The last decade has seen an explosion of relevant, regionally specific book publications. These are wide-ranging, from major \u2018old\u2019 excavations at, for example, Elms Farm, Heybridge and Mucking (Atkinson & Preston 2015; Evans et al<\/em>. 2016; Lucy & Evans 2016) \u2013 a category that also includes earlier era fieldwork in the Roman towns of Great Chesterford and Godmanchester (Medlycott 2011a; Green 2018) \u2013 to more recent landscape-scale campaigns at Biddenham Loop and Marsh Leys, Bedford (Luke 2008 and 2016; Luke & Preece 2011) or the fen-edge at Colne Fen (Evans et al<\/em>. 2013). To this must also be added synthetic studies, particularly Perring and Pitts\u2019 Alien Cities<\/em> \u2026 (2013) and Jeremy Evans\u2019 Horningsea volume (et al<\/em>. 2017). Equally, the region\u2019s Roman archaeology has featured in a number of national period-overview studies, including Rippon\u2019s Fields of Britannia<\/em> (et al<\/em>. 2015), Fulford and Holbrook\u2019s Small Towns of Roman Britain<\/em> (2015) and The Oxford Handbook of Roman Britain<\/em> (Millett et al<\/em>. 2016). Foremost amongst these must be Reading University\u2019s Roman Countryside series. Their first two volumes have recently been published, the Settlement Overview (Smith et al.<\/em> 2016) and Economy (Allen et al<\/em>. 2017), with the third on \u2018Life and Death\u2019 just issued (Smith et al<\/em>. 2018). Together with Oxford\u2019s EngLad Project (see e.g. Ten Harkel et al<\/em>. 2017), whose main volume is expected shortly, these are \u2018big data\u2019 studies. They arise from the fruits of almost three decades of developer-funded fieldwork in England and which, for obvious reasons, has been most intense in the southeast of the country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If added to all this are variously\ntopical PhDs (e.g. Parks 2012; Alaimo 2016; Albone 2016; Harlow 2017; Sutton\n2017 and Hargrave 2018), the many regional-period shorter excavation volumes,\namassed \u2018grey literature\u2019 and papers that have appeared over the last decade \u2013 amounting\nto many thousands of pages \u2013 within the set-format, the task at hand is simply\nimpossible and the days of easy \u2018pocket-size\u2019 regional research frameworks must\nnow be considered over. Indeed, this situation is only compounded in the\nknowledge that a number of truly vast multiple-site excavation programmes are currently\non-going in the region (e.g. A14 and Longstanton\/Northstowe), with others set\nto commence soon (e.g. Cambourne Phase 2 and Waterbeach). There is also the\nfact that, in the next few years, a series of crucial excavations will appear\nin print, including Oxford Archaeology East\u2019s (OAE) Love\u2019s Farm, Cambs. and the\nCambridge Archaeological Unit\u2019s (CAU) Cambridge Hinterlands<\/em> volumes. Short of instigating still another \u2018big data\u2019\noverview, there is simply no practical means to adequately synthesise so much\nhere and anything that is offered only amounts to interim remarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That so much relevant\nliterature is currently appearing can, of course, only be applauded and,\nparticularly, the Reading Project volumes provide a solid basis by which to\nprogress future fieldwork. Informing this should be Fulford and Holbrook’s\nrecent paper, \u2018Relevant Beyond the Roman Period \u2026\u2019 (2018) and its series of\nunderpinning practice, methodology and data-category articles issued on-line\n(see also Holbrook 2010).Arising from\nthis is a need for methodological\ninnovation<\/em>. By no means is this restricted to Late Iron Age and Romano-British\narchaeology. Yet, it becomes particularly pressing for those periods, due to\nwhat is known to be the high density of their settlements throughout much of\nthe eastern counties and, too, the scale of construction and excavation within\nthe region. Given this, and the character of the periods\u2019 settlements, there\nmay soon well be a risk of information\nredundancy <\/em>of some site-type categories. Accordingly, further\nmethodological experimentation \u2013 and \u2018science<\/em>\u2019\n\u2013 will be required to tease out new facets of the sites\u2019 data and to counteract\nwhat could soon verge into \u2018same-ness\u2019. Equally, there is pressing need for far greater statistical control of\nsite artefact densities<\/em>, so that depositional levels can be readily\ncompared against a range of settlement types (Evans 2012). <\/p>\n\n\n\n While providing a set (and\nuseable) settlement-type nomenclature, for our purposes the Reading Project studies\ndo not offer an easy \u2018fix\u2019. Their study\u2019s zones cross-cut and sub-divide the eastern\ncounties\u2019 political boundaries into three: The South, The East and The Central\nBelt (Smith et al<\/em>. 2016, fig. 1.5). Consequently,\nthe region\u2019s results are not there presented as a unified analytical \u2018block\u2019\n(nor by county). Working on a national scale, they had to draw their study-boundaries\nsomewhere. But, for us, the greatest problem with their analyses (based on\nNatural England\u2019s \u2018Natural Areas\u2019) is that \u2018The East\u2019, rather than being\nconfined to Norfolk and Suffolk \u2013 and what was arguably Iceni lands \u2013 extends\nwest as a tongue into South Cambs., North Essex and the northeast quarter of Herts..\nThis greatly complicates the use of the project\u2019s data for such issues as the\nnorthward expansion of Aylesford-Swarling traits.1<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n At a regional level, for the\nimmediate future an abiding research concern must, therefore, be to interrogate\nthe validity of these sub-divisions. Indeed, this can even potentially lead us\nto question whether the eastern region, as a whole, is any longer a valid\nframework of study and if, instead, sub-regionalities<\/em>\nshould be a main thrust. By the same token, there is also a need for\ncross-regional dialogue and comparison with neighbouring areas. The nature of\nthe region\u2019s regionality \u2013 in relationship to both landscape character and early\nsocio-political territories \u2013 are squarely addressed in Rippon\u2019s recent volume, Kingdom,\nCivitas and County \u2026<\/em> (2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mucking\u2019s protracted post-excavation\/publication\nuniquely reflects upon broader changes in interpretation within British archaeology\nand, in some respects, it is now a matter of it (re-)turning full-circle. When\nfieldwork commenced there in the 1960s, the Joneses approached its sequence in\nterms of the day\u2019s abiding historical-cultural paradigm, with incursions of \u2018Beaker\nFolk\u2019 and, later, the arrival of Saxon feoderati<\/em>.\nWith Grahame Clark\u2019s Invasion Hypothesis paper of 1966 \u2013 and then the impact of\n\u2018new archaeologies\u2019 by the day\u2019s young turks \u2013 such approaches were rejected\nout-of-hand and de facto<\/em> \u2018indigenous\u2019\ncontinuity became the rule (see Evans et\nal<\/em>. 2016, 525\u20136). Yet, now propelled by \u2018science\u2019, far more dynamic pasts<\/em> \u2013 especially within the\nThames Gateway-area \u2013 are once more being admitted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the case of Mucking, its later\nIron Age occupation was focused on three enclosures\/areas: the Northern\nEnclosure, RBI and the \u2018Belgic Banjo\u2019 (ibid<\/em>.,\n284\u2013360 & 464\u201373). Most significant, however, was the development of its\ncentral \u2018Plaza\u2019, with two sides consisting of interconnecting square barrows\nand its northern aspect framed by a dense array of raised granaries. Clearly a\nmajor ceremonial \u2018ground\u2019 and a very formal space, in the Conquest Period\/Early\nRoman times it was delineated by fence-lines. While none of the burials were\nparticularly rich, the layout-arrangement of the barrows shows strong\naffinities with France\u2019s Champagne Region interments. Add to this the\noccurrence of both Terra Rubra<\/em> and Nigra<\/em> within its assemblages \u2013 plus also\nthe enormous \u2018display\u2019 storage-capacity of its granaries \u2013 this surely suggests\na community exporting grain and one with close contacts to Gaul. In short, it\nis a highly dynamic picture that is presented and one very much relating to\nMucking\u2019s strategic locale. Perched on a raised terrace at the last bend of the\nThames, its downstream viewshed would, in effect, have had nothing between the\nviewer\/\u2019you\u2019 and the Continent (ibid<\/em>.,\n479\u201382 & fig. 6.3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This \u2018dynamism\u2019, though, is\nnot just a matter of direct cross-channel contacts, but also of potential\npopulation\/settlement shifts within the region. This sense of \u2018focal-shifts\u2019 underpinned\nJD Hill\u2019s 2007 paper, \u2018The dynamics of social change in Later Iron Age eastern\nand south-eastern England\u2019. This may now require reappraisal in the light of\nSealey\u2019s recent study of Essex\u2019s Late Iron Age, whose theme is summed up by its\ntitle, \u2019Where have all the people gone\u2019 (2016). In some contrast, and against a\nbackground of having five oppida, high densities of Late Iron Age sites are now\nwidely found in Hertfordshire.2<\/strong> What\nare we to make of this? Perhaps propelled in the case of Essex by Caesar\u2019s\ninvasion, are we really to the point of admitting large-scale population\ndisplacements and, once again, quasi-historical explanations?3 <\/strong>Certainly,\nto resolve such issues will demand far greater statistical control of\nperiod-specific settlement densities \u2013 plus, also, more rigorous radiocarbon\ndating \u2013 to demonstrate such \u2018flux\u2019 than is currently the norm in our practice.