Total posts:
187
07/17/2008
As promised here are more details about the Quadrans which was recorded with me from Cheshire. I have been really lucky as this is my 2nd one of these in less than 18 months (there are less than 10 on the PAS database I think).
This one is a Quadrans of Antoninus Pius (138-161), minted in Rome, 140-144 AD. It seems to be an unpublished variety of quadrans which makes it an even more important find. As well as being a rare denomination of coin, it could be unique! And this is a coin which was in a bag with c.100 other Roman ‘grots’
The coin is recorded as LVPL-F139A5
Obverse- Laureate head right
Reverse- Two clasped hands, holding cauceus and two corn ears
06/23/2008
Last week Sam Moorhead, the Roman coins advisor for the PAS visited me to spend 2 days identifiying a large assemblage of Roman coins from South Cheshire (and other bits and pieces I saved up as he is so quick at them!). Prior to last week there were 240 Roman coins on the database from Cheshire, on Thursday we identified c.120 more which means we added another 50% again to the coins known from that county. This is particularly useful at the moment as Philippa Walton is doing her Phd looking at the Roman coin data of the PAS.
Most of the coins Sam and I ID’ed are what detectorists would generally regard as ‘grot’ and would perhaps not note where they were found and often don’t record them. However last weeks activity has shown how important recording your ‘grot’ is. In the bag of the coins from Cheshire, only c.5 could not be assigned to a Reece period (the important thing when analysing Roman coin data) and some of the coins were actually really rare and interesting. They aren’t on the database yet but once they go on I will put details up here. Just to whet your appetite, Sam is fairly sure that one of the coins is an unpublished variety!!
06/12/2008
Continuing on in my naive attempt to say something cogent about how the PAS has elucidated our understanding of the archaeology of the county in all periods, in this blog entry I’m going to summarise what we’ve learnt about the Bronze and Iron Ages. At this point I should thank my brilliant volunteer assistant, Katie Robbins, who has put together all the background information for this survey.
Anyway, in my last post I discussed some of the more interesting finds from Stone Age Northamptonshire, but noted that our sample was rather small. Turning to the Bronze Age and Iron Age, we might expect the finds to start coming in in more numbers at this point, but they don’t. To date, we have only 62 records relating to the Bronze Age, and 182 from the Iron Age. To understand these, we have to put them in perspective by considering what we already know (or think we know) about the later prehistoric archaeology of the county.
Evidence for burials during the Early Bronze Age is much more common and over three hundred round barrows have been identified by aerial photography, many of which have now been ploughed flat. The preference for unmarked cremation burials by the Middle and Late Bronze Age has meant that these sites have only been stumbled upon by accident. Evidence of permanent settlement during the Bronze Age is also rare, with the remnants of roundhouses uncovered at Stanwick and Fengate probably belonging to small farmsteads surrounded by fields from crops and animals. Northamptonshire, like much of lowland Britain, saw the introduction of iron-working between 800BC and 600BC. Evidence suggests that there was a growth in population at this time, as there was an expansion of agricultural production and an increase in domestic settlements. Many of these may have been within hillforts such as that at Hunsbury, known locally as Dane’s Camp, a site that remained in use until c.20BC. These hillforts would have been symbols of the power of the local ruler/chieftain and the centre of the county was probably occupied by a single dominant group. This was later absorbed by the Catuvellauni, a very powerful tribe in Britain at the end of the first millennium BC . This tribe organised a resistance against the first Roman invasion in 56BC, but were forced to surrender two years later. The lack of evidence for any significant military presence in the county after this time suggests that following the successful invasion of AD43, Roman rule was generally accepted.
So, to turn to the PAS finds, Bronze Age hoards crop up all over the country, especially in the south-east, but Northamptonshire examples are few. We did have a fantastic founder’s hoard from near Northampton a few years back [NARC-77BD13], and the odd individual socketed or palstave axe [NARC-DFF9E8]; [NARC-5EBCB7] , dagger [NARC-7A1368] or pennanular ring [NARC-773944] does come in, but they are few and far between. Perhaps the hoarding ritual was less important up here than further south? However, we do have a small number of flint objects from the Bronze Age, such as this barbed and tanged arrowhead [LEIC-B21932], which stand as testament to the day-to-day activities of people in Bronze Age Northants.
