Personal Ornamentation as an Indicator of Cultural Diversity in the Roman North 9781407308562, 9781407322209

Citation preview

BAR 547 2011 WEBB PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY

B A R

Personal Ornamentation as an Indicator of Cultural Diversity in the Roman North

Timothy Webb

BAR British Series 547 2011

Personal Ornamentation as an Indicator of Cultural Diversity in the Roman North

Timothy Webb

BAR British Series 547 2011

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 547 Personal Ornamentation as an Indicator of Cultural Diversity in the Roman North © T Webb and the Publisher 2011 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407308562 paperback ISBN 9781407322209 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407308562 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2011. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Study of Personal Ornamentation in Roman Britain.........................................................1 The Frontier...................................................................................................................................1 Historical Perspective....................................................................................................................1 The Pacification of Northern England...........................................................................................2 The Geography of the North .........................................................................................................2 Lowland Zone.........................................................................................................................3 Highland Zone.........................................................................................................................3 Why Personal Ornaments?............................................................................................................4 Pre-existing Literature .................................................................................................................6 Regional Studies......................................................................................................................6 Gaul and Scottish Precedents..................................................................................................7 Artefact Studies.......................................................................................................................7 The prior work on ‘Romanization’, gender and ethnicity.......................................................8 Moving Forward.............................................................................................................................. Chapter Two: Theoretical Approaches to Interpreting Artefact Collections and Methods for Assembling a Northern Romano-British Collection of Personal Adornments....................................9 Theoretical Considerations..........................................................................................................10 The Influence of Cultural and Non-cultural Environmental Factors on the Formation of the Archaeological Record......................................................................................................10 Semiotics in the Roman North.....................................................................................................12 Defining Culture and Material culture.........................................................................................12 ‘Cultural Change’, ‘Romanization’, ‘Creolization’ and ‘Globalization’ ....................................14 Methodology................................................................................................................................16 The Study Zone.....................................................................................................................16 Personal Ornamentation........................................................................................................20 The Site Types and their Definition......................................................................................20 Defining the Period of Study.................................................................................................21. Methodology.........................................................................................................................21 Chapter Three: The Northern Romano-British Cultural Assemblage....................................................23 Introduction to Personal Ornaments............................................................................................24 Brooches................................................................................................................................24 Beads.....................................................................................................................................27 Pins........................................................................................................................................28 Bracelets................................................................................................................................30 Rings......................................................................................................................................31 Intaglios.................................................................................................................................31 Other......................................................................................................................................32 The Military Assemblage.............................................................................................................33 Military Brooches..................................................................................................................34 Military Beads.......................................................................................................................35 Military Pins..........................................................................................................................36 Military Bracelets..................................................................................................................37 Military Rings.......................................................................................................................39 Military Intaglios...................................................................................................................39 Military Other........................................................................................................................40 Summary of the Military Assemblage...................................................................................40 Nucleated Settlements.................................................................................................................40 The Vicus Assemblage.................................................................................................................41 Vicus Brooches......................................................................................................................41 Vicus Beads............................................................................................................................42 Vicus Pins..............................................................................................................................43 Vicus Bracelets......................................................................................................................43 Vicus Rings............................................................................................................................44 Vicus Intaglios.......................................................................................................................45

i

The ‘Other’ Artefacts from Vici.............................................................................................46 Summary of the Vicus Assemblage.......................................................................................46 The Town Assemblage.................................................................................................................46 Town Brooches......................................................................................................................47 Town Beads...........................................................................................................................48 Town Pins..............................................................................................................................50 Town Bracelets......................................................................................................................52 Town Rings............................................................................................................................52 Town Intaglios.......................................................................................................................54 The ‘Other’ Town Artefacts...................................................................................................54 The Summary of the Town Artefact Assemblage..................................................................55 The Cemetery Assemblage.........................................................................................................55 Cemetery Brooches...............................................................................................................55 Cemetery Beads.....................................................................................................................56 Cemetery Pins.......................................................................................................................56 Cemetery Bracelets...............................................................................................................58 Cemetery Rings.....................................................................................................................58 Cemetery Intaglios................................................................................................................58 The ‘Other’ Cemetery Artefacts............................................................................................59 The Summary of the Cemetery Assemblage.........................................................................60 The Villa Assemblage..................................................................................................................60 Villa Brooches.......................................................................................................................61 Villa Beads............................................................................................................................61 Villa Pins...............................................................................................................................62 Villa Bracelets.......................................................................................................................63 Villa Rings.............................................................................................................................64 Villa Intaglio..........................................................................................................................64 The ‘Other’ Villa Artefacts....................................................................................................64 The Summary of the Villa Assemblage.................................................................................65 The Rural Assemblage.................................................................................................................65 Rural Brooches......................................................................................................................68 Rural Beads...........................................................................................................................70 Rural Pins..............................................................................................................................71 Rural Bracelets......................................................................................................................71 Rural Rings............................................................................................................................73 Rural Intaglios.......................................................................................................................76 The ‘Other’ Rural Artefacts...................................................................................................76 The Summary of the Rural Assemblage................................................................................76 The Cave Assemblage..................................................................................................................76 Cave Brooches.......................................................................................................................77 Cave Beads............................................................................................................................78 Cave Pins...............................................................................................................................79 Cave Bracelets.......................................................................................................................79 Cave Rings............................................................................................................................80 Cave Intaglios........................................................................................................................80 The ‘Other’ Cave Artefacts...................................................................................................80 The Summary of the Cave Assemblage................................................................................80 The Industrial Assemblage..........................................................................................................80 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................80 Chapter Four: The Cultural Evolution of the Northern Romano-British Cultural Assemblage............82 The Northern Romano-British Cultural Assemblage..................................................................83 The Brooch Assemblage..............................................................................................................83 The Bead Assemblage..................................................................................................................86 The Pin Assemblage....................................................................................................................91 The Bracelet Assemblage............................................................................................................94 The Ring Assemblage..................................................................................................................96 The Intaglio Assemblage.............................................................................................................97 The ‘Other’ Artefacts...................................................................................................................98

ii



The Implications of the Complete Artefact Assemblage ..........................................................100

Chapter Five: ‘Discrepant Identity’ in Personal Ornamentation.........................................................102 The Military Assemblage...........................................................................................................102 Urban Sites—Combining vicus and Town Assemblages...........................................................102 Military Sites versus Non-Military Urban Sites........................................................................105 The Romano-British Countryside—Villa Sites.........................................................................106 The Rural Sites .........................................................................................................................108 Ritual Sites—Cemeteries and Caves.........................................................................................110 Caves...................................................................................................................................112 Industrial Sites...........................................................................................................................113 The Social and Economic Factors Affecting the Adoption of the Cutlural Assemblage ..........113 Chapter Six: East versus West: The Impact of Geography on the Northern Romano-British Cultural Assemblage.............................................................................................................................114 Military Sites.............................................................................................................................114 The Urban Assemblage..............................................................................................................116 Cemeteries.................................................................................................................................118 The Countryside.........................................................................................................................119 Cultural Variation between Highland and Lowland Sites...................................................122 The Caves..................................................................................................................................123 What Effect does Geography have on the Northern Romano-British Assemblage? ................123 Chapter Seven: A Regionally Distinct Assemblage?............................................................................125 The Military Sites......................................................................................................................126 Nucleated Settlements...............................................................................................................127 Villa Sites...................................................................................................................................128 Rural Sites..................................................................................................................................129 Ritual Sites: Caves versus Harlow Temple................................................................................131 Death in the North and South....................................................................................................131 Is there a Northern Romano-British Cultural Assemblage?......................................................133 Chapter Eight:The Northern Romano-British Cultural Assemblage and its implications...................134 Northern Romano-British Assemblage......................................................................................134 Chronology................................................................................................................................137 Geography..................................................................................................................................139 Military and Civilian..................................................................................................................140 Gender........................................................................................................................................140 Ethnicity.....................................................................................................................................140 Commonality and Discrepant Identity.......................................................................................141 Future Work...............................................................................................................................141 Assemblage Problems.........................................................................................................142 Function...............................................................................................................................142 Technology and Manufacture..............................................................................................142 Regional Studies..................................................................................................................143 Summary....................................................................................................................................143 Appendix: Gazetteer of Sites.................................................................................................................144 References .............................................................................................................................................185

iii

List of Illustrations Chapter One Figure 1.1 Two images of a man in differing costumes.

5

Chapter Three Figure 3.1. Dragonesque brooch Figure 3.2. Trumpet brooch Figure 3.3. Headstud brooch Figure 3.4. Knee brooch Figure 3.5. Crossbow brooch Figure 3.6. Penannular brooch classification Figure 3.7. Early plate brooch Figure 3.8. Circular plate brooch Figure 3.9. Cyldrincal bead Figure 3.10. Melon bead Figure 3.11. Annular bead Figure 3.12. Pin Type 1 Figure 3.13. Pin Type 3 Figure 3.14. Pin Type 4 Figure 3.15. Pin Type 5 Figure 3.16. Pin Type 6 Figure 3.17. Pin Type 7 Figure 3.18. Image from Hawara Portfolio Figure 3.19. Copper alloy bracelet Figure 3.20. Glass bangle fragment Figure 3.21. Jet bracelet Figure 3.22. Pendant Phallus Figure 3.23. Copper alloy chain Figure 3.24. Torc Figure 3.25. Military artefact assemblage Figure 3.26. Aucissa brooch Figure 3.27. Hod Hill brooch Figure 3.28. Military brooch type chronology Figure 3.29. Military bead composition Figure 3.30. Military pin composition by period Figure 3.31. Military bracelet composition Figure 3.32. Military bracelet composition by period Figure 3.33. Cornelian intaglio decorated with Aequitas Figure 3.34. Vicus artefact assemblage Figure 3.35. Vicus bracelet assemblage by composition Figure 3.36. Red Jasper intaglio with Mars Figure 3.37. Red Jasper intaglio with Indian parrot Figure 3.38. Glass intaglio with warship Figure 3.39. Town artefact assemblage Figure 3.40. Town brooch types Figure 3.41. Town bead assemblage by composition

iv

23 24 24 25 25 26 27 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 34 35 37 38 38 40 41 44 45 46 46 47 47 49

Figure 3.42. Town pin assemblage by period Figure 3.43. Town bracelet assemblage by composition Figure 3.44. Town ring assemblage by composition Figure 3.45. Cemetery artefact assemblage Figure 3.46. Iron bucket pendant Figure 3.47. Cemetery pin assemblage by composition Figure 3.48. Cemetery bracelet assemblage by composition Figure 3.49. Cemetery ring/earring assemblage by composition Figure 3.50 Hartlepool necklace Figure 3.51. Villa artefact assemblage Figure 3.52. Villa brooch assemblage by period Figure 3.53. Villa pin assemblage by composition Figure 3.54. Villa bracelet assemblage by composition Figure 3.55. Villa ring assemblage by composition Figure 3.56. Comparison of artefact yields from rural sites. Figure 3.57. Rural artefact assemblage Figure 3.58. Rural brooch assemblage Figure 3.59. Rural brooch assemblage by period Figure 3.60. Rural bead assemblage by period Figure 3.61. Rural bracelet assemblage by composition Figure 3.62. Rural bracelet composition by period Figure 3.63. Rural ring assemblage by composition Figure 3.64. Rural ring composition by period Figure 3.65. Cave artefact assemblage Figure 3.66. Cave brooch assemblage Figure 3.67. Cave brooch type by period Figure 3.68. Cave bead assemblage

51 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 69 71 72 74 75 75 77 77 78 78

Chapter Four Figure 4.1. Northern artefact assemblage Figure 4.2. Brooch Assemblage by Type Figure 4.3. Nine most common bow brooch types Figure 4.4. Proportion of early manufactured brooches from late contexts Figure 4.5. Eight most common bead colours Figure 4.6. Bead composition Figure 4.7. Bead chronology Figure 4.8. Bead composition by period Figure 4.9. Pin assemblage by period Figure 4.10. Pin composition by site type Figure 4.11. Bracelet assemblage by site type Figure 4.12. Bracelet composition by period Figure 4.13. Ring assemblage by site type Figure 4.14. Ring composition by site type Figure 4.15. Intaglio assemblage by site type Figure 4.16. Intaglio decoration Figure 4.17. Pendant assemblage by site type

83 84 84 87 88 88 89 91 91 93 94 95 96 96 97 98 99

v

Chapter Five Figure 5.1. Comparison of vicus and town assemblage Figure 5.2. Comparison of early town and vicus assemblage Figure 5.3. Comparison of late town and vicus assemblage Figure 5.4. Crossbow brooch Figure 5.5 Comparison of military, town and vicus from the early period Figure 5.6. Comparison of military, town and vicus from the late period Figure 5.7. Comparison of late period military, non-military and villa assemblages from east of the Pennines Figure 5.8. Comparison of four largest villa assemblages Figure 5.9. Comparison of assemblage from military, non-military, villa and rural sites east of the Pennines Figure 5.10. Comparison of assemblage from military, town, vicus and rural sites in the early period Figure 5.11. Glass bangle fragment Figure 5.12. Headstud brooch Figure 5.13. Comparison of military, non-military and funerary assemblage at York Figure 5.14. Comparison of military, non-military and cave sites Figure 5.15. Comparison of cave sites and rural sites

103 104 104 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 110 110 111 112 113

Chapter Six Figure 6.1. Military assemblage by region Figure 6.2. Military assemblage by region in the early period Figure 6.3. Military assemblage by region in the late period Figure 6.4. Town/vicus assemblage by region Figure 6.5. Military and non-military assemblage west of Pennines in the late period Figure 6.6. Military and non-military assemblage east of the Pennines in the late period Figure 6.7. Comparison of Brougham and York Figure 6.8. Comparison of rural assemblages east and west of the Pennines in the early period Figure 6.9. Comparison of military, non-military and rural sites west of the Pennines during the early period Figure 6.10. Comparison of military, non-military and rural sites east of the Pennines in the early period Figure 6.11. Comparison of rural assemblage from east and west of the Pennines in the late period Figure 6.12. Cave region assemblage.

Figure 7.1. Figure 7.2. Figure 7.3. Figure 7.4. Figure 7.5. Figure 7.6. Figure 7.7. Figure 7.8. Figure 7.9.

Chapter Seven Military assemblage north versus south Comparison of early nucleated assemblages from north and south Comparison of late nucleated assemblages from north and south Comparison of villa assemblages from north and south Comparison of rural assemblages from north and south in the early period Comparison of rural assemblages from north and south in the late period Comparison of ritual assemblages from north and south Comparison of ritual assemblages from north and south in the late period Comparison of cemetery assemblages from north and south in the late period

vi

115 115 116 117 117 118 119 120 120 120 121 123

126 127 128 129 130 130 131 132 132

Chapter Eight Figure 8.1. Glass bangle fragment Figure 8.2. Trumpet brooch Figure 8.3. Headstud brooch Figure 8.4. Dragonesque brooch Figure 8.5. Melon bead Figure 8.6. Fowler type ‘A’ penannular brooches Figure 8.7. jet bracelet Figure 8.8. Crossbow brooch Figure 8.9. Copper alloy bracelet Figure 8.10. Pin type 3 Figure 8.11 knee brooch Figure 8.12.Venn diagram of assemblage chronology

135 135 135 135 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 138

List of Maps Chapter Two Map 2.1. Study Zone Map 2.2 Distribution of northern military sites Map 2.3 Distribution of vici Map 2.4 Distribution of towns Map 2.5 Distribution of villas Map 2.6 Distribution of rural sites Map 2.7 Distribution of caves Map 2.8 Distribution of cemetery sites

16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20

Chapter Three Map 3.1. Distribution of military sites yielding pins Map 3.2. Distribution of military sites yielding bracelets Map 3.3. Distribution of military sites yielding intaglios Map 3.4. Distribution of vici yielding beads Map 3.5. Distribution of vici yielding pins Map 3.6. Distribution of vici yielding rings Map 3.7. Distribution of vici yielding intaglios Map 3.8. Distribution of towns yielding brooches by period Map 3.9. Distribution of towns yielding beads Map 3.10. Distribution of towns yielding pins Map 3.11. Distribution of towns yielding bracelets Map 3.12. Distribution of towns yielding rings and earrings Map 3.13. Distribution of towns yielding intaglios Map 3.14. Distribution of funerary sites yielding bracelets Map 3.15. Distribution of villas yielding beads Map 3.16. Distribution of villas yielding different bracelet types

36 37 39 42 43 44 45 48 49 50 51 53 54 57 62 63

vii

Map 3.17. Map 3.18. Map 3.19. Map 3.20. Map 3.21. Map 3.22. Map 3.23. Map 3.24. Map 3.25.