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Reading Project volumes\ndo, though, provide a basis to begin to address such themes. The Late Iron Age\nclearly saw an expansion of settlement, with between 60 and 85% of its\nsettlements as newly established (i.e. without \u2018Middle\u2019-period origins). Of\nthis range, the latter figure is from \u2018The East\u2019, whereas the 60% value is from\ntheir broad \u2018Central Belt\u2019, but with its eastern portion having a higher\npercentage of new foundations (Smith et\nal<\/em>. 2016, 83, 149\u201352, 206 & 214). Generally, only some 20% of these\nsettlements were abandoned with the Conquest, with the second century AD marking\nthe full impact of Romanisation. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Consisting of an 18ha\nexcavation along an inland gravel ridge (amid claylands) on the city\u2019s west\nside,North West Cambridge\u2019s\nsequence well-expresses this sense of flux. As opposed to its ridge-long\ndistribution of \u2018open\u2019 Early Iron Age settlements, there was only one\nsubstantial Middle Iron Age settlement; thereafter, there were three Late Iron\nAge farmsteads (just one having direct \u2018Middle\u2019-period continuity; Evans &\nCessford 2015; Smith et al<\/em>. 2016, 197\u20138,\nfig 5.56). <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In a belief that \u2018borders are\ngood to think with (too)\u2019 (after Levi-Strauss 1962) \u2013 if only to dispute and\ntest \u2013 the overarching framework of the region\u2019s Late Iron Age remains that of\nthe extent of the Aylesford-Swarling zone and the penetration of its hallmark\ntraits, north from the Thames Gateway-area into the eastern \u2018Central Belt\u2019\n(e.g. Hill et al<\/em>. 1999; Smith &\nFulford 2018, 350. That said, there remains the question whether there was a second,\neastern axis in Norfolk and North Suffolk \u2013 the Iceni lands (e.g. Davis 2009,\n2011 & 2014)4<\/strong> \u2013 and the degree\nto which they varied. Relating both to issues of identity and \u2018sponsored\npower\u2019, to this must be added the questions of emergent \u2018tribes\u2019 and the South\u2019s\n\u2018kingdoms\u2019, their varying contact with the Roman Empire, and how this influenced\nthe region\u2019s \u2018Romanisation\u2019 (e.g. Millett 1990, Creighton 2006 and Rippon 2018;\nsee also, e.g., Gardner 2013 on post-colonial perspectives of these processes).\nAs outlined below, recent years have seen this expressed in the occurrence of\nnear-matching square shrine complexes in both Kent and Bedford. By way of\nfurther example, there is the recovery of coin moulds at Braughing (see e.g. Landon\n2017) \u2013 plus, there, a uniface gold quarter-slater, common within the territory\nof the Morini (a Gaulish tribe in the Boulogne-Calais district; Anderson et al<\/em>. 2014) <\/strong>\u2013 or even that, dating to October\nAD 62 (and likely relating to post-Boudican reconstruction), one of the\nBloomberg tablets describes the transportation of \u201930 loads of provisions\u2019 from\nVerulamium to London (Tomlin 2016, 156\u20139; Thompson forthcoming). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The need to appreciate\n\u2018active\u2019 social dynamics is, if anything, even greater in Roman times and, for\nwhich, the identification of \u2018foreigners\u2019 \u2013 both through the scientific\nanalysis of human remains and artefact studies (e.g. Cool 2010; Eckardt et al<\/em>. 2014; Smith & Fulford 2018,\n352\u20133) \u2013 is becoming a major theme. By the same token, this sense of\n\u2018admixture\u2019 will surely also extend to social stratification and, for example,\nthe potential identification of slaves\/serfs (ibid<\/em>., 352\u20136). The application of scientific analyses is, moreover,\nsurely destined to distinguish a wide range of imported goods\/produce. Such instances\nnow include the dates within one of Mucking\u2019s graves (Lucy & Evans 2016, 322),\nstone pine cone remains within one of Great Holt Farm\u2019s wells (alongside rare\nbird species; Lodwick 2015, 62\u20133), imported Mediterranean timber at North West\nCambridge (Cessford & Evans 2014) or the use of exotic imported resin in\nthe Arrington child\u2019s burial and the evidence of frankincense within the West\nMersea Island barrow (respectively, Brettell et al<\/em>. 2014 & 2013)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Harvard is currently\nundertaking a major aDNA study of first millennium BC burials in Britain, in\nwhich samples from the region will feature highly. Their studies will also extend\nto Early Roman remains, and other aDNA programmes have and are being conducted including\nthe region\u2019s Romano-British populations (e.g. Voong et al<\/em>. 2017). Yet, when compared to the 1970s archaeology, it is striking\nthat \u2013 bulk environmental sampling aside \u2013 how much more emphasis was then generally\npaid to site-specific scientific techniques. Given the vast sums that now go\ninto the region\u2019s fieldwork in contrast to that era, if wishing to seriously explore\nmore dynamic and widely connected pasts then further resources should regularly\nbe directed towards \u2018hard science\u2019. In short, \u2018new science\u2019 allows us to ask\nnew questions of our data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Having outlined why, in the\nface of \u2018so much\u2019, the task at hand is essentially impossible, what features\nhere is inherently selective. There is, moreover, a degree of bias towards the\nCambridge Region. Admittedly this is influenced by its author\u2019s familiarity, but\nis justified given the scale of the area\u2019s recent construction and, with it,\nthe arising quantity of fieldwork, much of it involving enormous investigation\nprogrammes. Indeed, reflecting this, the first of the Reading Project volumes\nincludes a specific settlement case-study of Cambridgeshire Fen-edge. This\nencompasses a c<\/em>. 1200sqkm land-block\nextending west from the fen-edge across the West Anglian Plain to just east of\nBedford. Including both Godmanchester and Cambridge, it involves more than 100\nsite entries; whereas prior to PPG16 (1990) just one non-urban site had been\npublished from the area, 80% of the subsequent sites date between 2006 and 2014\n(Smith et al<\/em>. 2016, 192\u2013206; see,\nalso, Economic Matters<\/em> \u2026 below).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Having qualified the approach\nadopted here, a series of site-related themes and recent findings will now be\nreviewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2007 the University of\nNottingham have conducted research investigations at the \u2018green-field\u2019 Roman\ntown of Venta Icenorum<\/em> at Caistor St\nEdmund in Norfolk. Building upon Atkinson\u2019s 1929\u201335 campaigns, the current\nprogramme\u2019s massive 30ha geophysical mapping has informed its excavations (by\nthe Norfolk Archaeological Trust and volunteer groups; Bowden & Bescoby\n2008; Bowden 2012 and 2013). While the fieldwork has focused upon the area\nwithin the enormous triple-ditch enclosure that encompasses a larger swathe\nthan the town\u2019s later circuit, there have also been trench-investigations of,\nfor example, its streets and forum. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Vast-scale high resolution\ngeophysical surveys have also been conducted on other of the region\u2019s Roman\ntowns, including large transects at Durobrivae and where, bordering Ermine\nStreet, a major public building and a conjoining shrine\/temple complex has been\nplotted (Lockyear & Halliwell 2017; see also Hale 2016 concerning the 21ha\nsurvey undertaken at Orton Waterville). With other such surveys having occurred\non a range of sites in Hertfordshire, most notable amongst these has been the\nmapping of Verulamium. Not only is this a matter of its scale (c<\/em>. 65ha), but also for the remarkable\ndetail in which individual buildings have been revealed (Lockyear & Shlasko\n2017).5 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2008, Colchester has\nseen a number of major excavations, and understanding of its sequence and\nlayout has greatly benefitted through the issuing of its Urban Archaeological\nAssessment volume, Colchester: Fortress\nof the War God<\/em> (Gascoyne & Radford 2013; see also Fulford 2015, 60\u20131,\n68 & 73\u20134). Of the recent \u2018red-letter\u2019 sites within the Roman town proper,\nthat at Fenwick on the High Street must be prominent (Wightman & Crummy\n2017). Having evidence of a very early military building, whose replacement\nafter AD 49 was burnt down in the Boudican Rebellion, an extraordinary array of\ndomestic debris occurred within its fire horizons; apart from human remains,\nalso recovered was a bag of precious jewellery and coins (i.e. the \u2018Fenwick\nTreasure\u2019). Equally, there was the 2015 excavation at Castle House in the\nBailey. This unearthed robust, and much altered, Roman masonry remains relating\nto the arcade of the town\u2019s temple precinct (Shimmin 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Excavations have continued\nwithin the former Garrison lands on Colchester\u2019s southern extra-mural surround\nand where, now, c<\/em>. 200ha has been investigated\n(e.g. Brooks 2016).6<\/strong> Aside from\nfurther exposing the circus\u2019 masonry (Gascoyne & Radford 2013, 116\u201319,\nfigs. 7.9 & 7.23; Fulford 2015, figs. 9 & 14), these have further added\nto the area\u2019s enormous cemetery findings and where now, in total, over 1000\nburials have there been recovered. These include both inhumations and\ncremations, with some occurring within small ring-ditches\/barrows, a mausoleum\nwas also associated (there have also been major Roman-period cemetery\ninvestigations on the town\u2019s northern side; Fulford 2015, 73-5; Peece 2015, 143\n& 155, figs 3, 4 & 12).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of the region\u2019s small towns,\nthe final publication of the joint Norfolk and Suffolk Units\u2019 1993-94\nexcavation at Scole, where there was a major Roman road-crossing of the River\nWaveney, marks a major achievement (Ashwin & Tester 2014; see also Smith et al<\/em>. 