Young, A., 1813, General View of the Agriculture of Lincolnshire (1970 Reprint, NewtonAbbot, David and Charles)

22

Appendix 1

Questionnaire

When did the field/block of land first come into arable use?

To your knowledge had it been arable at any time before?

If not, how was the change from pasture to arable undertaken? (eg bulldozed first? etc)

What was the impetus for the change from pasture to arable?

To what depth was the land first ploughed?

To what depths has it been ploughed subsequently?

What is the history of deep ploughing/moling?

When was it first underdrained?

How many times has it subsequently been underdrained?

What depth was the watertable when first ploughed?

How has the watertable changed subsequently?

What depth were the fieldside drains when the land was first converted to arable?

How as that changed?

What crops were first sown/planted?

What crops have been grown subsequently?

In particular, has there been any deep rooting crops such as sugar beet (if so how regularly andhow far is it estimated that they penetrate)

What is regarded as a normal cycle of cultivation per season (eg ploughing-harrowing-rolling-spraying)

Is that different from when it was first brought into cultivation?