Distribution of known rural sites within the study zone Distribution of rural sites yielding personal ornaments Distribution of rural sites yielding brooches Distribution of rural sites yielding beads Distribution of rural sites yielding pins Distribution of rural sites yielding bracelets Distribution of rural sites yielding rings. Distribution of cave sites Distribution of cave sites yielding bracelets

Chapter Four Map 4.1. The distribution of black, green and blue beads Map 4.2. The distribution of jet/shale beads Map 4.3. The distribution of jet/shale pins Map 4.4. The distribution of chains

66 67 68 70 72 73 74 76 79

88 89 93 99

List of Tables Chapter Two Table 2.1. Excerpt from database

Table 3.1. Table 3.2. Table 3.3. Table 3.4.

21

Chapter Three Most common bow brooches from northern England Penannular brooch chronologies Common plate brooch types Intaglio decoration from military sites

Chapter Four Table 4.1. Total artefact assemblages, number of sites and average artefact yield per site

25 25 39 46

82

Chapter Seven Table 7.1. Artefact assemblages and number of sites from the north and south

126

Chapter Eight Table 8.1. The major components of the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage

137

viii

CHAPTER ONE: STUDY OF PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION IN ROMAN BRITAIN

The type of personal ornamentation an individual wears is a matter of choice. Preferences in objects worn reflect local culture as well as the available materials. Thus, when the Roman army conquered the local indigenous population, there was potential for the personal ornamentation artefact assemblage of both groups to adopt and incorporate items and iconography from one another. Evidence of mutual influences in personal ornamentation from across the Roman Empire and local Britons were indicators of cultural change in the north of England. This blending of cultural traditions, in turn, leads to the formation of a unique northern Romano-British cultural assemblage. Furthermore, different types of personal ornaments and their iconography relate to several causal factors, including chronology, socio-economic factors (i.e. gender, ethnicity, and wealth) and geography (see: Mattingly 2007; 2004; Allason-Jones 2005b; Puttock 2002; Roymans 1996). The northern Romano-British assemblage of personal ornamentation also provides an opportunity for further insight into these factors.

in Yorkshire during the third and fourth centuries AD. The north of England is thus both a military frontier and a civilian hinterland, a duality, which makes it an important region for the study of cultural interaction along the frontier (see: Blagg and King (eds.) 1984).

This research uses the distribution of personal ornamentation to explore not only themes of commonality in the assemblage across different social strata but also the possible emergence of a unique northern Romano-British cultural assemblage. In addition, the research evaluates some of the factors which result in the formation of “discrepant identities” (see: Mattingly 2007; 2004; 1997), seen as variations in the assemblage across the cultural and geographical landscape.

By virtue of the ethnic and cultural diversity within the northern frontier zone, as well as the region’s history and intensive excavations, it is an ideal location to explore cultural change between the incoming Romans and pre-existing population. Additionally, the geographical variation and socio-economic factors allow one to explore variation between site types and across physical boundaries, such as the Pennines (Stallibrass 2000).

There is no physical boundary separating northern and southern Roman Britain. This research delineates the northern frontier zone from the south along a line from the Mersey, across the peak district to the modern site of East Halton. Immediately north of this line, running to Hadrian’s Wall, there was a large military population residing in forts and marching camps. The resultant frontier zone included a diverse population of soldiers, merchants, civilians from across the Empire, wealthy elite, and peasants (Sommer 1984: 30-31) all of whom had different histories and preferences for personal ornamentation. The diversity of the population, including local peoples and immigrants can be seen to contribute to the formation of a unique regional assemblage.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

THE FRONTIER

The northern Romano-British regional assemblage differs from the south of England as a result of historical events, including the relative speed of conquest, as well as variations within the population groups (Cunliffe 2004). In terms of history, the initial conquest of Britain by Emperor Claudius focused on the southern tribes. It was not until the AD 70’s that the military incursion into the northern terrain became solidified. For example, the legionary fortress at York and a base at Carlisle were constructed in the governorship of Petilius Cerialis (AD 71-73/4) (RCHM 1962; McCarthy 2002). By AD 81, the north was largely pacified and the army had moved into Scotland. Within two years, the Roman military successfully defeated the Scottish Caledonii at the battle of Mons Graupius. Twenty years later, the army retreated and Hadrian, in AD 122, physically marked the northern

The north of England remained a frontier region during the entire Roman occupation, as evidenced by the continuous military presence both along Hadrian’s Wall and immediately south. Forts were occupied throughout the Roman period, and additional fortlets were constructed along the coast in the late period (i.e. Filey (Ottaway 2001) and Scarborough (Ottaway et al. 2003)). The military presence increased security along this military frontier, so that civilizing trends could also occur in conjunction with these activities (Esmonde Cleary 2004; Kenyon 1991: 55). These trends are illustrated by the formation of ‘towns’ by the late second and early third century AD, such as at Catterick (Wilson, J.R. 2002), Aldborough (Bishop 1996), and Brough-on-Humber (Wacher 1969) and in the construction of villas in the Vales of Pickering and York

1

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH cultural system. However, the experience of the northern population varied by virtue of the geographic diversity and variation within the population. This derived not from the degree of cultural exchange but rather from socioeconomic variants including the location one lived (both region and physical structure i.e. town or villa); integration into the Roman economic system and occupation. As such, the debate of ‘Roman’ versus ‘native’ has been rendered immaterial. Rather, those individuals living in rural sites with minimal change and limited uptake of the Roman cultural assemblage can be viewed as peasants (see: McCarthy 2005; Frere 1987: 258-260). Due to the lack of pre-conquest exchange in the north of England, the movement of artefacts is largely constrained by the Claudian invasion. Thus, one can clearly study cultural interaction associated with the arrival of new populations.

extent of the Roman Empire with the construction of his wall. However, because of the subsequent campaigns in Scotland under Antoninus Pius, it was not until the early third century AD that the northern limit of direct Roman control was settled as Hadrian’s Wall. The Roman invasion of Britain was preceded by diplomatic relations between Romans and southern tribes including the Catuvellauni and Trinovantes (Mattingly 2007: 68). Cross-channel trade existed and the movement of ideas is visible in Iron-Age British coinage and in the recovery of imported pottery from southern ‘native’ sites (Mattingly 2007: 69-74; Haselgrove 1984). In the north, two main tribes—the Brigantes and Parisi—controlled the region. Although the Brigantes were a client kingdom of Rome, possibly only after AD 43, the limited quantity and the distribution of Roman material culture recovered from pre-Claudian contexts indicate that the north was isolated compared to the south (Higham 1986: 138-149). As such, the latter experienced a more extended period of cultural exchange allowing greater adoption and uptake of Roman culture and material culture (Haselgrove 1984). The subsequent conquering of modern-day northern England was characterized by a combination of diplomatic relations (i.e. the Brigantes were a client of Rome) and military force, such as in AD 69 when internal conflict within the Brigantes necessitated the use of Roman force (Hartley and Fitts 1988: 15-22). In general, Roman occupation of the north occurred over a relatively short period compared with that of the south.

In the north, the region’s unique history and tribal population all have a direct bearing on the types and quantities of objects recovered from sites across the north of England. This book will expand upon the prior research focusing on the north of England, personal ornamentation, gender, culture and ethnicity, by using variations and similarities between the assemblages as indicators of cultural change. As will be discussed later (pages 17-27), this work derives from the framework of prior academic discourses, including work by, but not limited to: AllasonJones (2008; 2005b; 1989; 1988), Cool (2006; 1991), Hunter (2008; 2002; 2001), Mattingly (2007; 2004; 1997), Roymans (1996; 1995), and Woolf (1998; 1995). I have incorporated specific methodological approaches from Hunter’s 2001 study, by using two large chronological groupings to explore the temporal tide of civilizing trends contingent upon Roman conquest; early (1st and 2nd century AD) and late (3rd and 4th century AD). This approach is desirable because material is limited precluding a more detailed temporal resolution. Additionally, similar problems exist between northern England and southern Scotland, with large variations in the quality and size of assemblages from urban contexts and the countryside.

THE PACIFICATION OF NORTHERN ENGLAND Although the initial military conquest of the north was relatively rapid, the civilizing of the region took far longer, as evidenced by the prolonged military presence and limited further military expansion, as well as small town and villa zones. In the early period, changes in the infrastructure included the introduction of new commodities; the construction of roads; markets facilitated trade; many items were mass-produced and accessible for the RomanoBritish population (Sommer 2006: 104-130; Collingwood and Richmond 1969: 1-4). Additionally, there was a degree of homogeneity in the types of personal ornaments including the wearing of brooches, common ‘Roman’ hairstyles and the use of Roman coinage (Johns 1996; Reece 1991). By the late second century AD, the military presence no longer appears necessary and civilizing trends are discernable. These included the construction of towns and villas and a decrease in the number of troops by perhaps 40% (Mattingly 2007: 123-125). There was also a shift to taxation of specie, with the net result of creating a smaller military contingent, but one directly dependent upon the surrounding population (Frere 1987: 285; Breeze 1981).

I do not address post-Roman personal ornamentation, although there is evidence of continued occupation on some forts, including Binchester (Ferris and Jones 2000) and Castleford (Cool and Philo 1998). Additionally, Cool observed noticeable changes in the personal ornaments of the fifth century AD, including the disappearance of some categories of finds and a decline in hairpins associated with changes in appearance (Cool 2000a). Even though there was a continuation of Roman traditions into the fifth century, Mattingly refers to post-AD 409 life as a “threshold to another sort of world” (Mattingly 2007: 529; Lewit 2003). The palynological evidence also suggests post-conquest changes, with forest regeneration occurring after AD 400 (Huntley 2000).

Like the urban population, the nature of the native population was not static. By AD 210, four generations of ‘natives’ had grown-up under Roman rule and would have been accustomed to the Roman economic and

THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE NORTH The distribution of material culture is influenced by geography, affecting not only the movement of people

2

CHAPTER ONE: STUDY OF PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION IN ROMAN BRITAIN across the landscape but also where and how successfully they settled. The north of England can be divided simplistically into two main zones: highland and lowland (Fox, C. 1938: 27-33). The highland zone includes the Pennines and much of the Lake District, while the lowland zone is comprised of sites both east and west of the Pennines such as the Lower Wharfedale, the Eden Valley, and the Vales of Pickering and York. In terms of land use, the recovery of different grass types commonly associated with pastoralism in the highland zone argues that rearing livestock, hill-farming and dairy production were most common (Nevell 1999b: 21; Frere 1987: 260), while the lowland zone incorporated further pastoralism and agriculture on the more arable soils (Hingley 2004: 329337). The lowland soils also allowed for farmers to grow surplus grain, which could in turn be sold, thereby allowing the population to integrate into the Roman economic system (Manning 1975: 113). Additionally, environmental archaeological studies demonstrate that new crops were cultivated including: spelt, bread wheat, emmer, barley, flax, Celtic bean, hemp, dill, and coriander (Cool 2006: 69-80; Dark, P. 2000: 86). Macroscopic evidence from food waste suggests that cattle, pigs and sheep remained the dominant livestock, but the ratio of cattle to sheep increased as they were able to not only produce food but also pull ploughs (Cool 2006: 80; Dark, P. 2000: 87 King 1999). The recovery of environmental evidence from a variety of sites demonstrates the integration of the new commodities into the pre-existing population (Cool 2006: 152ff).

continuity of culture in the highland zone” (Fox, C. 1938: 85). This was in part because of the varying density and type of population in both zones. The impact of the invasion was minimal in the highland zone, with the population having less exposure to the Roman cultural system and environmental conditions limiting their economic expansion (Fox, C. 1938: 33-34). The lowland zone included the construction of forts, towns, vici, and villas and thus, the rural population had greater access to Roman commodities (Hingley 1991). Lowland Zone The accessibility and richer opportunities in the lowland zone resulted in the greatest post-conquest change. The majority of forts and towns were located within this region and even the forts meant to control the highland Pennine region were built in valleys to meet the army’s dietary requirements (Mattingly 2007: 418-422; Evans et al. 1975: 112-116). Additionally, there were a greater number of rural sites in the lowland zone and villas were constructed in the Vales of York and Pickering—which arguably are indicative of greater wealth in the lowland zone. The economic implications of the Roman conquest have been discussed by Drinkwater, who, in regard to Gaul, stated that taxes and the army promoted economic growth with soldiers buying goods, which in turn, would have increased wealth in civilian settlements (Drinkwater 1983: 66, 127158). In the north of England, evidence for the economic expansion post-conquest is visible in the recovery of coins from late rural deposits (Reece 1991), the construction of villas and the presence of market-places in vici outside forts (Sommer 2006: 117-118).

Land use transitions from Iron Age to Roman Britain also saw a greater exploitation of the natural landscape. This included further forest clearance (Huntley 2000: 59), road construction (Dent 1988; Hartley and Fitts 1988: 21-22; Rivet 1964: 100), and mining (Dark, P. 2000: 86; Dark and Dark 1997: 27-29). In order to construct new forts and towns as well as provision the troops, the clearance of forests started in the Iron Age and continued into the Roman period with those zones least agriculturally viable remaining wooded longest (Willis 2003; Dark, P. 2000: 63).

Highland Zone In the north of England, the highland zone extends north to south along the Pennines and into Lancashire (Fox, C. 1938: 27) and has yielded fewer sites than the lowland zone (Taylor, J. 2007; Nevell 1999b and 1992). As with the lowland sites, the highland military community required local agriculture to subsidize their existence and:“a considerable part of the requirements of the military establishment in the Highland Zone was locally produced, with all that involves for the expansion of agriculture and its effects on the landscape; further, that supplementary supplies will have been moved by water wherever possible and that the large-scale movement of grain overland to standing garrisons, as opposed to field armies, was no more normal in Britain than it appears to have been in the Roman Empire” (Manning 1975: 116).

Although the highland-lowland divide is simplistic, the degree of cultural change varied significantly between those sites above 300 meters and those below (Horsfield and Thompson 1997). According to Gates, all ancient fields recognised so far in Northumberland were located at altitudes between 91 and 274 meters (Gates 1982: 25) and Haselgrove observed that in the Tyne-Tees Lowlands 46% of rectilinear settlements were on or very near the 125 metre contour (Haselgrove 1982: 82). Jeremy Taylor’s 2007 study of the Roman rural settlements in England, found the majority of large-scale agriculture occurred below the 300 meter zone, while pastoralism and small scale farming occurred in higher altitudes (Taylor, J. 2007).