2016, fig. 2.28). While lying\nperipheral to Scole\u2019s main \u2018small town\u2019 settlement (excavated in the 1970s),\nfrom the early second century AD it saw ribbon development involving a number\nof post- and slot-built structures. There was evidence of both ironworking and\ntanning, plus also probable brewing and malting activity, with a corndryer and\novens recovered. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Scole volume has detailed\nstudies of the sites\u2019 dark earth deposits, including distributional analyses\nand soil chemistry. With the environmental sequence of a river palaeochannel\nrecorded, arguably of greatest importance are the excavation\u2019s waterlogged\nstructural timbers. These not only occurred in a series of plank-revetted wells\n(one barrel stave-lined), but also large, leat-fed, steeping tanks. The latter\nincluded reused roof rafters, and there were also furniture pieces \u2013 a\nbench-end and what was probably a moulded table base \u2013 and other wooden objects\n(maple bowl blanks).7<\/strong> While at 4000\nidentified specimens, the sites\u2019 faunal assemblage was not massive, over 75,000\nsherds and 2000 coins were forthcoming. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there have been\nfurther excavations within Godmanchester\u2019s roadside suburbs (e.g. Rees 2014),\nand as outlined below a large tract of the town\u2019s southern hinterland fringe\nhas now been investigated (Patten 2016), in recent years there has been little\nexcavation within the town proper (e.g. Crummy & Phillips 2008). Augmented\nwith original archival material, Tim Malim has collected and edited Michael\nGreen\u2019s various Godmanchester papers into a volume (Green 2018). Now with\nMichael\u2019s passing, the County Council has acquired his archive and hopes to\ninstigate a publication-review project. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Roman Cambridge proper, at\nleast within Castle Hill\u2019s walled circuit, has also only seen limited-scale\nfieldwork. In addition to the excavation of a small lift shaft-cutting within\nShire Hall itself \u2013 but which yielded a significant mid-first century AD\nsequence and assemblages (Rees 2016) \u2013 the expansion of Kettle\u2019s Yard Gallery\nallowed for investigation of the Roman defences (also excavated there were a\nseries of wells backfilled with pargetted wall-render that evidently derived\nfrom a \u2018quality\u2019 building nearby; Brittain & Evans 2016, see also Evans &\nTen Harkel 2010). There has, however,\nbeen substantial excavations within Cambridge\u2019s immediate extra-mural\n\u2018surround\u2019. East of the river this includes the WYNG Site and the \u2018Triangle\u2019 in\nfront of St. John\u2019s College (Cessford 2017; Newman 2008). Also, just outside\nCambridge\u2019s southern walled perimeter, Roman occupation was revealed at\nWestminster College (Graham 2016) and nearby, down by the river, a later Roman\ninhumation cemetery was excavated at the School of Pythagoras (Newman 2013). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In\ntheir study of the local Horningsea pottery industry, Jeremy Evans (et al<\/em>. 2017) also appraised a number of\nthe town\u2019s earlier recovered assemblages. They pronounced\nthat the character of Roman Cambridge\u2019s pottery assemblage would not be of a typical\n\u2018urban-type\u2019. This, though, is qualified, largely in the light of its amphora:\n\u201cOverall the site [Castle Hill] has some urban characteristics and some rural\nones and perhaps ought to be regarded as something between a village and a\nsmall town\u201d (ibid<\/em>., 122\u201323).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The evidence of Cambridge\u2019s\nRoman settlement is further reviewed in the first of CAU\u2019s Hinterlands<\/em> books (Evans & Lucas forthcoming). Unfortunately,\nthis has demonstrated that significant quantities of relevant archaeology was,\ninexplicably, excluded from Alexander and Pullinger\u2019s Roman Cambridge<\/em> (2000) and, clearly, their records now warrant a\nmajor reassessment. It is equally apparent that, in order to understand\nCambridge\u2019s Roman hinterland, the earlier King\u2019s Hedges, Arbury and Teversham villa\nfindings require review and publication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With Great Chesterford\u2019s\nresults discussed in this contribution\u2019s various sections (see Medlycott 2011a),\nsince its publication, aside from a small-scale excavation of the town\u2019s wall\u2019s\nlocation (Miciak 2013), on its southwestern extra-mural side a small cemetery \u2013\nexclusively of teenagers and children \u2013 has been dug (Newton et al<\/em>. in prep.) and, on its southeast\nperimeter, the road to Radwinter has been traced (with a small cremation\ncemetery also excavated;Moan 2018;\nsee also Smith et al<\/em>. 2016, 237, fig.\n6.25). Further investigations of the region\u2019s \u2018small towns\u2019 and their immediate\nenvirons includes those at Wixoe, Suffolk (Atkins & Clarke 2018),\nBillingford, Norfolk (Wallis 2011) and Great Dunmow, Essex (e.g. Atkinson 2015;\nAdams & Atkinson 2016).8<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Often of rather ambiguous\nstatus has been the excavation and\/or publication of various forms of\n\u2018centres\u2019. Within the current nomenclature, these generally fall under the\numbrella of \u2018nucleated\u2019 or \u2018roadside settlements\u2019, but this really does little\njustice to their variability and, especially, their overlap with \u2018villages\u2019. In\nEssex\u2019s Blackwater Valley, Elms Farm, Heybridge would fall into this category\nand, having major assemblages \u2013 including more than six tonnes of Late Iron\nAge\/Roman pottery and 2,900 Roman coins \u2013 its long-anticipated publication is of\nmajor importance for regional studies (Atkinson & Preston 2015). Its burial\nevidence and temple complex are outlined in other sections herein. At its maximum\nextending over some 24ha, the settlement\u2019s origins dated back to the mid-first\ncentury BC. Although the evidence is rather fragmentary, this involved a\ncentral shrine and possible strip-plots. It was remodelled in the mid-first\ncentury AD when its metalled roads and temple precinct were laid-out. The\nearlier strip-plots were then formalised as enclosures, and its occupation was\ndense. Its development thereafter was essentially one of continuity and, while lasting\nuntil the fourth century AD, its later Roman manifestation saw a marked\ncontraction of settlement. While the economy was primarily agricultural \u2013 with\ntextile manufacture having some prominence \u2013 metal- and bone-working were\npracticed and there was pottery production. Also, relating to its estuarine\nlocation, there was inshore marine fishing and oyster harvesting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In total, extending over more\nthan 8ha, Roman Mucking is another settlement that has proven difficult to \u2018label\u2019\n(Lucy & Evans 2016). Its later Iron Age antecedents, the scale of its\npottery production and its five separate cemeteries are all outlined elsewhere\nherein. As attested by its many cemeteries, it would certainly seem a\n\u2018componented\u2019 place and one of distinct parts. These encompassed an early\nindustrial foci (the former \u2018Belgic Banjo\u2019-area), but with such activity also\nlater occurring within its more village-like southern sector. Yet, what seems\nto most characterise it was the north-central Central Enclosure. Coinciding in\npart with the Late Iron Age \u2018Plaza\u2019s\u2019 ceremonial space, this included a rebuilt\naisled building, a granary and, arguably, what was the ‘overseers\u2019 house\u2019\n(whose demolition resulted in a wealth of material backfilled into an enormous\nwell nearby). In the end it has been termed an estate centre, with additional\n\u2018village\u2019 components; the ambiguity of its appellation being intentional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lying on the opposite, west\nbank of the River Great Ouse from the Biddenham Loop\u2019s excavations (with its\nmany Roman-period farmsteads; see below), within the generic \u2018roadside\nsettlement\u2019 category would also be Kempston Church End (Luke 2016, 208\u201342; see\nalso Dawson 2004). Long-known, this settlement extended over 17ha and, just\n125\u2013175m wide, it continued for more than a kilometre along the riverside,\nwhere it was arranged around two main roads. Eventually having two main\ninhumation cemeteries (see below) and with many buildings present \u2013 some with\nstone footings \u2013 its Roman settlement foundations apparently grew out of a Late\nIron Age farmstead; though whether this was a directly ancestral\/causal\nrelationship (vs<\/em>. incidental) is\nquestionable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The canal-side \u2018port-village\u2019\nof Colne Fen\u2019s Camp Ground has previously been reported (Medlycott 2011b, 36;\nsee now Evans et al<\/em>. 2013, chaps 3\n& 4). What warrants mention here is that its polygonal layout and,\nspecifically, what was evidently its double-ditched embanked eastern circuit (ibid<\/em>., 216\u201320, fig. 3.26) has recently\nbeen paralleled with the multiple-ditched perimeter of the two main settlements\nexcavated at Northstowe\/Longstanton (see Evans et al<\/em>. 2008,174\u201381; Collin 2017). Located on an inland gravel rise\n(amid claylands), these lay just c<\/em>.\n700m apart. The one settlement, extending over 9ha, straddled a roadway (itself\nalso embanked) and, at one end, lay at a \u2018Y\u2019-shaped junction of routes (marked\nby a small shrine; Collins 2017). The other settlement, to the southwest, and\nwhose excavation is currently still on-going, is even more extensive (20ha+).\nIt lay at a crossroads and involved various distinct parts: a roadway-parallel\nstrip-settlement quarter and, in the north, a polygonal arrangement coming off\none side of the road. Between them was evidently a more \u2018official\u2019 quarter,\nwith evidence of a cistern water-supply system and a \u2018stone-featured\u2019 building;\nwith tiles, a stone column shaft and an altar recovered, the latter may have been\neither an official\u2019s residence or a mansio. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The crucial issue is, along\nwith that at Colne Fen\u2019s Camp Ground, what was the reason for their embanked\nperimeters? Having general affinities to that at Caistor St Edmund\/Venta Icenorum<\/em>, it has to be suspected\nthat they relate to perceived defensive needs, perhaps even in relationship to\nthe Fenland and Iceni territory in the aftermath of the Boudican rebellion. Among\nthe 12 LIA\/R-B settlements investigated in the course of the A14\u2019s works in\nCambs., said to relate to \u2018official\u2019 supply\/redistribution, a major \u2018centre\u2019\nhas also been excavated at Fenstanton. Equally, another of that programme\u2019s\nmajor Roman sites \u2013 at Offord Hill (TEA 20) \u2013 involved a double-ditched\nenclosure circuit and, having an impressive gateway, appears distinctly\nmilitary (Douthwaite 2018; CA<\/em> May\n2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n With other possible \u2018centre\u2019\nsettlements investigated at Addenbrooke\u2019s in Cambridge (Tabor 2015) and Great\nWalsingham, Norfolk (Smith et al<\/em>.\n2016, 40), these clearly evade ready categorization. By their size alone, they could\npotentially even suggest overlap with \u2018small towns\u2019; equally, though, their\ndifferentiation from \u2018villages\u2019 is not straightforward (ibid<\/em>., 37\u201342). A crucial issue will be\nthe degree to which they attest to either specialised craft\/industrial\nactivities and\/or market functions \u2013 or alternatively, in some cases, even\nstate\/estate supply \u2013 as opposed to a nucleated amalgamation of farming\nhouseholds. Within the mosaic\nof the countryside communities, such \u2018centres\u2019\nare evidently not easily pigeonholed into neat hierarchies. Of course,\nultimately, strict<\/em> categorisation is not the problem<\/em>, but\nrather the conditions that underpinned the existence of such widespread major\nsettlements in areas of the countryside.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As a formal \u2018type\u2019, villas\nare one category that have seen relatively little recent fieldwork. With so\nmany investigated pre-PPG 16, and largely without modern-standard analyses and\n\u2018science\u2019, further \u2018set-piece\u2019 excavations of them are required by which to\naddress issues of rural settlement hierarchy and their interrelationship with\nfarmsteads (see Smith et al<\/em>. 2016, 71\u20134;\nRippon 2018, 138\u201367 reviews the region\u2019s villas). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Dug by Central Unit in the\n1970s, OAE\u2019s publication of the Godmanchester\u2019s Rectory Farm villa should\nappear shortly (Fairburn 2015; Lyons forthcoming). Other villa excavations in\nrecent years include that at Itter Crescent in Walton, Peterborough (Lyons et al<\/em>. forthcoming), with others associated\nwith that near Hemel in Hertfordshire (e.g. Gleason 2015).9<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Further to this, there have\nbeen publications whose findings highlight issues of just how villas are\ndifferentiated from \u2018estate centres\u2019 and higher status settlement generally.\nPreviously widely portrayed as a villa \u2013 but lacking any hallmark architectural\nfootprint \u2013 Mucking would serve as a case in point (Lucy & Evans 2016).\nThere is also the bathhouse complex excavated at Newnham, alongside the Ouse\nnear Bedford, in the 1970s. As documented in Albion Archaeology\u2019s recent\npublication (Ingham et al<\/em>. 2016),\nthere a masonry building range (G39) was established in the early second\ncentury AD, which replaced the roundhouses and post-built rectangular\nstructures of its primary, Late Iron Age-Early Roman farmstead. While that\nrange was retained within the site\u2019s Phase 3 manifestation (early third to late\nthird\/early fourth century AD), then set north of it was an impressive,\nmasonry-built apsidal-ended bathouse complex, including a three-room hypocaust\nsystem (Building G65). Whereas the Building G39 range was demolished in the\nLate Roman period (Phase 4), the bathhouse saw usage into the mid-fourth\ncentury AD. Although little of the complex\u2019s associated enclosure system was\ninvestigated, there was evidence of both pottery production and ironworking.\nGiven this, and the quality of its buildings, from the second century AD the\nfarmstead is held to have developed into a high status agricultural estate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Apart from just formal\narchitectural-plan criteria, how \u2018estate centres\u2019 \u2013 as opposed to villas \u2013are\ndistinguished is not straightforward, with \u2018estates\u2019 themselves now risking\nbecoming something of a convenient catch-all category. At their core, estate\ncentres have to be considered as foci of production and the control of surplus,\nwhereas villas primarily related to consumption and distinct modes of conspicuous\narchitectural display.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The large-scale excavations\nundertaken by Archaeological Solutions at Cedars Park, Stowmarket between 1999\nand 2011 charts a similar trajectory. Achieving substantial assemblages (e.g.\n75 Roman coins, 13,000 animal bones and almost 15,500 sherds), its publication\nis significant (Nicholson & Woolhouse 2016). There, lying just c<\/em>. 150m apart, two sub-square Late Iron\nAge farmstead enclosures, with associated roundhouses (but not Middle Iron Age antecedents),\nwere excavated in their near-entirety (Areas D & F). Intriguingly, nearby\nthe one farmstead (c<\/em>. 200m distant),\nwas a comparable-size arrangement of two parallel boundary ditches, but aside\nfrom a few pits, this only had four-poster granaries (Area A). Their Area F\u2019s\nfarmstead enclosure saw direct continuity throughout Roman times and was\noccupied until the mid-fourth century AD. Covering c<\/em>. 110 x 60m, its Early Romano-British form (Phase 2) included a\nseries of roundhouses and just one, fairly modest, post-built rectangular\nstructure. In the subsequent phase (No. 3; mid-second to mid-third century AD)\nthis underwent considerable expansion and elaboration \u2013 with both ditched and\nfence-line sub-divisions \u2013 becoming a major farmstead complex. Arguably, it was\none of relative high status. Aside from two round buildings and at least two\nrectangular post and beam-slot structures, there was a major multiple-room\nbuilding range (Building 25). This was flint rubble-footed, with a tiled roof\nand had interior wall plaster. Lying separate, associated with it were two,\nsmall flint- and brick-built bathhouses. A series of possible kilns were\nrecovered and, altogether, there were seven infant burials (just two adult inhumations).\nThe main building range and its bathhouses evidently remained in use until the\nlate third\/early fourth century AD, but otherwise there was little \u2018Late\u2019-period\nusage (Phase 4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of Cedar Park\u2019s other main\nexcavation exposures\u2019 Roman sequences, two just saw lazy-bed trench systems (Areas\nC & F). While in Area A \u2013 in Phase 3 \u2013 a minor enclosure system \u2018framed\u2019\nthe earlier, Late Iron Age boundaries. This, though, was relatively \u2018open\u2019 and\napparently largely agricultural. The one post-built structure there being\nassociated with a droveway, \u2018drafting races\u2019 and a stock-fold. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Related issues arise in\nrelationship to the series of enormous aisled buildings investigated at\nWooditton (Mustchin et al<\/em>. 2016). It\nbroaches the entire question of whether aisled structures should be termed \u2018barns\u2019\nor \u2018halls\u2019 (e.g. Taylor 2013), and if the smaller ones (i.e. less than c<\/em>. 20m in length) had a specific\nagricultural function, as opposed to the larger, more grandiose aisled halls\nthat often accompany and\/or anticipated villas (Rippon 2018, 150\u20136, fig. 5.7).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consisting of six paired\npost-lines (13.5 x 6m), the aisled building excavated at Brandon Road,\nThetford\u2019s third century AD farmstead (Phase 3) would relate to the former\n\u2018barn\u2019 category (Atkins & Connor 2010). Reworking that settlement\u2019s quite\n\u2018open\u2019 Early Roman layout (Phase 2), with trackways and partial enclosure\nboundaries (with no definite buildings apart from two possible roundhouses),\nthe Mid-Roman, Phase 3 arrangement was considerably more regular\/rectilinear,\nwith four ditched fields running off of the southern side of a major northwest\u2013southeast oriented boundary.\nThe aisled building was located north of its line, where another post-built\nbarn and two other possible rectangular structures were located. The farmstead\nwas held to be of lowly status. By the fourth century AD (Phase 4), the timber\nbuildings no longer stood and there was a major rearrangement of its boundaries,\nwith separate more \u2018organic’-form\/curvilinear enclosures lying at either end of\nthe site; thereafter, in the fifth century AD, there was an extensive Early\nAnglo-Saxon settlement. What is interesting in this case is that the \u2018formality\u2019\nof the Romano-British system only seems to have been realised in the third\ncentury AD and appears to have been relatively short-lived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the major outcomes of\nthe Reading Project (Smith et al<\/em>.\n2016, 20\u20133) and remarked upon by others (e.g. Millet 2016) is \u2013 as opposed to\nearlier fixations with villas \u2013 that various forms of farmstead were the\ndominant settlement-type of the Romano-British countryside.10 <\/strong>In recent\nyears a number of relatively simple square\/rectangular-plan \u2018Early\u2019 farmstead\nenclosures have been excavated in the region. This would now also include, for\nexample, those at Bearscroft on the south side of Godmanchester and, nearby and\nadjacent to Ermine Street, at Papworth Everard (Patten 2012 and 2016). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Amongst the most significant investigations\nof the period\u2019s farmsteads is that by Albion Archaeology at Marsh Leys,\nalongside the River Great Ouse\u2019s Elstow Brook tributary south of Bedford (Luke\n& Preece 2011). Located just c<\/em>. 400m\napart, both were preceded by largely open, Late Iron Age settlements (Phase 3).\nLinked to a boundary system, one had a small trapezoidal-plan enclosure with a\n\u2018square\u2019 ditch setting within its interior (c<\/em>.\n6 x 7m); held to be a shrine, this is further discussed below. <\/p>\n\n\n\n With Farmstead 4 in the east,\nlaid-out alongside a trackway that probably also accessed the western farmstead\n(No. 5), involving rectangular paddocks and fields, the two Romano-British\nfarmsteads were only established in the second century AD (Phase 4); the western\n(No. 5) continued until Late Roman times (Phase 5). Both lack evidence of any\nkind of formal cemeteries \u2013 only scattered inhumations \u2013 and their structural\nremains were relatively slight, generally just consisting of shallow, variously\nparallel slots These were certainly not high status settlements and the\nimportance of the Marsh Leys investigations does not so much relate to the\ndetailing of their farmsteads\u2019 operations, but in the volume\u2019s comparative plan\nanalyses with other farmstead layouts (ibid<\/em>.,\n142\u201352) and the larger landscape-distribution perspective the investigations\nprovide (for which they incorporated the Biddenham Loop and Kempton Church End\nfindings: Luke 2016). Based variously on cropmark, surface collection and\nexcavation evidence, their mapping of the area\u2019s farmsteads is remarkable. They\nnot only indicate the settlements\u2019 core-paddocks, but also the extent of their\narable fields (ibid<\/em>., fig. 9.17),\nCertainly, they well-convey just how densely packed such farmsteads were along\nwaterways (ibid<\/em>. fig. 9.18).11<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the mapping of the\nBedford-area farmsteads, close-trench lazy-beds are, following earlier work in\nNorthamptonshire (Brown et al<\/em>. 2001),\ndesignated as vineyards. Such raised-bed fields are, however, now widespread,\nespecially in the northern, (east) Central Belt-area (Smith et al<\/em>. 2016, 183). Aside from those\nfeaturing in the Reading Project volumes, this now includes numerous exposures\nwithin the A14 sites, as well as, for example, Addenbrooke\u2019s (Phillips 2015), Godmanchester\n(Patten 2016), Papworth Everard (Patten 2012) and North West Cambridge\u2018s Sites\nVI and V (Cessford & Evans 2014; Brittain 2014). The latter of these is\nparticularly relevant as, situated on that area\u2019s ridge-side gravels \u2013 and\nwhich saw a dramatically fluctuating watertable \u2013 its parallel field-trenches\nwere linked by a ditch running downslope from wells in order to water crops\nduring dry months and, effectively, this amounted to a crude irrigation system.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given what is proving to be\nthe frequency of such raised-bed plots, it is simply inconceivable that these\nall related to viniculture, rather more general horticultural production seems\nlikely.12<\/strong> Alternatively, in low-lying situations\ntheir beds may have simply been raised to avoid the rotting of cereal-crop\nroots. As demonstrated in the Reading Project\u2019s studies, the frequency of such\nbedding plots within the West Anglian Plain clearly correlates with the fact\nthat, within their Central Belt zone, that area also shows the greatest\nrepresentation of horticultural crops (Smith et al<\/em>. 2016, 191\u20132; Lodwick 2017a, 73\u201380). Whatever their\nagricultural purpose, the mobilisation of labour represented by such\nlarge-scale intensive field-plots would have had significant social\nimplications. Clearly, their chronology\/longevity needs detailing, and\nunderstanding of these raised-bed systems will only be furthered by intense\nbulk environmental and pollen sampling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With, for example, the\npublication of the first phase of Cambourne\u2019s excavation (Wright et al<\/em>. 2009) or those sites nearby along\nthe route of the A428 (Abrams & Ingham 2008), and in the light of the\nnumber of the period\u2019s farmsteads this now entails, it is necessary that we\nrecognise just how few include the main \u2018hallmarks\u2019 of the period\u2019s agriculture:\naisled buildings and\/or corndryers.13 <\/strong>Yes,\nthese have been recorded on a number of sites, but they are certainly not\nuniversal and there is a pressing need to account for their presence\/absence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many designated \u2018farmstead\u2019\nsites actually do little to elucidate their distinctly agricultural activity. In\nsome contrast, Colne Fen\u2019s Langdale Hale\u2019s state-supply farm had a wide range\nof agricultural facilities: traction mills, a threshing circle and a series of\ngrain-parching flues. Linked by a road, its exported crops would have been\nstored within the Camp Ground\u2019s canal-side granary. Also evidently exporting\nmeat and hides, its distinct \u2018state\u2019 status could be further reflected in its\nall male burial populace (Evans et al<\/em>.\n2013, chap. 2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n At West\/North West Cambridge,\nthus far four of the six settlements excavated would fall into the category of\nfarmsteads (Cessford & Evans 2014; Evans & Lucas forthcoming). Having\nan aisled barn and, arguably, hosting a market, that at Vicars Farm was without\nany corndryer (Smith et al<\/em>. 2016,\nfig. 5.63). Yet, with high levels of animal bone \u2013 including infant livestock\nremains attesting to immediate-site breeding \u2013 does this imply more specialised\npastoral production? Conversely, nearby, North West Cambridge\u2019s Site II \u2018model\nfarm\u2019 had a corndryer, but otherwise its facilities (and animal bones) were\nonly modest (ibid<\/em>., fig. 5.56). Perhaps\nsuggesting more specialised arable production, in that case it is argued that\nit may have had a tenanted relationship to a nearby high status settlement. As\nopposed to Site II\u2019s \u2018simple\u2019 plan-layout, in Reading\u2019s nomenclature Vicars\nFarm ranks as a \u2018complex farmstead\u2019, with its larger size and paddock\nsub-divided plan arguably reflecting more intense livestock management (ibid<\/em>., 189). The point being that, given\nthe density of farmsteads now known in parts of the region, in light of their\nvarying topographic\/environmental conditions, there is no reason to suppose that uniformly mixed economies were\npractised<\/em>, and their variability and local networks requires nuancing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the region has some\n\u2018formal\u2019 double-rectangular-plan Romano-Celtic temples, there clearly also was\na wide range of other shrine structures. An \u2018engimatic\u2019 palisaded enclosure, excavated\nat Flixton Quarry in Suffolk\u2019s Waveney Valley, could fall into this category.\nWhile vaguely reminiscent of Early Bronze Age post settings, its 27m-diameter\ncircle was accompanied by a transitional pottery assemblage indicating a\nConquest Period date (Boulter & Walton Rogers 2012, 53\u201371, figs 4.1 &\n4.2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lacking ritual deposition,\nunto itself the above-mentioned small square-ditched LIA \u2018shrine\u2019 setting at\nMarsh Leys, Bedford is not particularly convincing (Luke & Preece 2011, 16\u201319).\nIts interpretation, though, gains credence in the context of the Biddenham\nLoop\u2019s \u2018squares\u2019 (Luke 2008 & 2016). In that project\u2019s first phase a\ndirectly comparable square-ditch setting was recovered, whose interior was\nmarked by a seven-posthole setting (4.25m square; L79, Luke 2008, 227\u201331). With\nvery few sherds recovered \u2013 plus some iron nails and a handful of animal bones\n\u2013 this was considered to be a possible LIA\/ER-B shrine. Thereafter, separated by\njust a 14m-wide corridor, two very similar square-ditch settings were recovered\nthat had small pits within their interiors (and not postholes). They lay within\na rectangular enclosure (its northern side was not exposed, but it could not\nhave encompassed the original L79 square). Again, despite the setting\u2019s 100%\nexcavation, aside from sparse flints and animal bones (and nails), it yielded\njust a few LIA\/ER-B sherds; the transitional attribution of the setting being\nconfirmed by a radiocarbon date (10\u2013130 cal. AD; Luke 2016, 295\u2013301). This was\ninterpreted as a ritual complex, with the square settings as shrines. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Within Cambridgeshire a\nbroadly comparable three-square cropmark group is known at Hemingford Grey (and\na comparable \u2018square\u2019 was excavated beside a cremation cemetery at North West Cambridge;\nCessford & Evans 2014; see also Maynard et\nal<\/em>. 1997, 24\u20136, figs 10 & 12). Yet, what is extraordinary in this regard\nis that, in 2015, at Orbital Park, Kent, a three \u2018square\u2019-setting was excavated\n(Clarke 2016) that provides a close-match for the Biddenham Loop complex. The\ntotal excavation of their ditches only yielded minor quantities of Late Iron\nAge pottery. The \u2018squares\u2019 were interpreted as possibly being mortuary\nenclosures relating to an as yet unidentified burial ground. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Without obvious ritual\ndeposits or human remains, there is ambiguity concerning the role of such\nsettings. With its internal postholes, the northernmost at Biddenham Loop is\ncertainly suggestive of some kind of shrine arrangement (plus the frequency of\nnails there). Yet, by the same token, there is no escaping their affinity to\nthe region\u2019s Late Iron Age square barrows, such as at Mucking (Evans et al<\/em>. 