The Iron Age is almost as poorly represented as the Bronze Age. We have our fair share of Colchester brooches (NARC-CCA8B6), button-and-loop fasteners [NARC-DCD2F0], and coinage [NARC-99F1F6], with a number of good examples of staters and units of local ‘tribes’ such as the Corieltauvi, with those of Tasciovanus and Cunobelin [NARC-FEA435] particularly common. However, at best these date to the last years of pre-Roman Britain, and the rest of the Iron Age is largely unrepresented. Exceptions include this La Tene III brooch [NARC-9701C6], but nothing to match the beautiful Iron Age mirror discovered at Desborough in the 19th century.
Recently, we’ve had in this lovely Iron Age scabbard mount [NARC-9BA9D1], which might relate to military or ritual activity, or simply be a symbol of local status. Whatever, it is a beautiful and unusual find.
However, perhaps the stars of Iron Age Northamptonshire are this beehive quern from Chapel Brampton [NARC-B9F8A6], and glass beads from Benefield [NARC2612] and Oundle [LIN-3A9556]. All in all, with a few exceptions, the PAS in Northants may not have produced large numbers of high profile, astoundingly beautiful later prehistoric finds, but the distribution maps that we are now beginning to piece together are starting to tell us a little more about the organisation of settlement in the region. We have more Bronze Age hoards and Iron Age coins than were known before the PAS became active in the region, allowing us to speculate much more about belief, economics, and politics than was previously possible. Future research projects will no doubt utilise PAS data to look into these aspects of prehistoric life, and these finds once again make clear the benefit of working with detectorists.
Please keep coming back, and stand by for the Romans!
06/06/2008
The project is really getting moving now. Matthew Ponting at Liverpool University has sampled c.15 brooches and I have just taken up another 8. He has tested 8 of the samples already taken and I am currently waiting for information on these.
Last week he went to the British Museum to take a sample of the only surviving Wirral brooch of the 8 found at the site of Meols on the Wirral coastline. The site is very interesting from many aspects (see the recent publication- Meols. The Archaeology of the North Wirral coast by Egan, Griffiths and Philpott) but I am interested in the Wirral brooches. Out of the 80 brooches found along the beach over the years, 7 of them were Wirral types. this is almost 10% of the assemblage. When you think of how many Roman brooches that are found regularly by metal dectorists and archaeologists (there are c.1300 on the PAS database from the North of England alone), and then look at the fact that only 80 Wirral brooches in total are known about so far, they represent a tiny proportion of Roman brooches, even in the North where they orginate (we think).
Comparing this with the Meols numbers makes them really stand out. This was a fairly important port in Roman times and there were probably a lot of people coming and going. Nearly 10% of brooches lost were Wirral types, this suggests that they were well represented in what was being worn at that time. I think that this is further proof that the source of the Wirral brooches is actually on the Wirral as they were obviously much more popular here than anywhere else. Even though they are found in a wider area than just the Wirral, it is never in such high concentrations.
We are also starting to notice Wirral variants as more detectorists and FLO’s are recognising what to look out for. What this space for pictures and more information on some of these.
06/06/2008
Mlitt topic
Just in case anyone is interested, I will be doing my MLitt dissertation on Roman brooches from the North of England,
focussing on stray finds and using PAS data. Here is my research proposal.
Romano-British Brooches: a study of creolization in the northern frontier through material culture
A wealth of artefactual data from the Roman period in Britain has been generated over the past decade due to continued
excavations and recent publications, as well as the inception of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). Despite this
wealth of data, there is comparatively little synthesis and interpretation. This is particularly the case for the data
produced by the PAS which has previously been thought of as not a completely valid data set, as unstratified finds.
This is starting to change with various works by leading Roman finds specialists and forthcoming PAS Conference Proceedings,
PhDs and other postgraduate study using PAS data. This research will attempt to pull together the data on stray finds of
Roman brooches from the North, studying Roman finds from a theoretically informed perspective.
The primary focus of data gathering will be Roman brooches recorded with the PAS, with a study area loosely centred on
Northern England. Brooches from excavations offer a control sample tied to stratigraphically dated deposits, but
excavation is naturally biased in its nature, in the antiquarian past mostly high status sites were excavated. Some
areas are chosen methodically (e.g. the forts on Hadrians wall chosen for their dating evidence) but more recently
excavation has been developer led which does not take into account any archaeological research objectives. It is hoped
within this project to geographically fill some gaps in our knowledge by looking at the PAS data, together with and
compared to, the excavated data. There are c. 1300 Roman brooches recorded on the PAS database (1) from the Northern
region, which will greatly supplement the known archaeologically recovered examples (e.g the 845 brooches catalogued by
Snape 1993).