While the quality of soils was lower in the highland zone, Davies has conducted feasibility studies to see if the army could have been self-sufficient in the highland zone of Wales (Davies 2002). His study concluded that the “army stationed in Wales could indeed have drawn at least part, if not all, of its grain supply from relatively local sources, though not without restructuring of the economy” (Davies 2002: 49-50). Thus, while the lowland

The range of cultural experiences differed between the highland and lowland zone and Fox argued: “there is a greater unity of culture in the lowland zone, but greater 3

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH feathers and wood, thus the artefact assemblage utilized is biased towards those with sufficient wealth to accrue the more resilient objects. Even with this limitation both the costume and personal ornaments one wore and one’s hairstyle would have been important indicators of culture (Landon 1979: 297). Cultural change may be as simple as an individual cutting their hair. In relation to barbarian hairstyles, Sidonius Apollinaris wrote about his life in Lyons surrounded by the Burgundians “being among the long-haired hordes, and having to endure Germanic words, and to praise with a sour face what the voracious Burgundian sings, who pours rancid butter on his hair” (Sidonius Apollinaris carm. 12 vv. 307).1 These “longhaired hordes” can be contrasted with Roman men, who wore their hair short like the emperor. Roman women styled their hair to mimic that of the imperial first lady. In Roman Britain, the evidence for how individuals were styling their hair largely stems from the recovery of hairpins from numerous sites. In regard to costume, the blending of traditions is visible, with wearing of trousers and the sagum becoming common during the Roman period (Croom 2002: 52ff).

zone incorporated higher quality soils, the highland zone did allow for the production of sufficient grains for the military. For those supplying the forts controlling the highland zone, the cultural contact presumably would have been similar to the population living in the lowland zone. For others, pastoralism remained the predominant activity and life showed little change (Taylor, J. 2007; Hingley 2004; Nevell 1992: 67-69; Frere 1987: 258-260; Haselgrove 1982; Manning 1975: 114). In Nevell’s 1992 study on Tameside, only 16 highland farmsteads were included, as compared with greater concentrations of sites in the lowlands around Buxton, Manchester, Melandra, Northwich and Wilderspool (Nevell 1992: 67). These observations have been further supported by Taylor’s 2007 study. The limited recovery of Romano-British material culture suggests that the population in the highland zone was not directly engaged with the Roman cultural system and that economic growth was limited. The geography of northern England is only one of the factors that affected the distribution of the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage. The lowland zone, particularly east of the Pennines, allowed the population to produce surplus grains, which, in turn, allowed further integration into the economic system. Hanson and Conolly (2002: 30) states that “it is surely more than coincidence that the civil zone [of northern England] coincides almost exactly with the tribal areas in the pre-Roman Iron Age which exhibit signs of more developed socio-economic system.” For those in the highland zone, the limited soil quality and the distance from Roman centres would have precluded them from some of the opportunistic cultural change. Kenyon states “the northwest remained a largely aceramic, impoverished, cultural backwater” (Kenyon as cited by Nevell 1999b: 14). Thus, geography is heavily integrated into the economic expansion of the Roman north, with the eastern zone benefiting from the army, associated population and taxation, which led to urban growth and prosperity (Drinkwater 1983: 149-158; Millett 1984). Furthermore, the geographic division of highland/lowland (west and east of the Pennines) directly impacted the formation of cultural assemblages, with the material culture from the lowlands reflecting greater unity archaeologically, whereas minimal evidence for change in lifestyle exists for the highland population.

As such, unlike many of the other factors, the way people adorned themselves, including hairstyles, costume and personal ornaments, all demonstrated a cultural expression of the individual. As is visible in figure 1.1, there are two pictures of the same individual. He is seen wearing the costume of a Native American and a European, but his ethnicity remains ambiguous. Is he evidence of colonization? While we do not know what the man’s beliefs are or which costume is an appropriate expression of his culture, in either case, he is able to adopt the costume and thus portray a specific cultural connotation. Although this example is clearly not Roman, the questions that arise from the differences in the man’s costume are the same. How does the recovery of an individual’s costume translate into evidence of cultural change? How can we as archaeologists, understand the implications of limited evidence of change in costume? Furthermore, the two different costumes pointedly demonstrate the shortcomings of solely artefactual evidence. However, costume and personal ornamentation are major tools for communication on a non-verbal level. They reflect ethnicity, profession, gender, age, and their distribution across both urban and rural sites portray changing expressions in identity. Additionally, in a most rudimentary fashion, the changes and variation within personal ornamentation can be viewed as evidence for cultural contact and exchange.

WHY PERSONAL ORNAMENTS? Personal ornaments—beads, bracelets, brooches, chains, earrings, intaglios, necklaces, pendants, pins and rings— were widely available, largely decorative (brooches and pins served both a decorative and a functional purpose) and intrinsically carried social, economic and cultural connotations. However, the objects recovered only represent a subset of the objects in use between AD43 and AD 409. For example, the soil conditions have degraded leather, wood, and bone (from certain regions), which has affected the quantity and types of objects recovered. Additionally, the objects most susceptible to degradation were those most likely utilized by peasants such as

Personal ornamentation is not the only indicator of change, with the distribution of pottery, styli, variation in food and architecture also providing evidence for cultural evolution. However, personal ornamentation, because of its nonessential functioning and semiotic implications, provides clear evidence for individual’s choosing to style themselves Inter crinigeras situm catervas/et Germanica verba sustinentem, laudentem tetrico subinde vultu, quod Burgundio cantat esculentus infundens acido comam butyro 1

4

CHAPTER ONE: STUDY OF PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION IN ROMAN BRITAIN were associated with the military (Bowman 1994). For example, the Vindolanda letters, record “types of units, fighting methods, internal organization, rates of pay and donatives, and official religious observances” (Bowman 1994: 34). While the recovery of styli from sites in all categories suggests that literacy may have been more widespread, Hassall observed that there is no evidence for writing outside of forts and vici (Hassall 1984: 274). Additionally, the recovery of styli without corresponding texts means that the actual evidence for cultural change as measured by language and literacy is limited. Furthermore, the assemblage is significantly smaller than personal ornaments and thus only selectively demonstrates cultural change.

Figure 1.1. Two images of a man in differing costumes demonstrate the use of costume and personal ornamentation in studying identity. Images taken from First Nation-Firsthand: A History of Five Hundred Years of Encounter, War, and Peace (Fleet (ed.) 1997: 102-103).

Architectural change (i.e. the move from roundhouse to rectilinear structure) can be used to address cultural shifts. In the north of England, changing architectural patterns are of limited use, with many roundhouses continuing into the late Roman period and the presence of pre-Roman rectilinear structures (Taylor, J. 2007; 2001; Harding 1973; Richmond 1958b). However, the construction of villas in the north does represent an important cultural transition with a limited number of individuals investing capital in new-style homes (Black 1994; Kenyon 1991: 53-55; Branigan 1980; Woodward and Steer 1936). For the remainder of the rural sites, changes in construction style and material must be used in conjunction with the acquisition of material culture and diet (Harding 1973). Nevertheless, whereas population groups may have wanted to appear Roman, the cost or lack of natural resources precluded them from this expression (Ottaway et al. 2003; Jones, R.F.J. 1984c; Branigan 1980). Thus, for the majority of the population, other factors must be used as an indicator of acculturation in the north of England. Likewise, changes in the organization and function of urban settlements have been discussed by Sommer (2006; 1984) and in individual site reports.

in a specific way. While other elements of material culture may substantiate the evidence, personal ornamentation is an independent indicator of cultural change in the north and also demonstrates the conscious choice of individuals adopting non-essential Roman artefacts. Like personal ornamentation, the types and origins of pottery reflect cultural change in the north (Cool 2006; Tyers 1996; Wilson, P. 1989; Swan 1984). Additionally, pottery analysis in Germany has shown that pottery manufactured for soldiers was being adopted outside the limes (frontier) shortly after the conquest (Walter 2005). Personal ornaments parallel these trends with Hunter, demonstrating the movement of objects beyond the immediate frontier (Hunter 2001). Although pottery was more widely distributed within this study zone, its utilitarian functioning meant that while its recovery still represented the formation of a regional assemblage, it derived more from necessity than choice.

Costume is linked with personal ornamentation and its evolution has a direct bearing on the types and quantities of personal adornments recovered. These include the association of crossbow brooches with military and administrative functions and the feminine trend of wearing two brooches held together with a chain, as visible on the Menimane costume (Allason-Jones 2005b: 104-105; Wild 1985: 386, 393-394). Additional work by Croom (2004 and 2002), Wild (2004 and 1985) and Sebesta (1994) has demonstrated the evolution of the Roman costume, including the adoption of Gaulish and British traits. For example, Romans, including Trajan, appropriated elements of the native costume such as the Gallic coat (Wild 1985: 410). Croom (2002) and Wild (1985) were also able to chart changes in the native population with native men wearing trousers and as they became increasingly influenced by Roman costume, adopting tunics. The native population showed a certain degree of resistance to cultural change in terms of costume, especially women, who were slow to adopt new forms of dress and only selectively adorned

Closely allied with pottery analysis is research on food and eating. The primary study—Eating and Drinking in Roman Britain—by Cool (2006) shows that not only were new foodstuffs being recovered post-conquest but also that there were changes in food vessels. By using selected sites across Britain, she illustrates the variety of experiences and the subtle distinctions that exist within any large geographical zone. Her work parallels the findings of personal ornamentation by noting that on any two sites within the same category (i.e. villa, rural or military sites) site by site variation occurred. However, the scale and breadth of dietary variation surpasses those of adornment so much so that Cool notes that if one family visited another nearby they would have found the eating experience unrecognizable (Cool 2006: 207). Writing is another indicator of cultural interaction. According to Hanson and Conolly (2002), literary paraphernalia was widely distributed across both rural and urban sites. However, the majority of texts recovered

5

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH themselves in Roman ways (Croom 2002: 125-138; Wild 1985: 413).

Richmond use architectural and artefactual evidence to illustrate change (Collingwood and Richmond 1969), while Frere discusses the “Romanising agents responsible for the new culture” (Frere 1987: 296). Millett incorporates variations in material culture to demonstrate changes within the Roman and indigenous population (i.e. decline in olive oil and fish sauces; an increase in indigenous pottery) (Millett 1990). Mattingly further focuses on the variable experience (Mattingly 2007). He not only looks at the differences between urban and rural inhabitants but also within population groups. However, because of the constraints in providing a historical account of the province, these studies only briefly incorporate the themes present in this research.

While all of the previously mentioned studies prove the existence of cultural change, they all have limitations. Architecture can be used to measure large-scale changes, but is dependent upon wealth and natural resources. Writing is not universal; it is primarily limited to the educated population and inadequate evidence exists in the north. Diet is a valuable indicator, but because of its diversity, fails to measure changes in identity effectively. Therefore, personal ornamentation and its recovery not only represent the integration of individuals from various social groupings into the northern Romano-British cultural system but also provide further evidence for: wealth, status, employment, origin, gender, age and religion (See: Allason-Jones 2005b; Croom 2004; 2002; Puttock 2002; Wild 1985). All of which comprise Mattingly’s characteristics of identity (Mattingly 2004).

Although these studies provide a firm foundation for the understanding of how the Roman north relates to the south and the rest of the Empire, additional excavations have increased our understanding of the countryside (rural sites and villas). This has included the excavations of numerous rural sites by scholars such as Jobey, G. (1982; 1979; 1972; 1971; 1965; 1964; 1960);2 Higham (1991; 1986; 1983; 1982a; 1982b; 1981; 1980; Higham and Jones 1975; Higham et al. 1983); Nevell (1999c; 1999b; 1999a; 1997; 1989; 1987) and Taylor, J. (2007). Although these works provide additional data for comparative studies, the recovery of environmental, architectural and small finds further strengthen many of the previous conclusions.

This research expands upon the pre-existing framework on cultural studies. To facilitate comparisons all provienced, published personal ornaments from the north of England were used. This research takes into account the importance of personal ornaments in regard to gender studies, ritual functioning, semiotics, and incorporates the geographical and historical themes unique to the north of England. PRE-EXISTING BRITAIN

LITERATURE

ON

ROMAN

Regional Studies

Roman Britain has been integral in academic discourses on ‘Romanization’ and cultural interaction. This includes texts that discuss the history of the province including the relationship of Roman Britain to the rest of the Empire (i.e. Collingwood and Myres 1937; Collingwood and Richmond 1969; Frere 1987; Millett 1990; Mattingly 2007). These studies provide a foundation for understanding how the Roman north relates to the south of Britain and the Empire as a whole. By virtue of their inherent agendas, these studies address questions of identity and the implications of personal ornamentation in a cursory manner. However, they do illustrate some of the broad themes present throughout this research. They all examine Roman Britain as part of the Roman Empire. This theme of integration is reflected in common culture and experiences, which ranged from wearing brooches to paying taxes.

By virtue of the prolonged, large military presence in the north of England, the region has been the focal point of myriad studies. These have included the hitherto mentioned discourses on Roman Britain as a whole, which outlined the history and reflect upon the impact of the Roman invasion on the region. In addition, there are numerous papers and books that focus upon the north of England in isolation. These include Higham’s Northern Counties to AD 1000 (Higham 1986), Hartley and Fitts’s The Brigantes (Hartley and Fitts 1988) as well as the collection of papers in A Companion to Roman Britain (Todd (ed.) 2004b); Rome and the Brigantes (Branigan (ed.) 1980); Military and Civilian in Roman Britain (Blagg and King (ed.) 1984); Living on the Edge of Empire (Nevell (ed.) 1999c); Rural Settlement in the Roman North (Clack and Haselgrove (ed.) 1982); and Settlement and Society in the Roman North (Wilson, P. R. et al. (ed.) 1984). These texts highlight the importance of the north because of its location at the edge of the Empire. They look at how the north was urbanized in a Roman fashion (Millett 1984; Salway 1980) including the construction of villas (Branigan 1980) and the use of coinage (Reece 1991; 1984). However, much of the work compares and contrasts the experience between east/west, military/civilian and urban/countryside (Taylor, J. 2007; Matthews 1999; Maude 1999; Nevell 1999b, 1999c; Higham 1980; Ramm 1980). Furthermore, the preexisting academic discourse provides the foundation for

Additionally, like this research, the monographs on Roman Britain as a single entity highlight the “discrepant experiences”—a term coined by Mattingly (2007; 2004; 1997) in reference to variation between populations. Elements of this variety of experience derive from geographical and temporal factors, an individual’s social position, profession, origin, and wealth. Additionally, while this present research focuses on personal ornamentation and its relation to identity and cultural change, the before mentioned studies utilize a broad array of indicators for cultural evolution, including changes in diet, architecture and urbanization. For example, Collingwood and

2

6

The majority of Jobey’s sites are outside of the study zone.

CHAPTER ONE: STUDY OF PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION IN ROMAN BRITAIN Although there are differences between Gaul and northern England, similarities also exist. Greg Woolf (1995), like Hunter (2008) discussed the formation of a Roman provincial culture. He also argues that the culture goes through a formative period, which includes both local and Empire-wide elements (Woolf 1995: 8-10).

studying personal ornamentation in the north of England. The north is comprised of myriad dichotomies, which allow this research to look at some of the causal factors for the formation of a northern Romano-British cultural assemblage and some of the factors limiting its uptake. The regional and chronological studies (i.e. Tameside before 1066 (Nevell 1992); Roman South Yorkshire: A Source Book (Buckland 1986); The North Derbyshire Archaeological Survey (Hart 1981); Settlement and Society in the Roman North (Wilson, et al. 1984); and An atlas of Roman rural settlement in England (Taylor, J. 2007) are essential in providing a foundation for how the north was settled and how the majority of the population was affected by the Claudian conquest. This book uses personal ornamentation to compliment the regional studies by identifying cultural change and adding new dimensions in the analysis into the cause for such variations.