2016, 336\u201344 & 467\u201373) or at\nBrisley Farm, Ashford in Kent (Stevenson 2013). If the latter, then their\ninterments must have lain on the ground surface and been ploughed-out; some\nresolution to this could be forthcoming if the opportunity arose to\nhand-excavate their overburden cover. Whatever their actual function, these LIA\nsettings must directly reflect the Aylesford-Swarling zone\/\u2019province\u2019, with the\nBedford-area findings apparently marking its northern extent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Beam-slot constructed, small\nrectangular shrine structures, variously of LIA and ER-B date, continue to be\nforthcoming.14<\/strong> While also lacking\nobvious votive finds deposits per se<\/em>,\none of Late Iron Age date at Duxford was associated with a cemetery (Structure\n2; Lyons 2011, 36\u20138). That at Colne Fen\u2019s Camp Ground was of Conquest Period\/\nEarly Roman date (Str. 4; Evans et al<\/em>.\n2013, 238\u20139) and, of sub-square plan (c<\/em>.\n7m across), had opposed entranceways on its northwestern and southeastern\naspects. Also at that port-village settlement, set centrally within a prominent\nroadside enclosure, was a still smaller \u2018square\u2019 (2.5 x 3m) that simply\nconsisted of two parallel slots (Str. 6, ibid<\/em>.).\nWhile its slight traces means that any certainty of its attribution is\nimpossible, given its location\/setting it was speculated that it could have\nmarked a small roadside shrine. Indeed, it is even conceivable that it might\nhave related to the monumental stone Jupiter bust \u2013 with the front paws of a\nfeline (lion, sphinx or griffin) surviving above \u2013 but which had been\nredeposited elsewhere on the site (ibid<\/em>.,\n228\u201330). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Albeit of quite modest build\n(i.e. non-masonry) and having only a few obviously votive finds, the Scole\nexcavations included part of a small rectangular temple or shrine (Shelley\n2014). Archaeology South-East\u2019s excavation near Kings Warren, Red Lodge in\nSuffolk (ASE 2018) revealed that an Early Bronze Age ring-ditch had both been\nrecut and had a rectangular enclosure constructed around it in Roman times. Just\neast of the earlier monument, there was a small rectangular structure evidently\nhaving painted plastered walls and a tiled roof. Interpreted as a shrine, this\nhad \u2018structured\u2019 animal deposits (including a pig\u2019s head-and-hoof setting) and\nother votive artefact settings associated. Similarly, \u2018special\u2019 deposits were\nassociated with the more recently recovered coin moulds at Braughing (e.g. Hunn\n2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Elms Farm, Heybridge\u2019s\n\u2018formal\u2019 temple complex was certainly amongst the most elaborate within the\nregion (Atkinson & Preston 2015, 87\u2013104). It was preceded by a pair of\nsmall LIA shrines (Buildings 7 & 8), one circular and, the other, a small\nsquare-setting reminiscent of those discussed above. In Early Roman times\n(Phase 2B), two short-lived ‘square-ish’ beam-slot structures (Nos 27 & 28)\nwere replaced with a massive temple complex. In the main, this involved a\n11m-diamater cella<\/em>set within a porticoed trapezoidal enclosure\n(Buildings 34 & 35), conjoined on its southern side by a square building\n(No. 33) with concentric internal sub-division \u2018passages\u2019. This, thereafter, was\nexpanded with the addition of new buildings and ranges (Phase 3A). In the mid-second\ncentury AD it was radically altered. The existing buildings were levelled, with\nthe cella<\/em> rebuilt in the same\nposition, but which now had an altar supported on a masonry plinth within its\ninterior. What had been the larger complex\u2019s area was then delineated by posts\nto form an open precinct (Open Area 23). While undergoing minor modifications in\nlater Roman times, the complex apparently continued to function throughout the\nfourth century AD. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Relating to this theme,\nnoteworthy is Albion Archaeology\u2019s excavation of a seemingly \u2018classical\u2019\ntemple-like cella<\/em>\/temenos<\/em> enclosure at the NIAB Lands\/Darwin\nClose on the west side of Cambridge (Barker &\nMeckseper 2015;\nSmith et al<\/em>. 2016, fig. 5.37). Lying\nat a slight remove from settlement in open-ground, the \u2018formality\u2019 of its\nlayout is striking. Although having no ritual deposition associated (and negligible\nfinds generally), by its plan its religious affiliation seems without question,\nand certainly it contrasts with the more \u2018native\u2019 ritual\npractices\/architectures of the Vicars Farm settlement nearby (Evans & Lucas\nforthcoming). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Medlycott\u2019s Great Chesterford\nsurvey-publication not only includes the Late Iron Age rectangular shrine and\nRoman temple (with fine mosaics) located east, outside its circuit, and by the\nRiver Slade (2011a, 75\u201385), but also religious findings in and around the town\nitself. Amongst the latter are a possible octagonal temple, a beehive shrine\nand the recovery of a Jupiter column base (ibid<\/em>.,\n85\u20139). Also reported is an apsidal building \u2013 possibly a shrine or, even, an\nearly church \u2013 plus the town\u2019s various votive finds and a series of ritual\nshafts\/pits (ibid<\/em>. 89\u201393); the latter\npossibly having affinities to Cambridge\u2019s Ridgeons Gardens Site\u2019s shaft\ndeposits (Alexander and Pullinger 2000, 53\u20137). <\/p>\n\n\n\n An overview of Harlow\u2019s\nStanegrove temple complex is provided in Rippon\u2019s recent volume, which also\nreviews other religious sites in the region (2018, 127\u201337).15 <\/strong>Certainly, the paucity of explicitly ritual deposition on many\nof these \u2018formal\u2019 religious sites stands in some contrast to what is held to be\nwidespread \u2018placed\u2019 deposition in domestic contexts (see Smith 2016 for\noverview). While not relating to the as yet unidentified temple from which the renowned\nBarkway Hoard presumably derived, starting from the second quarter of the first\ncentury AD significant ritual deposits\/practices \u2013 relating to both feasting\nand funerals \u2013 have been found associated with the enclosures at Ashwell,\nHerts. (Jackson & Burleigh 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Over the last decade\nsubstantial Late Iron Age cremation cemeteries have been excavated at and\/or\npublished from Stansted (Cooke et al<\/em>.\n2008), Mucking (Evans et al<\/em>. 2016),\nand Bedford\u2019s Biddenham Loop. Involving 16 interments of late first century BC to\nlate first century AD date, the occurrence at the latter site is particularly\nsignificant (Luke 2008, 213\u201326). Coinciding with the area\u2019s square \u2018shrine\u2019\nsettings (see above), they represent distinctly Aylesford-Swarling traits.\nPyre-related features were also recovered in association there and \u2013 arranged\nlinearly \u2013 many such features were excavated in Elms Farm\u2019s \u2018pyre field\u2019\n(Atkinson & Preston 2015, 117\u201325; see Harding 2016, 145\u201362 concerning the\nSouth-East\u2019s Late Iron Age cremation practices generally).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of the periods\u2019 burial\npractices, amongst the most important excavations published in recent years is OAE\u2019s\nexcavations at Duxford (Lyons 2011). Amidst Iron Age and Roman-period\nsettlement features, in total 27 burials were recovered (excluding the three of\nEarly\u2013Middle Iron Age date). These were assigned to four burial groupings (ibid<\/em>., 38\u201349 & 118\u20139, fig. 24). Of\nLate Iron Age to Early Roman attribution (based on grave goods and an extensive\nradiocarbon dating programme), aside from two cremations \u2013 one specifically\nLate Iron Age; the other, mid-first century AD \u2013 these were all inhumations and\nnearly all were supine. A number were associated with a rectangular-plan shrine\nstructure and at least seven appear to be of Late Iron Age date. Yet, only a few\nof the latter had any grave goods, <\/strong>with\njust two accompanied with pots (one also having a pig skeleton).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This distinction of a Late\nIron Age inhumation rite relates to just how widely Early and Middle Iron Age\ninhumations are currently recovered and are now firmly established as those\nperiods\u2019 main burial tradition (Harding 2016). Within the region, the\noccurrence of \u2018Late\u2019-period inhumations was, in fact, first recognised by Fox\n(1923, 97) and is also, for example, a feature of Kent\u2019s Late Iron Age\ncemeteries (e.g. Biddulph 2006; Booth 2017). <\/strong>This was an issue raised in\nrelationship to the Hinxton Rings cemetery\u2019s interments (Hill et al<\/em>. 1999) and, since, later Iron Age\ninhumations have been recovered on a number of sites, including the Biddenham\nLoop (Luke 2008, 201\u20132 & 212) and the Babraham Institute (see Evans et al<\/em>. 2008, 12, fig. 1.10; see, also,\nSmith 2018b, 218\u201322). The latter deserves notice as, occurring near an\nunaccompanied male, an adult female there had a Colchester-type brooch and, by\nher head, a beaker and a pedestal tazza. Yet, most of these Late Iron Age\/first\ncentury AD inhumations are without grave goods and this \u2013 especially the lack\nof accompanying brooches \u2013 seems in contrast to contemporary cremation burials.\nAccordingly, the implications of these \u2018mixed\u2019 rites are potentially great: was\nit a matter of status, different beliefs and\/or populations? Certainly, further\nradiocarbon dating of such interments will be necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Relevant here, but rather\nsuggesting some manner of Late Iron Age sub-regional grouping \u2013 one thus far seemingly\nfocussed on the Cambridge Region \u2013 are a series of small, 3\u20137m diameter,\nindividual cremation-ring settings. First found at Hinxton (Hill et al<\/em>. 