A catalogue of the brooches will be created which can be used alongside the syntheses produced of excavated material.
Due to the large number of brooches to be looked at in this study it will be impossible to examine all brooches in detail.
After data has been gathered, detailed case studies will be established, looking either at specific geographical areas or
certain types of brooches. Preliminary research suggests the Wirral brooch as an ideal type for a case study. The type was
first noted and published in 1999 by Philpott (pp274-285), who thought that they originated on the Wirral due to their
large concentration around the South of the Wirral (at that time almost 50% of known examples (12) were from just 1 site).
This brooch also seems to be a British variant on the Roman style Trumpet brooch, which makes it an interesting case study
of the acceptance of Roman fashions with British influence. Apart from Philpotts work little study has gone into these
brooches, it may be possible to distinguish different classes within this type once they have been catalogued more accurately.
It is also hoped to confirm the origin of the style of the brooch, Philpott talks about the brooch drawing on a number of
decorative and stylistic features of other brooches’ and also whether the Wirral brooch influenced any other types.
Since Philpott’s 1999 publication, the number of Wirral brooches known has more than doubled (from England, Wales and
Scotland), mostly through the work of the PAS and it is anticipated that this number will continue to rise. As a result
of Philpott’s consideration of the origin and possible manufacturing area of this brooch type, alloy composition analysis
will be carried out on all Wirral brooches available for testing (as well as some waste products from one of the most
productive sites). By doing this it is hoped that it can be seen if they were all made from the same alloy mix. If they
are all the same composition it will point to one source for the brooches and will be an interesting view into metal
working during the Roman period. Dungworth carried out analysis of Iron Age and Roman copper-alloys from northern Britain
and this work will be useful to look at for known practices (2006). Exploring the connections between the brooches
metallurgy will add another dimension to exploring social connections. A new distribution map will be constructed and
alongside the alloy analysis will hopefully be able to assess Philpott’s hypothesis as well as extend our knowledge of
this regional style.
The distribution patterns of some brooch types are already known to suggest differences between the North and South,
for example the Dragonesque brooch. It is hoped that this study may show if there are any differences in the distribution
of brooches within the North and so demonstrate intraregional differences. The concentration of Wirral brooches with only
a few outliers is again a good example of this. Further research will address variations within types and update current
knowledge of the distribution and use of brooches. By combining the newly collected data with that previously known it
is hoped a fuller understanding of the brooches in the North will be gained.
The study will be placed in the theoretical context of creolization studies, which have been argued to offer a more
sophisticated and balanced model than the formerly preferred models of Romanization (Webster 2005). This perspective
offers a more nuanced view of ‘Roman’ and ‘native’ interaction, recognizing the ‘natives’ as active participants in
cultural negotiation. Such a perspective also more greatly allows for variation over time that is not found in Romanization
models. By adopting a creolization model, the study becomes more than just a review of artefact typologies and distributions
and will attempt to look at social dynamics through material culture.
Bibliography
Dungworth, D. 2006. Iron Age and Roman Copper Alloys from Northern Britain. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue2/dungworthÂ_index.html
Philpott, P. 1999. A Romano-British Brooch Type from North-Western and Northern England. Britannia 30 (Notes) pp274-285.
Snape, M. 1993. Roman Brooches from North Britain. A classification and a catalogue of brooches from sites on the
Stanegate. BAR 235. Webster, J. ‘Historical Archaeology and the Middle Passage’. Journal of Maritime Research, 2005. Available at: http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk.
06/06/2008
This is just to update people as to the FLO post for these 3 counties. From September I will be going part time in order to start an MLitt at Newcastle University. There will hopefully be someone else coming in part time so that the post is still going to be filled full time.
To keep things organised the area will be split geographically- at least for club and museum visits. I will continue to visit Bolton and Manchester Museums and the 5 clubs around Greater Manchester- Bolton, North West, Tameside, Wilmslow and Stockport. The other person will visit the Salt Museum, Northwich and the Grosvenor Museum. They will visit the following clubs- Mold, South Lancs and Cheshire, West Kirby and Crewe and Nantwich.
The museums will still be visited once a month and the clubs every 3 months as I have been doing so there should be no real disruption to routines, some people will just have a new person to meet. We will both still be based at Liverpool as I am now and so people can come into that office.