Both the Gaulish and Scottish discussions expand beyond Roman and native to address questions of why change was occurring and how this was reflected across the region. While the regional studies demonstrate that there were variations in northern England, this study will use personal ornamentation to show the variable integration and cultural ownership (which will be termed internalization) of a regionally distinct assemblage, which derived from geographical, economic and chronological factors. Artefact Studies

Gaul and Scottish Precedents

In order to address holistic cultural change across a range of sites and periods, the pre-existing typologies were utilized where available. It is noteworthy that some important categories have not been fully studied and classified, such as finger-rings. The key study on beads was written by Guido in 1979, entitled The Glass Beads of Prehistoric and Roman Period in Britain and Ireland. Her work charts changes in bead composition, colour and decoration in Britain from the prehistoric through the Roman period. Boon’s work on gold-in-glass beads (1977) and GonzalezRuibal’s work on amber beads (2003) provide the foundation for comparative bead studies. Further adding to the cultural importance of beads is Puttock’s The Ritual Significance of Personal Ornamentation in Roman Britain (2002). She notes higher concentrations of jet beads in funerary contexts and assigns this to their perceived magical properties (Puttock 2002; Allason-Jones 1995).

Just as the academic literature on the north of England provides evidence for cultural change and the distribution of material culture in the north of England, many of the theoretical discourses on cultural evolution and gender outside of the region are directly applicable. Curle, in 1932, was particularly aware of artefact movement and how this reflected the formation of new cultural zones in Roman Drift in Caledonia. His work remained central to Roman-Celtic interactions in Scotland and was revisited by Robertson (1970). She observed that “the exchange of Roman for native, and native for Roman material must have taken place direct from hand to hand in the first instance, and the most likely centres for such exchange would be the annexes attached to most, if not all, of the Roman forts in North Britain, whether of the late first century or the second century AD” (Robertson 1970: 202). Her explanation appears directly applicable to the north of England where the quantity of artefacts recovered from each of the site types suggests centrifugal distribution.

Bracelets, in particular glass bangles, were first studied by Kilbride-Jones (1938b). His study divided the bangles into three groupings and then concluded that they were Scottish artefacts with minimal distribution into the frontier zone. This claim was largely refuted in 1956 by Stevenson, who observed that while some of the examples were more common in Scotland, others—especially type 3—were found from Hadrian’s Wall to sites as far south as London (Stevenson 1956). Price’s study further challenged the concept that bangles are exclusively native artefacts (Price 1988). She observed that while they had pre-Roman origins in England and the continent, they were accepted into the Roman cultural assemblage and were produced and distributed from Roman forts in Britain (Price 1988). The late dwindling glass bangle assemblage is replaced by copper alloy, jet and shale bracelets, which have been studied by Cool (2004), Crummy (2005) Johns (1996) and Allason-Jones (2002; 1995; 1989).

In 2001, Hunter looked at artefact distribution between military and rural sites. Due to the limited nature of the assemblages he, like this study, used the objects in broad categories both artefactually and chronologically. He also found that there were variable rates of change with site selectivity increasing the further north the sites were located (Hunter 2001: 299-300). More recently, Hunter utilized elements of the northern frontier material culture to expound a ‘frontier culture’, which included Romanstyled objects with native inspiration, such as trumpet and dragonesque brooches as well as torcs (Hunter 2008). Similarly, Roymans’s From Sword to the Plough used the recovery of artefacts in northern Gaul to demonstrate variable change along the frontier region that corresponded to soil quality (Roymans 1996). These themes appear to parallel the north of England where the distribution of artefacts and sites were most abundant east of the Pennines in the arable Vales.

Brooches are one of the most extensively studied artefacts because of their functional use and the implications of their decoration. Studies include those by Snape (1993); Hattatt (1982; 1985); Collingwood and Richmond (1969);

7

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH and the most recent study by Bayley and Butcher (2004). Additional studies of individual brooch types and particular examples have been completed; these include Fowler’s (1960) analysis of penannular brooches, and Bulmer’s research on dragonesque brooches (1938). Brooches are incorporated into costume studies and thus addressed by Croom (2002; 2004) and Wild (1985; 2004).

Any academic discourse addressing questions of personal ornamentation, also incorporates elements of gender. Gender has been extensively studied in conjunction with the northern assemblage. Allason-Jones’s work has highlighted the difficulty of sexing small finds (1995), but has also provided a comprehensive discussion of life in general and for women in Roman Britain (Allason-Jones 2008; 2005b). Allason-Jones further demonstrated the difficulties in separating assemblages between military and civilian, a trend discussed in Chapter five (AllasonJones 1988).

While brooches are both functional and ornamental, intaglios provide details about their owner’s ethnic origins, wealth, status and beliefs. The leading expert on intaglio analysis; Henig has written numerous specialist reports and monographs cataloguing particular examples and their implications (1972; 1974a; 1974b; 1984). Pendants and necklaces also are found in small numbers and are generally included in Johns’s study of jewellery (Johns 1996) and Greep’s study on antler pendants from Britain (Greep 1994).

Allason-Jones’s work can be contextualized by Allison’s 2006 study mapping gender inside German forts. She observed that artefacts associated with women and children were found in all forts, but the location of recovery varied (Allison 2006). Thus, it appears that no common rules applied to women and children inside forts. On Hadrian’s Wall, the recovery of leather shoes for women and children suggests their presence inside forts (Van Driel Murray 1985). Likewise, pins were recovered from inside late period forts including South Shields, Binchester, and York.

Hairpins have received attention in gender studies and were catalogued by Crummy in her 1979 work: A Chronology of Romano-British Bone Pins. Additionally, Cool has analyzed them in conjunction with her work at Castleford (Cool and Philo 1998) and Brougham (Cool 2004). Earrings, another primarily feminine artefact, were studied by Allason-Jones (1989) while Henig and Guirald considered rings; their work is cited by Johns (1996), Croom (2004) and Henig (1974b).

Additionally, Puttock (2002) has utilized the same types of personal ornaments as within this study, to address their ritual significance. Although the function of most personal ornaments is not a key theme of this research, Puttock’s work is integral by assigning objects to women and children as well as sourcing some iconography (i.e. hares and dogs) to symbolic deposition. Her work also demonstrates the semiotic importance of personal ornaments as the objects themselves represented an individual’s status, gender and beliefs.

Even with such a large collection of typologies, much of the material is now out-dated or limited geographically. For example, Guido’s study on beads is now 30 years old and Crummy’s work on hairpins was based solely on the material from Colchester (Crummy 1979). Although these studies provide a standard comparable assemblage, this work has also demonstrated the need for greater expansion upon artefact typologies.

Ethnicity is associated with cultural and gender studies. As will be discussed in Chapter two, the diversity of ethnicity is visible in the cultural assemblages (Jones, S. 1997). By virtue of the inherent meaning within personal ornaments, some of the objects are representative of the cultural diversity in the north of England. As observed by Cool, in regard to the Roman cemetery at Brougham, the recovery of Iron Bucket Pendants and horse cremations provide evidence of a Pannonian connection (Cool 2004: 464-465). This particular example is an important reminder of the recovery of ethnically symbolic remains (Eriksen 2002; Jones, S. 1997). However, as Anderson argued in Imagined Communities, an individual’s ethnic beliefs are not always synonymous with their outward expression. As was visible in the above mentioned figure 1.1, it is impossible to clarify ethnic beliefs. Thus, in a Roman context, the recovery of objects that formed part of the Roman cultural assemblage do not guarantee that the owner was ethnically Roman. It does suggest that he was engaging with the Roman cultural system and in select circumstances providing a Roman façade. Even with the limitation of ethnic archaeology, personal ornamentation does allow one to address questions of gender, status, integration into the economic system and some of the factors that affected variable assemblage formation.

The prior work on ‘Romanization’, gender and ethnicity A large corpus of material on ‘Romanization’, gender and ethnicity exists both in relation to Roman Britain, but also to the field of archaeology as a whole. ‘Romanization’, as will be discussed in Chapter two, has been reviewed stemming from its roots with Haverfield (1915) throughout modern usage, thereby representing the post-conquest influences deriving from Roman culture. Accordingly, the distribution and type of personal ornaments recovered throughout northern Roman Britain are evidence for cultural change. Even though a number of the objects, such as glass bangles and dragonesque brooches, illustrate Celtic influences, the form and method of manufacture are Roman (Hunter 2008; Bayley and Butcher 2004; Price 1988). Although these objects were found in the north pre-conquest, the quantity and distribution show change associated with the Roman invasion.

8

CHAPTER ONE: STUDY OF PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION IN ROMAN BRITAIN MOVING FORWARD This research utilizes the pre-existing work on Roman Britain as a foundation for exploring cultural diversity and unity in the north of England. From the regions fragmented Roman origins, to the civilizing evidence of the late period, change, which directly derives from the conquest, is visible. Based upon personal ornamentation, these changes occurred in all populations with the Roman military, civilian population, individuals from southern Britain, those from across the Empire and peasants all contributing to the formation of a unique cultural assemblage. However, the pre-existing texts have shown that there is variability in the uptake and types of objects adopted and integrated into the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage. This internalization varied based upon gender, ethnicity, status, geographical location, and chronology. While many of these themes have been explored independently, this research provides evidence of cultural evolution by using personal ornamentation, which, as mentioned previously, is a non-verbal indicator of cultural change and carries a wide-range of meanings. The methodology of this approach incorporates all published sites within the north of England and thus, is the most comprehensive analysis of the frontier region. By comparing artefact assemblages both temporally, by site type and geographically, it is possible to demonstrate a wide range of experiences within the north. However, even though the sites yielded different proportions of objects based upon the above-mentioned factors, there was a unique northern Romano-British cultural assemblage that was adopted across all site types. Thus, although the evidence is limited, one can observe cultural change in the north of England. Therefore, based upon the collation of the personal ornaments from various site types across the north, it has been possible to look at the types of personal ornaments common within the region (Chapter Three). Subsequently, I have evaluated the assemblage chronologically (Chapter Four) and across site types to discern how artefacts moved and some of the socio-economic factors responsible for site variation (Chapter Five). I have also divided the north of England geographically, with a loose division between the more arable eastern sites and the pastoral western sites (Chapter Six). Lastly, to put the northern material in context with the rest of the Empire, a case study where the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage was compared with southern material was performed (Chapter Seven). This research is broad in its scope by trying to look at the large-scale implications of material culture in the north of England.

9

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING ARTEFACT COLLECTIONS AND METHODS FOR ASSEMBLING A NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH COLLECTION OF PERSONAL ADORNMENTS

The accidents, intentions, omissions and carelessness of everyday life have always lead to items being mislaid and lost, items that may be preserved in the ever-falling detritus that also comes with everyday life. These items, worked by environmental processes and excavated millennia later, become parts of collections from which we seek to infer all we can about the lives of our predecessors. The Roman conquest of Britain left myriad elements in such an archaeological record, including personal ornamentation, food, pottery and evidence of changing costume. These have formed the basis for a long history of analysis encompassing identity, gender, ethnicity and culture with major contributions by scholars such as Allason-Jones, Hunter, Cool, Jones, and Mattingly (Allason-Jones 2008; 2005a; 2005b; 2002; 1991; 1997; 1995; 1989; 1988; Hunter 2008; 2004; 2001; Jones, S. 1997; Mattingly 2007; 2004; 1997). Collections scattered over the landscape provide opportunities for another dimension of study, focussing on differences among geographical areas within the modern day north of England. Other studies have focused upon limited subsets of the material (i.e. a specific site category), such as along Hadrian’s Wall (i.e. AllasonJones 2002; 1988; Bidwell 1999).

both human (cultural) and environmental (non-cultural) sources. These directly affect the types and quantities of objects recovered, their condition, and may further vary with location reflecting different cultural mores and geographical location, all of which relate to site by site variation. Second, personal ornamentation was decorative and operated as a non-verbal tool for communication. Thus, in addition to being part of a cultural assemblage, the objects function within a semiotic system. Third, the relationship between personal ornamentation or material culture and how this reflects changes in culture must be discussed. Lastly, because this research utilizes Roman material culture, it is essential to address the theoretical and practical uses of the terms Romanization, creolization and globalization in regard to understanding cultural change in the north of England. THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURAL AND NONCUTULRAL ENVIRONEMNTAL FACTORS ON THE FORMATION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD The formation of the archaeological record is the basis of all archaeological analysis. It is comprised of both cultural and non-cultural actions (Schiffer 1987). Cultural formation processes are the deliberate actions of humans such as: manufacturing, use, abandonment, recycling, trade, as well as modern human activities that affect the archaeological record such as ploughing (Renfrew and Bahn 2004: 56; Schiffer 1987: 5-7). Non-cultural formation processes refer to the impact that the natural environment has upon the archaeological record, including soil types, weather, and natural disasters (Schiffer 1987: 143-267). These factors all determine what artefacts survive and in what quantities. For example, wood will not survive in most of the clay soils of northern England, but waterlogged sites allow for the recovery of a wider than normal spectrum of artefacts (McCarthy 1991).

Previous artefact studies have tended to centre upon an artefact collection to either create a corpus of finds or address a specific subset or function of the materials (i.e. individual artefact types (Bayley and Butcher 2004; Allason-Jones 1989; Crummy 1979; Guido 1979), site types, or functions (Puttock 2002). However, an analysis of many Roman-era collections over a large geographic area is lacking, but is desirable to seek a broader understanding of cultural issues. The Romano-British database of artefacts in the north of England is especially suitable to attempt broader analysis because the nature of the region—both as a frontier zone and a hinterland; thus, showing cultural evolution and some of the elements of such change.

The cultural and non-cultural formative properties directly impact the assemblages in two main ways. First, by determining how objects enter the archaeological record and second, how and why artefact assemblages differ between sites. For example, the burial of an individual with a jet bracelet explains the how of the objects deposition, but the why is based upon elements of trade, wealth, geographical position, cultural beliefs and ethnicity. All

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS However, before considering the Romano-British collections, it is necessary to revisit the nature of archaeological collections and hence, the theoretical and methodological opportunities and pitfalls that are central to all such research. First, for example, the formation processes of the archaeological record, as noted above, involves stochastic events arising from

10

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING ARTEFACT COLLECTIONS AND METHODS of these causal factors are part of the cultural formation process.

On a local scale, the proximity of sites to sources of material, and manufacturing centres were integral in the formation of assemblages. For example, a greater than average black bead assemblage and a number of malformed examples imply local manufacture at York (Tweedle 1986: 210-217). Although recovered elsewhere, their limited distribution depends upon the location of manufacture. Similarly, in the north of England, jet was common along the Yorkshire coast, one of its major sources (Allason-Jones 1996) and may have been particularly popular with subsets of the population.

The artefacts recovered from the north of England entered the archaeological record either by accidental loss or intentional deposition. The latter included votive offerings, such as those located at temple sites or in burials (France and Gobel 1985; Philpott 1991). Objects that were broken or malformed were also usually discarded intentionally. Accidental loss ranges from objects that fell into rubbish pits, artefacts which were dropped on the floor and not retrieved, as well as those items that could not be recovered at the time of loss, such as an intaglio dropped into the York sewer system (Macgregor, M. 1976; Whitwell, J.B. 1976).