1999), three recently occurred\ntogether in an Addenbrooke\u2019s landscape investigation (Tabor 2018), with still\nanother at North West Cambridge\u2019s Site IV (Cessford & Evans 2014), and two\nmore have just been excavated at Northstowe (Collins and Aldred in prep.). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Aside from those cemeteries\ncited elsewhere in this contribution, particularly those in town suburbs (see e.g.\nMedlycott 2011a, 95\u2013102 concerning Great Chesterford\u2019s some 80 cremations and\n200 inhumations), substantial Roman-period inhumation cemeteries have been\ninvestigated at, for example, Biddenham Loop and Mentley Lane\/Wallace Lands at\nSkeleton Green. Of the latter, expanding upon earlier excavations there, and\nnear to the settlement of Braughing, further excavations occurred in 2011 and\n2013 (Anderson et al<\/em>. 2014). This\nentailed more than 200 cremations (most urned) and almost 100 inhumations. The\nlatter variously dated from the Late Iron Age to Late Roman times. Eight,\ngenerally rectangular, shallow-ditch mortuary enclosures delineated individual\ninhumations; whereas a more robustly ditched, circular \u2018ring-ditch\u2019 setting \u2013\nhaving cremated bone recovered from its centre (and both Late Iron Age and\nlater Roman pottery within the ditch\u2019s fills) \u2013 had six mid\u2013later Roman inhumations\nwithin its interior.16 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n With only one exception,\nfewer than four burials were associated with each of Biddenham Loop\u2019s\nfarmsteads. However, further suggesting that some later Roman cemeteries may\nhave involved larger-scale burial communities (i.e. non-individual settlement-specific),\na more substantial cemetery \u2013 with 32 inhumations \u2013 was associated with one of\nits farmsteads (SL544). This was sub-divided into two distinct sectors (with\none having two further sub-groupings separate from the main burial plot). Of\nthese, six had grave goods, with just one being decapitated (Luke 2016,\n315\u201321). The two inhumation cemeteries associated with Kempston Church End\u2019s\nadjacent roadside settlement, on the opposite side of the river, each contained\nc<\/em>. 100 graves (Boylston et al<\/em>. 2000; Dawson 2004, 48, 55\u20137; Luke\nand Preece 2017). <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Occurring within five\nseparate cemeteries, the publication of Mucking\u2019s some 185 Romano-British\nburials attests to the \u2018componented\u2019 nature of its Roman-phase settlement\u2019s\nlayout (Lucy & Evans 2016, chap. 4; Smith et al<\/em>. 2018, fig. 6.27). Reflective of its \u2018many parts\u2019, there was\nwide variability in the frequency\/quantity of their accompanying grave goods,\nwith some being very well-furnished and one occurring within a stone coffin.\nWhile many sand-stain inhumation plans were forthcoming, it is unfortunate that\nthe site\u2019s acid-soil conditions did not allow for the survival of their bone.\nIn most instances, therefore, they lack basic \u2018bio-data\u2019 information (e.g.\nsexing). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The geophysical surveys and\ntargeted trial trenching undertaken at Bartlow, Cambs. \u2013 in the immediate\nenvirons of Britain\u2019s largest Roman barrows \u2013 provided crucial context to their\nearlier antiquarian findings. Not only was its associated settlement\nidentified, but also an enclosing linear earthwork (Eckardt et al<\/em>. 2009a & b).17 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Somewhat surprisingly, in\nCambridge\u2019s Castle Hill extra-mural \u2018surround\u2019 the recovery of burial activity\nhas largely been restricted to its riverside swathe. This includes\nwater-disturbed remains at the WYNG Site (Cessford 2017) and, nearby,\ninhumations at the School of Pythagoras (Mecksper et al<\/em>. 2011; Newman 2013). Further afield in its hinterland, OAE\nhave excavated cemeteries in the course of both their Clay Farm investigations,\nsouth by Addenbrooke\u2019s (Phillips & Mortimer 2012; see also Tabor 2015) and,\nto the east, at Hatherdene Close, Cherry Hinton (Ladd & Mortimer 2017). The\nlatter involved a cremation set within a square-ditch setting, a disturbed\ndouble inhumation within a larger ditched square barrow and another inhumation\nwithin a separate funerary enclosure, with six other cremation burials also\npresent (two of Late Roman date); the mortuary complex subsequently became the\nfocus of a major Early Anglo-Saxon cemetery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A number of cemeteries have now\nbeen investigated within Roman Cambridge\u2019s western hinterland. Including those\nearlier dug at Vicar\u2019s Farm (x two) and New Hall, the University\u2019s North West\ncampus development and the adjacent, Albion Archaeology\u2019s NIAB Lands\/Darwin\nClose excavations, these now amount to nine in total (five cremation and four\ninhumation cemeteries). There, each hinterland settlement apparently had its\ncemetery and, often, two. Remarkably, orientation patterning seems apparent\nwithin their respective locations, with the 5\u201314 interment cremation cemeteries\noccurring on the north side of their early settlement cores and, then, their\nlater inhumations situated on their southern flanks (13\u201351 burials each).\nSignificantly, the inhumation cemeteries can lie at a considerable distance\nfrom their settlements: c<\/em>. 75m in the\ncase of Vicars Farm\u2019s developed farmstead (Smith et al<\/em>. 2018, 243\u20134 & fig. 6.30) and, at Foxton in Duxford, the\ndistance was even greater (c<\/em>. 200m; Maynard\net al<\/em>. 1997, 32\u20136, figs 15 & 16).\nSuch \u2018outlying\u2019 locations might, in part, explain why contemporary burial plots\nare often not found in the period\u2019s settlement excavations. Equally, though, on\nmany settlements formal burial many not have been the norm and, in this\ncapacity, the context of disarticulated remains deserves close study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With there having been so\nmany Roman-period burials excavated within the region, it becomes difficult to\nsingle out any. Accompanied with dog on the pyre, and with the deceased\napparently burnt on some manner of wooden couch, one would have to be the fourth\ncentury AD Bustam cremation at the Biddenham Loop (Luke 2016, 310). Another\nBustam cremation in Colchester\u2019s Garrison cemetery also deserves mention, as\ndoes that site\u2019s individual \u2018ring-fenced\u2019 interment settings (Current Archaeology\/CA<\/em> March 2013). The\nflint nodule-packed burials amongst the 85 Late Roman inhumations at Great Ellingham,\nNorfolk are certainly noteworthy (CA<\/em>\nJuly 2012) and, of recently published findings, the surviving timber coffin\nburial of a two to three year-old infant \u2013 itself set within a timber chamber \u2013\nat Scole\u2019s excavations alongside the River Waveney should also be highlighted\n(Ashwin & Tester 2014, 35, fig. 2.11 & pl. 2.4). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The frequency of deviant\nburials within their \u2018Central Belt\u2019 was stressed in the Reading Project review\n(Smith et al<\/em>. 2018, 226\u201331 & fig.\n6.16). In this context, Crerar\u2019s detailed case-study of Cambridgeshire\u2019s\ndecapitation burials within The Oxford\nHandbook \u2026<\/em> is pertinent (2016, 389\u2013400; see also, e.g. Tucker 2013); there\nbeing 59 such interments out of the 628 inhumations from the 30 later Roman\ninhumation sites considered. Amounting\nto 9% overall, in some cemetery-sectors, such as at Knobbs Farm, Somersham, this\nrises to 46% (see Evans et al<\/em>. 2013,\n464\u201373; subsequent excavations there post-dated Crerar\u2019s analysis). At these\nkind of levels \u2013 plus the fact that some are associated with distinct grave\ngoods (Nene Valley face-urns) \u2013 decapitation burials clearly cannot just be\nattributed to \u2018deviancy\u2019\/\u2019illness\u2019 and, rather, they must reflect a distinct\ncult-based practice. Its spread was evidently far from uniform and, in the\nlight of its \u2018Late\u2019 dating, documenting its source-impetus and relationship to\nChristianity will surely be a significant field of study.18 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Similarly, neonate burials\nalso display wide variability in their frequency, with some settlements \u2013 such\nas the Itter Crescent villa (Lyons forthcoming) and Colne Fen\u2019s Camp Ground (Dodwell\n2013, 235\u20136, fig. 3.34 & table 3.10) \u2013 having very high numbers (see also,\ne.g. Millett & Gowland 2015).19<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n In part overlapping with the\narea of the Reading Project\u2019s first volume\u2019s Cambridgeshire Fen-edge\ncase-study, their second volume develops upon this with a detailed study of the\nWest Anglian Plain\u2019s agricultural economy (Lodwick 2017a, 26\u20138 and Allen &\nLodwick 2017, 147\u201354). Of its crop remains, while glume wheats dominate most of\nthe Late Iron Age assemblages, the representation of barley is nonetheless\nsubstantial. Thereafter, in Early Roman assemblages, the latter\u2019s values drop\nmarkedly and the \u2018Middle\/Late\u2019-period\u2019s are entirely dominated by glume wheats,\nparticularly spelt (at the expense of emmer). This is thought to attest to\nagricultural \u2018extensification\u2019 and an expansion of cultivation but without an\nincreased manuring input (ibid<\/em>., figs\n4.2\u20134.4; see also, e.g., Van der Veen 2016 and Van der Veen & O\u2019Connor 1998).\nEqually, while during the Late Iron Age sheep\/goat and cattle remains generally\noccur in comparable proportions,20<\/strong>\nfrom the second century AD there was a distinct increase in cattle (especially\non complex farmsteads) and, by mid\u2013later Roman times \u2013 with the exception of\nsome roadside settlements \u2013 cattle clearly dominate. Occurring at levels of 50%\n(NISP) and more, the concurrent increase in the maturity of cattle on many\nrural settlements is understood to indicate an investment in tillage and transport.