In addition to the above mentioned cultural factors, the archaeological record also depends upon the rate of loss of artefacts and the quantity of objects in use on a given site. The quantity of artefacts and the frequency of loss result in a greater chance of recovery (see: Schiffer 1987: 53-75). For example, Bayley and Butcher state that “in the first 150 years of Roman occupation the population of Britain is conservatively estimated to have been between one and two million and at this time brooches were a standard part of everyday costume; thus most individuals would have had at least one” (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 206). Accordingly, brooches were the largest artefact grouping from the north of England and examples came from all site types.

Both cultural and non-cultural factors directly affected the assemblages of every site in the north. The variable concentrations and distribution of objects suggest centrifugal movement from the military and non-military urban sites to the rural population. However, just because an individual owned/used an object during the Roman period, it does not necessarily mean that this object will be recovered. Modern ploughing, errors by excavators, soil conditions, weather, and a host of other factors can all alter the archaeological record. There were a number of cultural factors responsible for the formation of the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage. These included: trade/migration, the cycling of objects between site types and the relationship between manufacturing centres and individual sites. These factors created the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage and were in part responsible for the variable assemblages between sites.

It would be naïve to argue that the assemblage recovered solely depended upon quantity and rate of loss, as there were myriad other variables that altered the archaeology of northern England. Ploughing is a cultural process, which has obliterated numerous sites and disrupted stratigraphy (Renfrew and Bahn 2004: 59-62). English Heritage, in 1998, highlighted the damage of modern ploughing and noted that it was the greatest threat to the survival of archaeology (Darvill and Fulton 1998). Additionally, ploughing (and trampling) alters the artefact assemblage selectively, with objects like bone, and glass being more susceptible to damage than stone, metals and pottery. In urban deposits, modern construction damages stratigraphy, limits access to sites, and shifts artefacts by location. For example, the city of York remains largely unexcavated because of historic and modern use, while the fort and vicus at Castleford has been extensively excavated and yields a larger assemblage.

Trade and migration introduced personal adornments from across the Empire, including Egypt, Africa, and Gaul. The ethnically diverse auxiliary troops moved to the British frontier, brought artefacts with them, and consequently introduced unique objects into the northern cultural assemblage (Haselgrove 1984). One example of such action is at the Roman cemetery at Brougham, where the cremation of horses, gold-in-glass beads, and iron bucket pendants argue for a population with Eastern, Pannonian connections (Cool 2004: 464-466). These migratory processes only account for a small proportion of the site’s collection, but they still contributed to the cultural assemblage.

Non-cultural factors also impact the archaeological record. These include: the soil matrix, weather conditions, animal and root action.3 The non-cultural factors have a direct impact on what objects survive, site stratigraphy and contextual data. In the north of England, the environmental conditions are diverse and include variation in soils (i.e. the soils near Aldborough are particularly acidic and therefore not conducive to bone survival) (Bishop 1996:1-3). The

The cycling of objects through the landscape also was integral in the formation of individual assemblages (Taylor, T. 1999). Cycling included the exchange of artefacts between northern England and the south/Gaul as well as locally manufactured objects being exchanged across site boundaries. These processes allowed the artefact assemblage to move between regions and also between populations, (i.e. Southern England and Northern England, Roman and Briton).

Noncultural factors are grouped into three main categories: chemical, physical and biological. These include atmospheric agents, irradiation by means of sunlight, soil, pH, and temperature (Schiffer 1987: 148-150). These conditions affect different types of artefacts to varying degrees. For example, chemical agents like acidic soils dissolve bone and pottery, whereas salty soils degrade metals (Schiffer 1987: 148-150). 3

11

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH modern exploitation of the landscape also has an impact. For example, the arable soils in Yorkshire are heavily cultivated, thus increasing the chance of archaeology being damaged or obliterated (Darvill and Fulton 1998).

grouping, a northern English cultural grouping as well as other ‘signifieds’ including wealth, status and ethnic origins. Signs and their associated symbols are universal. They are markers of identity including allegiance, heritage, status, gender and ethnicity. For example, in 21st century Britain, a gold or platinum ring on the left ring finger implies marriage and suggests that only a certain type of interaction is acceptable. Similarly, the wearing of a football top will invoke a number of different responses ranging from comradeship to aggression or indifference. In the Roman world, crossbow brooches were related to military service or civilian authority and accordingly, one would expect to recover them in limited locales (i.e. in forts and towns) (Johns 1996: 7; Wild 1985: 386).

Both cultural and non-cultural factors affect the archaeological record. For example, while ploughing may eradicate sites, it also moves objects laterally within the substrate affecting chronology. Animals, in particular moles, worms and rabbits also reposition objects within contexts (Schiffer 1987: 149-151). SEMIOTICS IN THE ROMAN NORTH The decorative and non-essential function of personal ornamentation means that in addition to representing cultural change, the type of object recovered allows one to draw conclusions based upon the items “signified” (meaning) within a semiotic system. As such, semiotic theory (the study of signs) is relevant. The discipline of semiotics evolved out of linguistic analysis of language and “speech, which can be defined (outside the variations of intensity in the phonation) as a (varied) combination of (recurrent) signs” (Barthes 1977: 19). Theorists argue that the value of “signs” or “signifiers” and their associated “signified” stems from the idea that “society is only intelligible through the messages and the communication structures that it comprises” (Nordbladh 1978: 67). These communication structures include language, as well as dress, personal ornamentation, and body language. Furthermore, the communication structures and their associated signifieds affect the interaction between individuals.

A second semiotic exchange occurs when artefacts are recovered. When an object is recovered, the object’s signified is interpreted by the excavator (receiver), who will interpret the signifiers and their signifieds based upon their own perceptions and how the objects relate to their own theories. For example, torcs have long been viewed as Celtic, native ornaments (Hunter 2008: 133ff; Johns 1996: 27-30). However, the most recent discussion of ‘Celtic Art’ by Hunter, suggests that they were part of the frontier culture and not evidence of resistance (Hunter 2008: 136-142). Thus, the conclusions drawn by their recovery depend upon the excavators own beliefs. Personal ornamentation also signified a certain social standing. In both Roman and modern times, the amount, quality and material of personal ornamentation allude to a person’s status. The way an individual expressed their social or political position directly affected what material existed on specific sites. For example, a rural site that produced a plethora of gold artefacts suggests a different population than a similar site with a single shale ring; accordingly, the elicited interpretation is that the site with gold artefacts had a wealthier population. Although it is impossible to verify, this conclusion was most likely the intended signified.

Semiotics is based on an exchange. There are three interrelated components: the signifier, the signified and the receiver (Barthes 1977: 39-41). The sign or signifier is the object itself and is the basis of the exchange. Every object has a meaning or signified, which may be intentional, such as an expression of wealth, or an unintentional suggestion of ethnicity. These objects can be culturally charged, with an inherent signified that the signifier may not intend. The ornaments, based upon the signified and the receiver will have a variety of meanings, many of which are based upon the receiver’s own cultural views or the surroundings in which the encounter occurs (Nordbladh 1978: 69; Maurer 1979: 120). For example, an individual wearing a Roman crossbow brooch (signifier) will be perceived (receiver) as having a Roman military or administrative role (signified).

DEFINING CULTURE AND MATERIAL CULTURE Material culture is the whole domain of things made and used by people and includes the study of technology, design, function, social organization, history, religion, ritual and belief. In addition to the objects themselves, material culture also incorporates the meaning (signified) of objects (see Gardin and Peebles 1992; Leone and Potter 1988; Malina and Vasicek 1990; Renfrew and Zubrow 1993; Tilley 1990). In the north of England, the integration of a diverse population, both in terms of origins and hierarchy, resulted in the formation of a unique cultural grouping and its associated material culture. For example, in the Roman north, the internalization of a northern Romano-British artefact assemblage by urban, rural, military and civilian populations provides evidence for the dynamic nature of culture; with the by-products of numerous ‘ethnic’ groups

Personal ornamentation meets Deeley’s requirement that “to be a sign, it is necessary to represent something other than the self. Being a sign is a form of bondage to another, to the signified, the other object that the sign is not but that the sign nevertheless stands for and represents.” (Deeley 1990: 35). Personal ornamentation, with its ethnically diverse origins, utilizes signs to convey significance. Although the signifiers may express different signifieds, the northern Romano-British artefact assemblage (signifiers) symbolized integration into a Roman cultural

12

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING ARTEFACT COLLECTIONS AND METHODS being united into one common assemblage (Woolf 1998: 7-22). By virtue of the heterozygous composition of the population, the assemblage from the north of England differed from other regions (Gaul, south of England, North Africa and the East) (see Chapter seven).

The integration, or more accurately, mixing of populations resulted in the hybridization of patterns, beliefs, decorations, language and material culture. In the north of England, Roman brooches were adopted by the local population and new brooch types were created, such as dragonesque and headstud brooches (Hunter 2008). These artefacts were examples of Roman material culture, but also a northern Romano-British culture.

The cultural assemblage from the north of England (both urban sites and those in the countryside) was certainly Roman, as corroborated by manufacturing techniques and exchange networks. However, it also incorporated elements associated with the influx of foreign peoples. As Grahame observed:

To use a definition of culture, which accounts for such diverse material culture, it is imperative that it be sympathetic to various forms of cultural identity, just as dialects relate to a common language. As such, LeviStrauss’s definition appears to be particularly relevant. He related culture to language and linguistics (Levi-Strauss 1969: 68). By doing so, he addressed cultural variations in an equivalent manner to dialects and further noted that even within overarching cultural groups (i.e. American) there were different social and cultural groups (i.e. southern dialect differs from Bostonian) (Levi-Strauss 1969: 295). The Roman cultural assemblage differed between regions, but was still united by a common bureaucracy and humanitas, with variation between assemblages symptomatic of the diversity within the Roman Empire (Woolf 1995: 15).

“Material culture is therefore a form of non-verbal communication and works with other non-verbal signals like, gestures, attitude of the body, accent and dialect to communicate information about the self. However, we would be wrong to think that material culture is merely the outward expression of an inner, innate identity. Identity is constructed and material culture is one of the media through which the formation and reformation of identity takes place” (Grahame 1998: 3). Finding a uniform definition of ‘Culture’ is complicated. For example, the term ‘Roman culture’ incorporates ideas, beliefs, religion, and political views from a population spread across modern-day Europe, North Africa, and Britain. With each expansion of the Empire, the definition of ‘Roman’ also changed to appropriate the practices of the newest citizenry (Freeman 1997: 51). In addition, the definition of what constituted Roman culture depended upon the geographical positioning of the population (i.e. the Romans in North Africa had a different culture than those in Britain) (Whittaker 1995; Millett 1990: 1-99; Fox, C. 1938). Material culture shows similar diversity. The material culture from the provinces was part of the larger Roman system. For example, Van Driel-Murray found that the shoes from Vindolanda were almost identical to those from Egypt (Van Driel-Murray 2001; 1998). Likewise, portraiture, such as the Hawara Portrait, from Egypt includes hairpins and necklaces similar to those found in Britain (Cool 1991a ; Petrie 1913). Individuals from across the Empire wore brooches; intaglios were adorned with similar iconography in Italy and Britain; and mosaics in Britain are similar in style and production to those found in Pompeii (see: Bayley and Butcher 2004; Henig 1974b; Sheppard 1923a). However, there were variations within the larger Roman context including the type of brooch worn (trumpet brooches were popular in northern England, while Colchester derivatives were more common in the south); the incorporation of pre-Roman objects (glass bangles, torcs) into the Romano-British assemblage; and the introduction and inclusion of ideas/objects from each population’s home region (iron bucket pendants, gold-inglass beads, antler pendants) (see Chapter five; Hunter 2008; Bayley and Butcher 2004; Cool 2004; Johns 1996; Price 1988; Boon 1977).

Material culture derives from its associated culture. Although Levi-Strauss’s definition of culture has its weaknesses, it demonstrates the myriad cultural identities that can be united into the formation of a single identity (i.e. Roman). Accordingly, the personal ornamentation from northern Romano-British sites comprises one strain of Roman material culture. Within these various definitions the idea of archaeological culture being a “repeatedly recurring assemblage of traits, pottery and house forms, burial practices—seen over a discrete time and space” (Johnson, M. 1999: 199) remains integral to the use of material culture in understanding the social genesis in the north of England between AD 43 and 410. This definition incorporates the normative view of shared ideas and beliefs, whether through the transmission of symbols or the structuralist anthropological approach of culture being analogous to language (Roscoe 2002: 107; Johnson, M. 1999: 65-88; Levi-Strauss 1969: 295). The north of England, as defined by Hadrian, was part of the Roman Empire and thus the entire population was considered to be ‘Roman’ after AD 122 (HA 1921: 35). However, direct comparison of the artefact assemblage from the north with any other province shows significant differences in the types of objects recovered (Chapter seven). Even within the north of England, the assemblages from towns and roundhouses differed both in the type and quantity of artefacts. For example, only 57% of the rural sites yielded Roman material culture. This can be juxtaposed with the late period, where the recovery of coins on rural sites (Reece 1991: 143-160) suggests a widening reach of the economic system, as does the construction of towns and villas in select profitable zones (Mattingly

13

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH 2007: 453-491; Black 1994: 11-13; Haselgrove 1984). The synthesis of material culture from native British, continental and southern British populations results in cultural evolution across the groups. These changes are illustrated by the formation of a regionally distinct assemblage that incorporated elements from each of the different populations. Although individuals would have recognized each variation as ‘Roman’, it was also possible to distinguish where in the Empire an individual had come from as well as some of the pre-Roman cultural traits.

The highly-debated term Romanization has been interpreted and influenced by Western imperial thought in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and is associated with concepts of imperialism and nationalism (Eriksen 2002; Hingley 2001; 1997). Within this debate is the centralized understanding of changes within a new region associated with the Roman conquest (James 2001a: 189199; Hingley 1997; Woolf 1995: 7). While history of the debate in not the topic of this book, the analysis of the material culture invariably demonstrates processes of ‘Romanization’. However, as argued by Mattingly (2007), “Romanization tends to reduce the question of cultural identity to a simple binary opposition: Roman and native” (Mattingly 2007: 14). Because of this ‘binary opposition’, he chooses not to use the term—Romanization—in his work. As such, he states: “in seeking an explanatory model for this social variability, I have been drawn to the concept of ‘discrepant experience’ in post-colonial research on modern imperialism” (Mattingly 2007: 17). Likewise, my work on cultural change through personal ornamentation focuses on the formation of a unique cultural assemblage that illustrates ‘social variability’, showing incorporation of Empire-wide, regional and localized processes and not merely a ‘binary opposition’. Thus although the assemblage clearly reflects the influence of Roman culture, it also demonstrates the influence of local individuals, who may or may not perceive themselves as ‘Roman’ (Anderson 1983). Therefore, ‘Romanization’ used in the most minimalistic sense—merely to explain the occurrence of change in the north post-Claudian conquest—is still rendered out-dated and inherently biased (Mattingly 2007: 14-17; Merryweather and Prag 2002: 5-7).