\nAlong with the establishment of the area\u2019s extensive transportation network, taken\ntogether all this may reflect the external export of the area\u2019s agricultural\nproduce. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While the basic picture presented \u2013 the dominance of spelt wheat and cattle \u2013 is true of the region as a whole, and generally the assemblages show relatively little variably, there are exceptions. This largely occurs in the representation of pigs and horse, with the latter evidently seeing specialised breeding in some Roman-period settlements. Very occasionally, a few sites, such as that at Edix Hill and in one of Godmanchester\u2019s farmsteads \u2013 as well as some in the Fenland, and more widely in urban and shrine\/temple contexts \u2013 sheep\/goat values exceed those of cattle (Smith et al<\/em>. 2016, 239). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The periods\u2019 assemblages usually\nonly evince very limited\/negligible \u2018wild\u2019 exploitation (see Allen 2018 for\noverview). Unsurprisingly, the main exceptions to this occur in the Fens; for\nexample, it constituted c<\/em>. 5% of The\nCamp Ground\u2019s assemblage and there, aside from 12 avian species (plus deer and\nfox), otter occurred in sufficient numbers to suggest a degree of dedicated\nhunting (Higbee 2013, 383). At that site and the neighbouring Langdale Hale\nfarmstead, substantial assemblages of freshwater fish bone were also recovered.\nIn some contexts, such as in a well at the latter where more than 11,000\nspecimens were present, this presumably related to the production of garum<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As outlined elsewhere in this\ncontribution, urban contexts aside, the exploitation\/consumption of marine fish\nspecies seems restricted to (near-)coastal settlements, such as Elms Farm,\nHeybridge or Stanford Wharf. That said, the consumption of oysters was clearly much\nmore widespread and, requiring \u2018fresh\u2019 transport, the determination of what\ntype of settlements received regular supplies could prove an important\nindicator of status. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is thought that the cultivation of flax was almost exclusive to the Fens and major river valleys. Otherwise, of the non-cereal plant foods \u2013 pulses, fruits and horticultural produce \u2013 many of these were amongst the 50 plant foods that van der Veen identified as being introduced in the Roman period (2008). These \u2018elite\u2019 foods appear soon after the Conquest on military sites and in major urban centres, only occurring on higher status rural settlements in \u2018later\u2019 times, when the inhabitants of roadside settlements, villas and some complex farmsteads evidently had access to a wider variety of food stuffs than other rural settlements (Smith et al<\/em>. 2016, 191\u20132). Many of these more exotic plants are only recovered from waterlogged contexts, and \u2013 including grape, marigold, fig, fennel and opium poppy, along with other plants and trees \u2013 those from a pond associated with Godmanchester’s Rectory Farm villa are said to be reminiscent of a \u2018Mediterranean-style\u2019 garden (Smith et al<\/em>. 2016; 205 and Lyons forthcoming; see Note 10 for grape cultivation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jeremy Evans and colleagues\u2019\n2017 Horningsea Industry volume represents a major synthetic overview of the\npottery\u2019s production and distribution, and it also analyses a number of the\nCambridge-north Roman assemblages. The volume arose as a result of the 1993 and\n1997 excavations near the southern end of the Car Dyke\/Old Tillage canal and close\nto its junction with the River Cam. Amongst the fieldwork\u2019s components was a mid-second\ncentury AD kiln and, in 2010, two Horningsea Ware kilns were excavated nearby\nin Waterbeach (Newton & Peachey 2012). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The publication of Mucking\u2019s\n23 pottery kilns has been long-awaited (Lucy & Evans 2016). Analysis shows\nthat the grey and black burnished wares produced in its seven mid\u2013later Roman up-draught\nkilns was being exported to Hadrian\u2019s Wall. Pre-Conquest kilns also occurred at\nMucking (Evans et al<\/em>. 2016, 450\u20131)\nand Oxford Archaeology have apparently excavated a (imitation) Terra Rubra<\/em> kiln at Bricket Wood,\nHerts., south of St Albans (Poole et al<\/em>.\n2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Early Roman kilns are now,\notherwise, being widely encountered (e.g. Lyons & Blackbourn 2017, 43\u20136,\nfig. 13).21 <\/strong>Usually this only\namounts to one or two within any settlement and they attest to just how local\nwas the region\u2019s pottery production prior to the second\/third century. Of\nsignificant note are the six kilns at a riverside settlement at Duxford, and it\nis argued that their production may have been by non-local potters, possibly\nContinental (Anderson & Woolhouse 2016). Also, in 2016, eight kilns were\nexcavated at Brampton (Lyons & Blackbourn 2017). It is posited that their\ndesign and furnishings are unusual when compared to others in Cambridgeshire\nand might reflect the influence of Upper Nene Valley\/Northamptonshire\ncommunities. Equally, it is suggested that, for a generation after the\nConquest, the work of the local potters might reflect links with nearby Godmanchester\nand its fort.22 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Pottery is only one component\nof Perring and Pitts\u2019 Alien Cities<\/em> \u2026\nvolume studies (2013). Its multivariate analysis of Essex and broader\nColchester environs\u2019 assemblages provides major insights into Conquest\nPeriod\/Early Roman pottery usage, as well as urban and<\/em> rural patterns of supply and consumption generally.23<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Alongside a consideration of\nthe representation of samian and amphorae in the countryside as a whole\n(Brindle 2017a), the second Reading Project volume includes Rippon\u2019s study of the\nEastern Region\u2019s coarse wares (2017, see also 2018, 172\u201398), and his analyses\nand mapping are of tremendous research value. Referring to earlier-era \u2018distance-decay\u2019\nmodels (ibid<\/em>., 340\u20131, fig. 7.39),\nwhile some of these take into account \u2018pulled distortions\u2019 along transport\nnetworks, the impact of the region\u2019s coastal supply needs also to be acknowledged.\nIn this regard, The Camp Grounds\u2019 more than 73,000-sherd assemblage provides\ninsights, particularly its \u2018Late\u2019 wares (Evans et al<\/em>. 2013, 451, figs 4.62 & 4.63). With both East Anglian Mortaria\nand Portchester Ware occurring \u2013 the latter as an isolated outlier and some\n50km north of its previous distributional range \u2013 these were held to reflect\ncoastal trade; their inland penetration to that port-village being via The Wash\nand the Fenland\u2019s waterways.24<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n With its revetted channels\nand probable boathouse (plus extensive scientific and environmental studies),\nOxford Archaeology\u2019s large-scale excavations at Stanford Wharf, beside the\nThames and just below Mucking, highlighted both the importance of Roman-period\ncoastal trade and estuarine resources (Biddulph et al<\/em>. 2012; see, also, Biddulph 2017 and Ennis 2014).25<\/strong> Thought likely to relate to garum <\/em>production, great quantities of\nsmall fish bones \u2013 most juvenile herrings or sprats and juvenile smelts \u2013 were\nrecovered in some contexts. While also seeing evidence of Early Roman salt\nproduction, this industry evidently expanded in later-period times, with five\nsalterns of that date excavated. More than 170kg of Roman briquetage and fired clay\nwas recovered in total and, together, the excavations greatly detail the\noperation of the period\u2019s salt manufacture. Of much smaller scale, later Iron\nAge and Roman salt production sites continue to be excavated in the Fenlands (Lane\net al<\/em>. forthcoming; see also Lane et al<\/em>. 2008).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Evidence of low-level\nironworking has been found on a wide range of rural sites throughout the region\n(e.g. Wilson et al<\/em>. 2012; Luke & Preece2011, 163\u20135) and, in this capacity,\nthe dynamics of scrap-metal recycling \u2013 particularly of military-source\nmaterial on domestic settlements \u2013 warrants study. Not surprisingly, evidence\nof more intensive industrial activity comes from the northern, Peterborough-area\ndue to its proximity to Midlands\u2019 iron sources (e.g. Francis & Richmond2017 and Knight & Gibson 2002; see\nalso Smith in Allen et al<\/em>. 2017, 179\u201388,\nfig. 5.1). That said, other sources may also have been exploited. Thought to\nderive from the thick iron pan beds exposed through the contemporary drainage\nof an adjacent marsh embayment, what appears to be bog iron nodules were\nrecovered at Langdale Hale\u2019s settlement (Salter 2013). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In support of the period\u2019s\ndense farmsteads and intense agricultural production, the scale of Roman quern manufacture\nand trade is a crucial topic, to which Chris Green\u2019s Gaddesden, Herts., investigations\nrepresents a major contribution (see Green Dynamic Pasts <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Major Projects and Themes<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Towns, \u2018Centres\u2019 and Villages <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Rural Settlement \u2013 Villas and\nFarmsteads<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Shrines and Temples – Religious Structures and Finds<\/em> <\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Cemeteries<\/em> <\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Economic Matters \u2013 Food Stuffs<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Pottery and Industry <\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n