While studies of the northern material culture evidence cultural evolution, the assemblage also suggests diversity within a single ethnicity. Like culture, ethnicity is difficult to define but centres upon an element of self-consciousness (Eriksen 2002; Jones, S. 1997: 64). Definitions include a focus on kinship ties, while alternative arguments derive not from geography or social groups, but the adaptation to a particular social or ecological niche (Jones, S. 1997: 73). The archaeological record is limited in its access to the intangibles like belief, but the material culture from the north of England, shows the creation of a unique cultural assemblage (Johnson, M. 1999: 68; Anderson 1963: 3-7). Ethnicity also depends upon a group being “regarded by others, as being culturally distinctive” which is equally difficult to assess archaeologically (Eriksen 2002: 4). The north of England, based upon Eriksen’s definition, would have been ethnically and culturally diverse. The auxiliary troops would have differed ethnically from both the indigenous population and other troops, while still sharing cultural traits. Over a few generations, distinguishing between ‘Romans’ and ‘natives’ would become impossible and accordingly, a common cultural assemblage was formed. However, the continuous influx of new troops would have furthered the cultural change in the north with new ethnic groups contributing to the existing northern Romano-British cultural assemblage (Eriksen 2002: 3; Blagg 1984: 250).

Although the definition and use of the term Romanization has responded to post-colonial forces, its imperial origins have permanently tarnished its usage. Assumptions of unilateral transfer of culture within traditional notions of ‘Romanization’ are clearly flawed, but remained paramount to much of the early academic debate including the works of Haverfield and Mommsen (see: Mattingly 2004: 5-25 and 1997: 9, Freeman 1997; Barrett 1997). In The Romanization of Roman Britain, Haverfield states: “First, Romanization extinguished the differences between Roman and provincial through all parts of the Empire but the east, alike in speech, in material culture, in political feeling and religion” (Haverfield 1915: 22). Although the Roman conquest was a catalyst for change across the West, it cannot be understood as simply or mainly unidirectional, as implied by the early discussions of Roman culture (Mattingly 2007; Hingley 2001: 7-9; Woolf 1998; Freeman 1997: 31).

‘CULTURAL CHANGE, ‘ROMANIZATION’, ‘CREOLIZATION’ AND ‘GLOBALIZATION’ My research utilizes the personal ornamentation assemblage from the north of England to demonstrate the formation of a unique regionally distinct material culture. While the majority of the artefacts are integrated into the larger Roman material cultural assemblage (i.e. brooches, hairpins, melon beads) the assemblage also includes unique contributions from the pre-existing culture in the north of England. The personal ornamentation assemblage therefore reflects dynamic cultural change through both variable and divergent experiences, in a similar manner to Mattingly’s (2007) discrepant experience. The assemblage not only is heavily influenced by the globalized Roman cultural assemblage but also demonstrates the ‘creolizing’ of Roman and indigenous culture. Because of limitations of the terms Romanization, creolization and globalization, the term ‘cultural change’ remains more appropriate in relation to the region’s artefact assemblage.

A more nuanced understanding of ‘Romanization’ has been developing through studies of Roman Gaul, Scotland and other frontier regions together with continued debate within the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conferences (See: Hunter 2008; Carr 2001; Woolf 1998; Grahame 1998; Roymans 1996; Whittaker 1995; Curle 1932). Woolf, in particular, questioned the notion of a universally shared experience of ‘Romanization’, when he demonstrated 14

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING ARTEFACT COLLECTIONS AND METHODS that regional and settlement-type variation existed. He observed that the “west is seen more Romanized than temperate Europe, southern Gaul more Romanized than the provinces, and cities more Romanized than the countryside” (Woolf 1998: 6). He further noted the importance of understanding and focusing upon cultural diversity rather than universal unifying trends (Woolf 1998).

Caribbean and American Anthropological traditions is likewise controversial4 (Palmié 2006). Thus, ‘creolization’ appears no more suitable than ‘Romanization’ to capture the process of post-conquest cultural change. The term globalization has also been used in lieu of ‘Romanization’ (Woolf 1998; Wallerstein 1974). The evidence from pottery (Tyers 1996), food (Cool 2006) and the military presence (Jones, G.D.B. 1984; Webster, G. 1969) suggests that post-conquest, the north of England participated in a ‘global’ world system. Wallerstein (1974) argued for a core-periphery economic system with the provinces facilitating the growth of the centre while also benefiting from Empire-wide trade (Wallerstein 1974: 16; Fulford 1984). Identity was also globalized with ideas and cultural beliefs and material culture from across the Empire being incorporated and affecting the identity of those from the north of England (Hingley 1997). Thus, the benefits of the term globalization are reflected in the common elements of culture/material culture across all provinces of the Empire and its impact on the local scale. However, ‘globalization’ reflects unintentional and random influences upon the provinces, rather than a concerted effort to incorporate the region within the Empire (Mattingly 2007: 17).

Based upon the shortcomings for the term Romanization, other terms such as ‘creolization’ (Carr 2001; Webster, J. 2001) and ‘globalization’ (i.e. Woolf 1998; Hingley 1997; Wallerstein 1974) might be preferred as they focus upon the multilateral exchange and emphasize the importance of the local population in the forming of varying definitions of cultural identity. As with ‘Romanization’, the terms creolization and globalization have particular strengths and weaknesses. Webster bases the use of ‘creolization’ on the linguistic blending of two languages into the formation of a unique dialect. She argues that the formation of a unique dialect from two separate languages can be directly applied to culture; specifically the blending of Roman and native cultures into the formation of a distinct culture (Carr 2001, Webster, J. 2001: 217ff). In the north of England, the personal ornamentation assemblage incorporates Brigantian, Parisian, Roman, and southern English cultural elements to form a unique northern RomanoBritish assemblage, part Roman and part trace elements from the contributing peoples. But in addition, while the material culture from the north of England is predominantly a regionally distinct assemblage, the recovery of unique artefacts from individual sites reflects the cultural diversity within the region. Northern Romano-British material culture included similar cultural traits from other provinces in the form and function of artefacts, even though the iconography and elements of the composition varied according to local trends.

In summary, ‘Romanization’, ‘creolization’ and ‘globalization’ are inadequate to describe the formation of a distinct northern Romano-British cultural assemblage as well as the unique factors within that assemblage. I focus on the cultural change present within the north of England post-Claudian conquest, developing upon two distinct themes; commonality and divergence. The former is evident in the formation of a unique regionally distinct assemblage. Divergence is also present in the changing cultural assemblage with factors such as geography, wealth, personal taste and site type affecting the assemblage. Therefore, the term ‘cultural change’ is concise, accurate and unambiguous. A regionally distinct cultural assemblage formed in the north of England deriving from the cultural identity and ethnicity of the soldiers, civilians and the indigenous population. The artefact assemblage was then internalized by segments of the urban and rural population. Blending indigenous peoples and individuals from across the Roman Empire led to the formation of regional strains of both culture and material culture. Local population also continued the manufacture of locally popular objects for several generations after the arrival of the Roman army (Jope 2000: 174). Various objects, techniques, and designs from the pre-conquest artefact assemblage including: champlevé and repoussé techniques, glass bangles and embossed disc brooches were adopted by the Roman population and formed part of the northern Romano-

Thus, while the term creolization has some merits, it disregards the importance of emulation and the impact of the native elite in the process of cultural change across the region as a whole (Mattingly 2004). Also, while scholars debate and isolate serious problems within the definition of ‘Romanization’ and ‘globalization’, ‘creolization’ is largely overlooked in spite of any merits (i.e. Mattingly 2007; Merryweather and Prag 2002). For example, at the 2002 Institute of Archaeology’s post-graduate colloquium, which included eight papers, only one author (Quinn 2002) mentions ‘creolization’. Quinn then disregards the term as “such approaches still assume that there were originally separate peoples or cultural systems involved in the colonial encounter, to be hybridized or creolized” (Quinn 2002: 28). He further explains that ‘creolization’ “was developed to explicate the material culture of slaves in the American south, which really did involve the confrontation of completely different cultural traditions” (Quinn 2002: 28). Additionally, just as ‘Romanization’ is laden with Western imperialist thought, the adoption of a term based within

Palimé observes that even within different parts of the Caribbean, Creole has different meanings and is heavily criticized by certain sectors of the Caribbean population, for example individuals from Trinidad continually criticize the term (2006: 441). 4

15

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH and aspects such as a greater proportion of functional than decorative brooches and fewer recovered pins.

British cultural assemblage (Hunter 2008; Bayley and Butcher 2004: 171-173; Price 1988: 353). The resulting material culture was the product of a regional culture that incorporated various strains of Roman and native ethnicities. Thus, while the concept of culture evolved, so too did northern Romano-British cultural identity.

Even though there were myriad variable experiences in the north of England after the conquest, the degree of cultural change is based upon the more prolific Roman cultural assemblages. In addition to studies on personal ornamentation, the analysis of pottery and food reflects the influence of the Roman military and extramural population on the landscape and native population and vice versa (i.e. Van der Veen 2008; Eckardt and Crummy 2006; Cool 2006; Eckardt 2005). It is through these artefactual studies that cultural change is demonstrated as are the primary themes of this book; commonality and divergence.

In spite of many common features in the overall personal artefact assemblage, variation is also found with that assemblage. Variations are also found within regions. Such variation among site types and their associated populations reflects differences in ethnic identities, geography, and psychological elements. The Roman conquest introduced a large urban population, but there were limited changes in the rural landscape, where the majority of individuals resided (Mattingly 2007: 453). For example, Haselgrove’s work in the Tyne-Tees lowlands (1982) concludes that many of the large rural enclosures used in the pre-Roman Iron Age survived throughout the Roman period with little change (Haselgrove 1982: 65). The rural population was large, but the personal artefact assemblage was small when compared with forts and towns. Although cultural change was visible in the rural landscape, whether through increased access to goods, changes in social hierarchy, construction of roads, or the arrival of new populations (Mattingly 2007: 491-539; Woolf 1998: 6; Millett 1990; Piggott 1958), divergence remained, notably illustrated in the smaller number of artefacts per site for rural locations,

METHODOLOGY The Study Zone The zone of study includes the perceived tribal boundaries of the Brigantes and Parisi (Mattingly 2007: 49-84; Hartley and Fitts 1988: 4-6). Its northern extent is Hadrian’s Wall, the northern boundary of the Roman Empire, except during the Antonine period. The western and eastern extents were defined by the Irish and North Sea respectively. The southern boundary ran from the Mersey in the west, across the peak district north of Brough-on-Noe, to the 300 meter

Map 2.1: All published sites between Hadrian’s Wall and a Mersey-Humber line were incorporated into the data set.

16

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING ARTEFACT COLLECTIONS AND METHODS

Map 2.2. Distribution of northern military sites.

Map 2.3. Distribution of vici.

17

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Map 2.4. Distribution of towns.

Map 2.5. Distribution of villa sites. All are located east of the Pennines on high quality arable soils. 18

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING ARTEFACT COLLECTIONS AND METHODS

Map 2.6. Distribution of rural sites.

Map 2.7. Distribution of cave sites.

19

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Map 2.8. Distribution of cemeteries.

The Site Types and their Definition.

contour, where it passes north of Chesterfield to Doncaster and across to the modern site of East Halton (Map 2.1).

All artefacts were assigned to one of seven different site types: military, vicus, town, villa, rural, cave and cemetery. Military sites included forts—both legionary and auxiliary, fortlets, and marching camps (Map 2.2). Vici are the extramural settlements outside of forts (Map 2.3). Towns were administrative centres, including Colonia and civitates. (Map 2.4). The countryside included villas, all of which were constructed east of the Pennines in the third century AD (Map 2.5) and rural sites (Map 2.6). The latter were the most abundant site grouping in the north and included all non-urban locations with fewer than five collected roundhouses in any given phase. Cave sites were found in Yorkshire and most likely served a ritual function (Map 2.7). Cemeteries were the final site category (Map 2.8).

Personal Ornamentation As discussed in the introduction, while pottery, food, architecture, and writing all provide evidence of cultural change, they all have limitations as well. Thus, personal ornamentation is a valuable indicator of change because it functions in a semiotic system, is comparatively affordable and shows a relatively quick uptake both immediately after the conquest and as fashions changed throughout the Roman period. Additionally, because of the range of objects, materials and decoration, personal ornaments also directly address questions of an individual’s status, wealth, gender, and beliefs. The types and quantities of objects recovered also allude to the degree of integration into the Roman system.

In order to understand the dynamics of cultural change, it was imperative to use artefacts that could be assigned to one of the seven site types. This means that all artefacts without clear provenience were disregarded from the assemblage as a whole. For the same reasoning, all finds from field walking, metal detectorists and the Portable Antiquity Scheme (PAS) were omitted. The number of artefacts recorded in PAS would have greatly enhanced the

The personal ornamentation studied has been divided into seven categories: Brooches, Beads, Pins, Bracelets/ Bangles, Rings/Earrings, Intaglios, and ‘other’ (which includes: chains, necklaces, pendants and torcs). Additionally, while some pre-conquest material was recovered, greater than 90% of the assemblage was excavated from post-conquest contexts.

20

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING ARTEFACT COLLECTIONS AND METHODS FindID

Type

2889 Brooch

Subtype Trumpet

Location Watercrook

Materialtext CU

Date

context

1-2nd Cent. AD

Ditch I

notes Spring, pin and head-loop only.

site type Military

period Early

Reference Olivier 1979b, 209 #10

Table 1.1: Excerpt from database. The brooch is a copper alloy, trumpet brooch recovered from ditch I at Watercrook fort. within the study zone) and the loss or lack of contextual data for many of the finds in museum collections. By collecting data from the published material only, it was possible to include contextual data, clearly assign artefacts to specific site types and periods. While every attempt was made to make this a comprehensive study, there will have been a small collection of material that invariably has been overlooked.

study if the objects could be clearly assigned to specific rural sites. In order to assess the implications of the PAS data on this research, I compared the finds from PAS in Cumbria to the complete rural assemblage recovered for this study. The PAS material showed a greater quantity of metal objects, but proportionally the artefacts recovered remained similar to the rural site assemblage collated for this study. Thus, the material from the PAS remained omitted to avoid unnecessary variables. Furthermore, while it is probable that some of the PAS data could still have been included in this study, the process of determining which artefacts were relevant would not have been feasibly completed within the relevant time frame.

From within these study parameters, all personal ornaments, their contexts, chronological information and site category were collected and inserted into a database using Microsoft Access. In order to provide a uniform database, artefact type, subtype, material, location, context, period, additional notes, site grouping and reference were all recorded as demonstrated in Table 1.1.

Defining the Period of Study The period of study begins with the Roman conquest in AD 43 and ends in the late fourth century AD. For this study, the period of loss was divided into two periods: early (first and second centuries AD) and late (third and fourth centuries AD). Clearly, changes in fashion occurred within these chronological blocks, but the contextual data from many of the rural sites limits the data set to these main chronological groupings—an approach utilized with success in 2001 by Hunter in Roman and Native in Scotland: New Approaches.

Where information in publication reports was incomplete, I reconstructed the requisite information based upon artefact drawings and site phasing. However, in some cases this remained impossible, especially for those artefacts and sites with multiple periods of use i.e. penannular brooches, beads. Artefacts from unknown site groupings were removed from the database. As this research utilized the data from publications, it is possible that there may be errors in the original site reports in regard to dating or certain objects may have been omitted. Additionally, many of the objects classified as jet or shale have not been properly studied to determine if they are jet, shale, or cannel coal. For example Allason-Jones and Jones (2001) state the term “jet’ might encompass such materials as true jet, coal (including cannel coal), shale, torbanite and asphalt” (Allason-Jones and Jones 2001: 233). As such, throughout this dissertation, all personal ornamentations made of non-glass, black shiny material will be referred to as jet/shale as it is outside the scope of this research to conduct reflected light microscopy for all the relevant objects. Likewise, the use of the terms jet, shale, cannel coal, etc. in the database derives from the original publication reports and any errors within their classification at the time of publication remain unchanged. Additionally, where the classification of objects differed from my own analysis, (i.e. the classification of a ring as a finger ring versus hair ring or harness), the data from the original publication was used and took precedence.

Methodology All personal ornaments from published sites in the zone of study (the north of England) were recorded and all subsequent write-up using Microsoft Word and Excel. The database was constructed from monographs (i.e. CBA, English Heritage, etc.), national and local journals as well as gazetteers of sites. The journals included were: Antiquaries Journal (1920-2007); Antiquity (1772-2007); Archaeologia (1773-1895); Archaeologia Aeliana (18222008); Archaeological Journal (1870-2004), BAR Reports (international and British); Britannia (1970-2004), Derbyshire Archaeological Journal (1880-2004), Durham Archaeological Journal (1984-2001) Greater Manchester Archaeological Journal (1985-1988); Journal of Roman Archaeology (1988-2007); Journal of Roman Studies (1911-1980), Transactions of Cumberland & Westmorland Archaeological and Antiquarian Society (1874-2004); Transactions of East Riding Antiquarian Society (19031983); and Yorkshire Archaeological Journal (1870-2004).

Although the collation of such a diverse range of data would have allowed for the formation of a corpus, conscious choices were made to use the data to address wider issues of cultural change. Had I chosen to solely create a corpus of personal ornaments, I would have been unable to look at the broader implications and would most

This method of data collection differed from similar studies including Cool’s doctoral thesis (1983), by focusing upon the publication reports rather than visiting the various museum collections. This was due in part to the large-scale of the zone of study (and the number of local museums

21

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH likely have been forced to limit the number of personal ornaments discussed. While some small subset of the material has been omitted, the scale of the assemblage and the methodological approach ensure that the conclusions drawn are not limited by these omissions. The limited nature of the assemblage, in particular those finds from the countryside, meant that the personal ornaments were compared in broad categories. This included site type, artefact grouping (i.e. in the case of brooches, as bow, plate and penannular) and chronology. Furthermore, because of the variation in yields per site, scale of excavations, or intensity of excavations, this research depended upon the proportion of a specific artefact against the complete assemblage (i.e. 15 rural brooches of 100 rural artefacts, translates into 15% of the rural artefacts as brooches). Although attempts were used to determine the statistical significance of assemblage variations, the variation in artefact quantities rendered all results insignificant. By focusing on the region as a whole, there are two main limitations. First, the approach disregards geographical variations and second, those sites with unique assemblages can be overlooked. In order to address both of these problems, those assemblages that differ from the regional assemblage will be addressed in Chapter three. Furthermore, I intend to show the formation of a regional cultural identity, which itself includes artefacts from across the Empire as well as those locally produced. It is these subsets of the material that are indicative of the frontier region and are evidence of the variation inherent within such a diverse population. Thus, wherever possible they will be highlighted. The macroscopic approach of this study addresses issues of cultural change and assemblage formation, but not the microscopic significance of each individual object recovered or all the potential factors for site variation.

22

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE The north of England has yielded a rich collection of artefacts from a range of amateur and larger modern systematic excavations. However, because of this history, the quality and quantity of artefacts recovered vary significantly. In order to understand the dynamics of the evolving cultural assemblage in the north of England, it is necessary to focus on material recovered from clearly definable sites. Consequently, all data from unpublished sites and artefacts lacking provenience in museums, and those in private collections have been omitted. Nevertheless, 3673 personal ornaments from 241 sites were identified for analysis of patterns of cultural change in the north of England during the first to fourth centuries AD.

Within the six site types there were two metagroups distinguished by different landscapes; urban and countryside. Not surprisingly, the urban sites, including forts, towns and vici yielded the greatest number of artefacts and were the conduits for artefact dispersal across the north. However, the larger number of artefacts at these sites also reflects historical trends in exploring archaeological sites, which added an urban bias. The proximity of major Roman sites to modern cities and the historical impetus for excavations to yield large corpora of finds meant that the urban group of sites were the focus of nineteenth and twentieth century excavations. In contrast, the countryside was largely neglected archaeologically until the mid-twentieth century when the impetus shifted to studies seeking to understand cultural changes of the region as a whole. Examples of this change include the work of Jobey, G. in Northumbria (1982; 1979; 1972; 1971; 1965; 1964; 1960); Higham and Jones’s excavations in Cumbria (1975); R.F.J. Jones’s unpublished work at Newstead in Scotland; J. Taylor’s (2007) study of the countryside, and the intensive aerial photographic agenda of the Yorkshire Wolds (Stoertz 1997). This shift in research altered the perceptions of the countryside and demonstrated the scale of the non-urbanized population. Mattingly argued that the rural population was circa 1.6 million people, which equated to 80% of the population (Mattingly 2007: 356).

Personal ornaments and their chronological appearance show cultural evolution associated with changes in taste and technology in their manufacture, as well as, opportunistically, as a result of contact with new cultures. Collections from the north of England illustrate this cultural dynamism as personal ornaments following Roman fashion appeared in different social strata identified by the various site types. However, the dynamic nature of culture also can be seen in the infusion of what have long-since been termed ‘Celtic’ themed artefacts, like glass bangles and dragonesque brooches (Figure 3.1) into northern Roman period artefact assemblages (Hunter 2008; Bayley and Butcher 2004: 171-172; Price 1988).

The present study gives some insight into social factors affecting life in the countryside. Thus, artefacts with Roman associations were recovered from 65% of rural sites. These were mainly utilitarian items, such as pottery, which dominated Roman assemblages, probably reflecting the necessity for practical uses in agrarian settings (Walter 2005: 374-375). In contrast, 37% of sites yielded personal ornamentation. The rural sites with personal ornamentation were scattered with no obvious pattern, and hence, perhaps reflecting differences in wealth and social status. In addition, the density of finds was less pronounced in the highland rural sites (sites above 300 meters altitude), where less than one percent of the assemblage was found. Thus, it is plausible to conclude that the internalization of the cultural assemblage by the rural population was driven more by necessity and issues of accessibility, than the luxury of choosing non-essential ornamentation to express themselves. Overall, the assemblage of cultural artefacts can be used to both demonstrate the cultural unity, as seen in a common northern Romano-British cultural assemblage distributed across all site types, as well as variability with the various population sectors internalizing that assemblage to varying degrees.

Military sites produced the second largest assemblage and can be considered mechanisms for change, with the quantity and distribution of personal ornaments varying across the landscape. The differences in the proportions of artefacts relative to the complete yield in the various site types can be compared to explore the assimilation and diffusion of the northern Romano-British material culture as well as the retention of pre-existing cultural concepts.

Figure 3.1 Dragonesque brooch. Image from Dearne and Lord 1998: 58

23

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH INTRODUCTION TO PERSONAL ORNAMENTS

The personal ornaments from the north of England were all part of the northern cultural assemblage and as such, the various population interactions facilitated the formation of a unique cultural assemblage. The material culture recovered appears to be divided between three main groupings. First, artefacts that originated outside of the study zone contributed to the northern assemblage. These artefacts were widely distributed and originated in Gaul, Italy, North Africa, and South England. Although they were generally only a small subset of the collection, their origins and the population they corresponded with helped to shape the region. Second and most prolific, was the regional assemblage, specifically, the artefacts central to the assemblages from all the various site types. All of these artefacts were ‘Roman’ but many of them incorporated decoration and styles popularly categorized as ‘Celtic’. However, “as the styles became current more widely in the frontier zone, they became embedded in the emerging frontier cultures; for many users, it is likely that they were not interpreted as ‘Celtic’ but as ‘frontier’, their indigenous origins increasingly obscured as they were more broadly adopted” (Hunter 2008: 136). Their distribution is the only evidence for manufacture. These regionally distinct objects were found rarely across the rest of the Empire, thus their concentrations suggest local manufacture. The third layer of assemblage formation was the localized trends. These trends were visible in the assemblages, where specific objects were recovered in greater than normal quantities, but still formed part of the regional assemblage. These three elements were directly responsible for the dynamic nature of the northern cultural assemblage and the causal factors for the formation of what Mattingly refers to as ‘discrepant experiences’ and the more common northern, Romano-British frontier culture (Hunter 2008; Mattingly 2007 and 1997).

Brooches Brooches were the second most common artefact in the northern cultural assemblage. The types recovered included examples manufactured prior to the conquest (La Tené); those that formed part of a larger Empire wide assemblage (i.e. Gaulish, Aucissa, Hod Hill; Colchester Derivative); and the regional grouping with its ‘Celtic’ influences (Dragonesque, Trumpet, Headstud) (see: Hunter 2008; Bayley and Butcher 2004; Hattatt 1985 and 1982). Brooches in the north of England have a long history of use, with origins heralding back to the first millennium BC (Hattatt 1985: 5). However, they were popularized after the conquest with the influx of new types. They were so common, that Bayley and Butcher argued “brooches were a standard part of everyday costume; thus most individuals would have had at least one” (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 206). In fact, between AD 40-410, it is estimated that 20,000 brooches survived in the archaeological record (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 206). It is therefore no surprise that brooches were an integral part of the assemblage from all site types. There were three main brooch groupings: bow, penannular and plate. They all formed variable proportions of the assemblage and carried different cultural significance.

In order to convey both the varied experiences and the common material, the artefact assemblage has been divided by site type and artefact grouping. This chapter will discuss the artefacts recovered, with a focus on those elements which are unique, before comparing the artefact assemblage across site boundaries in Chapter four. The subsequent chapters will address variations within the assemblage across site boundaries and geographically.

Figure 3.2 Trumpet brooch. L54mm

As such, the overall assemblage of personal adornments in northern England is divided into artefact groupings. This is important in determining patterns in the material culture because it provides several data sets to evaluate the general theses. While these artefact groups are not independent, they provide redundancy in which consilience reinforces conclusions. Thus, the beginning of this chapter highlights the common conclusions from the individual artefact groupings. These ideas run concurrently through all site types and provide the foundation for comparative analysis. Therefore, in examining the item groups, common conclusions have been summarized and greater attention paid to the unique contributions from these subsequent artefacts.

Figure 3.3. Headstud brooch. Image from Cool and Philo 1988: 41

24

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.4. Knee brooch. Image from Cool and Philo 1998: 50

Brooch Type

Origin

Applied Hook Aucissa Bagendon Colchester Colchester Derivatives Crossbow Dolphin Fan-tailed Gaulish Headstud Hod Hill Hook Norton Knee Langton Down Nauheim Derivatives

S England Europe Europe SE Britain S England

Polden Hill P-shaped Trumpet

England S England N England Gaul N England Europe Gaul Gaul Gaul Continent/S. Britain S England Europe N England

Figure 3.5. Crossbow brooch. L70mm Bow brooches were the most common on all sites except for caves. Although most of the variations in circulation had origins in the south of England or Gaul, it was the trumpet and headstud brooches that were recovered in greatest abundance in the north of England (Figures 3.2 and 3.3). Both of these variations were Roman artefacts, but the origins and style of decoration appeared to include ‘Celtic’ influences (Hunter 2008). Table 3.1 shows the brooch type, origin, and main dates of manufacture for those most frequently recovered.

Date of Manufacture 1st Century 1st Century 1st Century 1-2nd Century 1st Century 3-4th Century 1-2nd Century 1-2nd Century 1-2nd Century 1-2nd Century 1st Century 1-2nd Century 2-3rd Century 1-2nd Century 1st century

The bow brooch assemblage was predominantly early and according to the pre-existing typologies only three examples were manufactured in the late period: P-shaped, knee (Figure 3.4) and crossbow (Figure 3.5) (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 179-184; Hattatt 1985: 127). Of these, knee and crossbow were the only variations recovered in any great quantities and semiotically the latter signified military or Roman administrative ranks (Wild 1985: 386). Penannular brooches were the second most common brooch grouping in the north of England. Like bow brooches, they had pre-Roman origins—dating to the 3rd century BC (Hattatt 1982: 127). They developed from the Celtic involuted pins, but were later manufactured and worn by the urban and rural population (Hattatt 1982: 127). They functioned by pushing the pin through a gathering of the cloak, which was then put through the gap in the ring and the cloth was prevented from coming out with a half turn (Hattatt 1982: 40).

1-2nd Century 3rd Century 1-2nd Century

Table 3.1. The most commonly recovered brooches from the north of England, listed with their geographical region of origin and the period of their manufacture. As taken from Bayley and Butcher 2004; Hattatt 1985 and 1982. Classification Fowler A Fowler B Fowler C Fowler D Fowler E

There are five main groupings of penannular brooches as classified by their terminals (Figure 3.6) (see: Hattatt 1985: 185; Fowler 1960). Table 3.2 shows the dating and main typological grouping of the brooches. Penannular brooches were part of the frontier assemblage and were recovered from Spain, Scandinavia, and Britain (Hattatt 1982: 127).

Dating 3rd Century BC 1st Century BC 1st Century AD 1-4th Century AD 2nd Century AD

Penannular brooches were popular pre-conquest, but remained important parts of the northern assemblage throughout the Roman period. The prior work of Kilbride-Jones on zoomorphic penannular brooches (type E) suggests that they were being manufactured in the countryside such as at Trapian Law in the north and

Table 3.2. Penannular brooch types and period of manufacture from Hattatt 1985; Kilbride-Jones 1980 and Fowler 1960. 25

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 3.6. Penannular brooch classification. Image from Fowler 1960: Figure 1, pg. 151 Nor’ nour in the south, even after the conquest (KilbrideJones 1980: 33). However, little evidence exists to further support Kilbride-Jones’s claim. Unfortunately, because of limited stratigraphy and long history of use, many of the penannular brooches remain un-dateable.

These included dragonesque, glass-centre boss and wheel brooches. Dragonesque brooches are the epitome of the Romano-Celtic artefact assemblage, as they were Roman artefacts manufactured in Yorkshire/Humberside with ‘Celtic’ decorations and yet they formed an integral part of the frontier culture (Hunter 2008; Bayley and Butcher 2004: 171). Although plate brooch decoration varied, they all functioned in the same way. They all had a plate of metal with a pin attached to the back. Unlike penannular and bow brooches, plate brooches were largely decorative, and their limited recovery may reflect this lack of functionality. Table 3.3 shows the subtype, origin and date of all major plate brooch categories.

Plate brooches were the least common grouping overall (Figures 3.7 and 3.8). However, their distribution and decoration alludes to the diverse ethnic groupings that contributed to the British frontier assemblage. As with bow brooches, the variations were introduced in abundance after the conquest and in the early period ‘Celtic’ themes were found on newly manufactured plate brooches.

26

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE They subsequently formed an integral part of the regional assemblage. However, unlike those artefacts introduced from the continent, it appears that dragonesque and urbanite brooches were being manufactured on northern sites and worn by military personnel and civilians alike. Chronologically, plate brooches were manufactured in the first and second centuries AD with only glass-centred bossed plate brooches still made in the late Roman period (Hattatt 1985: 181). These changes parallel the bow brooch assemblage, where minimal varieties formed part of the late assemblage.

Figure 3.7: Early plate brooch. Image from Cool and Philo 1998: 50

Brooches demonstrate the main tiers of cultural development. They include items from across the Empire as well as adopting new themes from the native population, a trend not uncommon for the Roman army (see: Hill, J.D. 1997; Whittaker 1995). The northern population shaped its own cultural assemblage, based upon those objects popular within the region. Although the various brooch types are reflective of different trends and origins, the dynamism of the region illustrates the development of the unique northern-Romano British cultural assemblage. This assemblage was internalized as part of the frontier culture, where military and civilian interacted. The various brooch types also show a decline in the late period with alterations to the Roman costume rending many of the bow and plate brooches non-essential (Croom 2002; Wild 1985: 369ff). In the late period, only small numbers of penannular brooches and the military crossbow and knee brooches were recovered with any frequency.

Figure 3.8: Circular plate brooch. Image from Dearne and Lord 1998: 62

Type Disc Brooch Dragonesque Glass Centreboss Symmetrical Plate Urbanite Wheel Zoomorphic

Origin England N England Europe Europe

Date 1st Century AD 1-2nd Century AD 2nd-4th Century AD 2nd Century AD

England Europe Europe

1st century AD 1-2nd Century AD 1-2nd Century AD

Brooches were worn equally by men and women (AllasonJones 1995: 24). Thus, their recovery only attests to the wearing of Roman costume and not specifically changes within any specific demographic group. Beads Beads were the second most common artefact in the north of England. While the majority were recovered in isolation, in most cases they would have operated as part of a larger object such as bracelets or necklaces (Croom 2004: 168). As such, while they were a particularly abundant artefact, the actual number of bead personal ornaments in circulation remains ambiguous. Beads were not new to the north of England; however the Roman conquest introduced new colours and styles, which rendering many of the pre-Roman examples extinct by the end of the second century AD (Guido 1979: 1-27). Beads were made in a variety of materials with glass/frit and jet/shale being the most common. However, examples of amber, bone, copper alloy, stone, and coral were also in existence and have been recovered in smaller numbers. Like the brooch assemblage, beads formed an integral part of the northern assemblage, with the Roman manufactured objects being popular and the minimal recovery of other variations.

Table 3.3. Common plate brooch types, their origins and primary period of manufacture as taken from Bayley and Butcher 2004, Hattatt 1985 and 1982. Although plate brooches were recovered across the Roman Empire, many of the examples recovered from the north of England were decorated employing ‘Celtic’ decoration and themes (Hattatt 1982: 41-47). These artefacts were found on all site types and while they clearly differed from the material culture brought by the military from the south, they were adopted and worn by the entire population.

27

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Glass beads were the most common across the entire northern zone. Although they were highly varied in regard to colour and shape, there were some common themes. Opaque blue, yellow and white beads and the translucent natural glasses were recovered before the Roman conquest and in the early Roman period (Guido 1979: 3-88). These beads were predominantly located along the south and southeast seaboard and after the conquest the majority of native beads disappeared (Guido 1979: 3-88). These were replaced by (Guido 1979: 91-101) a) small segmented beads, which were commonly made of dark glass, black, yellow or blue and became increasingly popular in the late Roman period. b) Cylindrical Beads made of blue or green glass, which were worn throughout the Roman period (Figure 3.9). c) Square-sectioned beads were mainly found in third and fourth century AD. They were long beads usually made of bright turquoise, blue or green. d) Biconical beads were found from the second century onward and were again mainly made of opaque blue glass. e) Globular beads were found in early contexts and usually green or yellow in colour. They were never extremely popular in the British Isles. f) Melon beads were largely found in Flavian and Antonine contexts (Figure 3.10). They were originally imported from Gaul, but were adopted and manufactured locally and included a full range of colours with turquoise being the most popular. g) Annular beads were also found in numerous Roman contexts (Figure 3.11). Yellow and white were the more common colours and these beads were viewed as being more popular with native Britons (Guido 1979: 3-88). The northern assemblage was predominantly comprised of turquoise melon, cylindrical and square-shaped beads with other colours being popularized locally.

Figure 3.11. Annular bead. L13mm, D22mm. Image from McCarthy 1990: 151

The working of jet/shale dated back to the fourth millennium BC (Allason-Jones 1996: 8). Jet had pre-Roman origins, but was most commonly worked and worn during the late Roman period (Allason-Jones 2005b: 23-24; 2005a: 181; Cool 2000a). It was sourced to the Yorkshire coast and was perceived to have magical properties and was commonly found in feminine graves (Cool 2004; Puttock 2002; Allason-Jones 1996). Beads served both ornamental and ritual functions. They were worn by women and children in the forms of bracelets and necklaces. It has also been argued that they were attached to military equipment (Johns 1996: 87). While beads have been found in male burials, they were predominantly feminine artefacts, like bracelets and hairpins (Allason-Jones 2005b; Johns 1996: 87; AllasonJones 1995: 27). Ritually, beads were sometimes used as single examples. According to Puttock, individual beads were placed into graves while the remainder of the necklace was retained by the living as a sign of solidarity (Puttock 2002: 94). Therefore, the recovery of individual beads must not always be equated with larger beaded artefacts. Pins

Figure 3.9 Cylindrical bead. L6mm; D3mm. Image from McCarthy 1990: 151

Hairpins were the third most common artefact and were particularly significant as they were rare pre-conquest (Allason-Jones 2005b: 133; Cool 1991: 177; Crummy 1979). As such, their recovery and increased popularity demonstrates not only changes in Roman costume but also the adoption of non-essential artefacts. Furthermore, hairpins have a long history of use, with examples recovered from Egypt, North Africa, the continent as a whole and the south of England, thus making the styling of one’s hair part of the larger Empire-wide cultural system (see: Johns 1996: 135-142; Cool 1991; Petrie 1913). Although pins first arrived in the north of England during the early Roman period, only two types (Crummy type 1 and 2) (Figure 3.12) were in common usage (Crummy 1979: 157-160). By the late Roman period, the number of pins and the varieties in circulation increased (Figures 3.13-3.17) (Crummy 1979: 160-162). Pins were made in myriad materials, including gold, silver, and glass, but the three most abundant materials were bone, copper alloy, and

Figure 3.10. Melon bead. L15mm D14mm. Image from Cool and Philo 1998: 185

28

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.12. Pin Type 1. Image from Wilson, P.R. 2002: 187

Figure 3.13. Pin Type 3. Image from Wilson, P.R. 2002: 187

Figure 3.14. Pin Type 4. Image from Wilson, P.R. 2002: 191

Figure 3.15. Pin Type 5. Image from Wilson, P.R. 2002: 191

Figure 3.16. Pin Figure 3.17. Pin Type 7. Image Type 6. Image from Wilson, from Wilson, P.R. P.R. 2002: 19 2002: 191

jet/shale. Hairpins, in general, were only worn by women, meaning that their recovery demonstrated the presence of women (Allason-Jones 2005b: 130-136; Wilson, P.R. 2002: 27; Crummy 1979). The most common pins in the north of England were made of bone. Although Crummy (1979) divided them into seven main groups, all of the variations were new to the north of England and thus formed part of the larger Roman cultural system. Overall, the popularity of pins operated inversely to brooches. They appeared in small numbers during the early period, but by the middle of the third century AD were found in large quantities, in particular from urban contexts. The increase of pins during the third and fourth centuries AD also occurred in rural settings. These changes may have resulted from the visit of Julia Domna in the early third century AD (Allason-Jones 2005b: 131; Croom 2002: 106-108). Hairpins are also important indicators of change as the increase in their use presumably would have resulted in a rise in associated paraphernalia including images of the Emperors’ wives and hairdressers to assist with the construction of the more elaborate styles (Allason-Jones 2005b: 130; Croom 2002: 98-102; Johns 1996: 138-139). Copper alloy hairpins were also common; however, unlike bone pins, their use remains controversial. For example, some pins may have functioned as part of the military kit or as fasteners for the costume (Johns 1996: 137; Gillam 1958: 82). While evidence for the former centres upon the tinning of copper alloy elements of the soldiers kit, the number of such examples was minimal and it remains impossible to distinguish between hairpins and the perceived military issue pins (Johns 1996: 137). Jet/shale pins were recovered less frequently, but remained an integral part of the northern cultural assemblage. Unlike other pin types, they served an important ritual function (Puttock 2002: 83-102). They were given to women to

Figure 3.18. The image of a woman whose hairstyle includes one visible decorative hairpin. Image from the Hawara Portfolio. Petrie 1913: XVII

29

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH encourage fertility and thus appear in graves of women of birthing age (Puttock 2002: 55-85). Hairstyles varied greatly during the Roman period and as such, no set formula for the number of hairpins required exists. Evidence from the Hawara portfolio in Egypt shows one visible decorative pin, while other pins would have been used to hold the hair in this elaborate hairstyle (figure 3.18). Funerary evidence from York included a woman buried with two jet/shale pins (Allason-Jones 2005b: 130; RCHM 1962: 76-107; Petrie 1913), while other hairstyles required a greater number of pins. Thus, it appears that the number of pins required to create hairstyles varied significantly and the recovery of even one hairpin can be seen as evidence for women styling their hair in a Roman fashion. Work by Wild has shown that Celtic women were more resistant to changes in the traditional costume than their male counterparts (Wild 1985: 413) and the late flourishing of pins may be further evidence for this trend. The pin assemblage suggests that gradually, the regional assemblage was adopted by both genders and the population across the entire spectrum of existences (Allason-Jones 2005b: 130).

Figure 3.19. Copper alloy bracelet. D48mm; W3mm; T3mm

Bracelets Although bracelets were only the fourth largest artefact grouping recovered in the north of England, they were demonstrative of the cultural dynamism visible in the northern cultural assemblage. This included compositional chronological interactions and localized adoption of those artefacts with pre-Roman origins. Bracelets were made most frequently of copper alloy and glass (Figure 3.19). However, jet/shale, gold, bone and iron were also used. Bracelets pre-dated the Roman conquest, with glass bangles being recovered in Iron Age assemblages from both Britain and Gaul (Price 1988). After the Roman conquest, glass bangles became an integral part of the early Roman assemblage, before being replaced in the third and fourth centuries AD by copper alloy and jet/shale variations.

Figure 3.20. Glass bangle fragment. Type 3a. L70mm; W8mm; T13mm

After the conquest, Roman manufacturers started producing glass bangles inside forts and vici (Figure 3.20) (Price 1988: 353). Like the brooch assemblage, where Celtic themed objects became an essential component of the regional assemblage, glass bangles were worn and popular with both the rural and urban populations (Hunter 2008; Price 1988: 353). They were also common in Late Iron Age Gaul, where they were part of a right-of-passage ritual (Roymans 2004). No evidence for such ritual events exists in the English material. Their integration into the Romano-British assemblage and not that of Gaul reflects part of the regionality inherent within Roman material culture. Additionally, the Roman glass bangles differed from their Iron Age counterparts in manufacture style, with the early examples being rougher than the smooth Roman variants (Johns 1996: 122-123). This adoption of pre-Roman artefacts reflects the incorporation of

locally significant objects, which in turn, contribute to the establishment of a unique Romano-British cultural grouping. Jet/shale bracelets (Figure 3.21), like glass bangles had pre-Roman origins dating to the second millennium BC (Allason-Jones 1996: 8). Jet used in their manufacture was sourced to the Yorkshire coast and like other jet objects; they had a ritual value (Puttock 2002: 102). As with jet/shale beads, their distribution suggests they were manufactured on Roman urban sites. They were recovered in greater quantities during the late Roman period. In addition to jet/shale bracelets, copper alloy variants were mass produced and worn during the late Roman period. They were decorated in myriad ways, all of which were unified in being part of the late regional assemblage.

30

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE Chronologically, rings and earrings were worn throughout the Roman period. Unlike bracelets, which showed compositional changes, all materials were used throughout the early and late Roman periods. Just as with bracelets, the quality of the metalworking does appear to improve in the late period. All rings carried cultural significance. They were used to indicate wealth and status—a point that will be further expanded upon in the subsequent discussion of intaglios (Allason-Jones 2005b: 119; Croom 2002: 72; Johns 1996; Henig 1974b). Furthermore, rings were worn by both genders and individuals of all social levels and accordingly, were found across the entire region (Croom 2002: 72; Johns 1996: 31-71). Although most of the rings were merely decorative, other examples were ritually significant. For example, some rings demonstrated marriage or operated as love tokens (Johns 1996: 3171). Likewise, jet/shale, amber and bone rings saw the continuation of the previously discussed ritual traditions (Puttock 2002: 102). Rings were worn by both men and women and while earrings are commonly perceived as feminine artefacts, evidence from the eastern Empire suggests that they were occasionally worn by men as well (Johns 1996: 127).

Figure 3.21. Jet bracelet. L22cm; W9cm; T2.2cm. Image from Macgregor, A. 1976: 6

Like the hitherto discussed pins, bracelets were mainly feminine artefacts, although there is evidence that men wore them too (Allason-Jones 2005b: 118). All bracelets were also important indicators of the dynamic culture from the north of England, by reflecting changes in the assemblage unique to the region. The zone of distribution for glass bangles was largely limited to sites in Scotland and north of the Humber (Kilbride-Jones 1938b). Additionally, they were recovered on all site types, suggesting that while they may have initially possessed ‘native’ associations, after the conquest they became part of the frontier culture that was popular in both ‘Roman’, ‘native’, urban and rural populations (Hunter 2008). By the late period, changes in the assemblages, as visible with the reduction of brooches and an increase in the number of pins, were visible in bracelets with a change in composition. These included an increase in the number of copper alloy and jet/shale bracelets in circulation.

Intaglios Intaglios were one of the rarest categories from the northern cultural assemblage. Furthermore, they are semiotically charged, as they included decorations that illustrate religious, ethnic and cultural themes. Although found on both urban and rural sites, they were more common on military and town sites, with only limited evidence from rural sites and a single example from villas. Intaglios were valuable objects and as such, their recovery largely depended upon unique depositional circumstances (see Chapter two). For example, two of the intaglios recovered were found in the Roman sewer at York (Macgregor, A. 1976).

Rings Rings and earrings were one of the smaller artefact groupings from the north of England, but also one of the most evenly distributed. They were recovered from all site types in approximately equal proportions and became one of the most universally adopted Roman fashions (Potter and Johns 2002: 148). There is limited evidence for the wearing of rings pre-conquest (Johns 1996: 127; AllasonJones 1989). Earrings and rings clearly functioned in different manners and elicited gender associations and cultural assumptions. However, very few earrings have been recovered from the north of England, with numerous others being misclassified as rings (Allason-Jones 1989: 39).

In his seminal 1974 study: A Corpus on Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites Martin Henig observed that site types showed preferences for specific decorations. This included heroic scenes and deities from military sites, while in burials, cupids were more common (Henig 1974b: 55-85). Intaglios were an entirely Roman inception with no examples pre-dating the first century AD from any site type.

The ring assemblage shows a great diversity in composition with examples of gold, silver, copper alloy, iron, bone, antler, jet/shale and lead. The majority of rings were made of copper alloy, which was inexpensive, readily available, and looked similar to gold. Similar to the other artefact groupings, rings were widely distributed with examples recovered from all site types in both the early and late Roman periods. Their decoration was inspired by individuals from various provinces and tribes and thus is indicative of the region’s diverse cultural population.

The wearing of intaglios presumably was used to make a variety of social statements. For example, rings with intaglios would have been worn by a number of men and decorated according to the individual’s request (AllasonJones 2005b: 118; Henig 1974b). These images probably were—intentionally or unintentionally—communicating between the wearer and the rest of the community. Other decoration would have reflected the ethnic origin, status or beliefs of the intaglio’s owner. They may, therefore, have operated as talismans. Intaglios also portrayed

31

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH wealth and after the Roman introduction, presumably from the forts, they were then adopted by small subsets of the surrounding population (Macgregor, A. 1976: 8-9; Henig 1974b: 55-60). ‘Other’ The last artefact grouping includes pendants, necklaces, chains and torcs, all of which were recovered in such small quantities that they have been categorized together to still allow cross-site comparison. When combined, they represent two percent of the complete assemblage, with pendants being the most common of the ‘other’ artefacts (they represent just under one percent of the complete assemblage).

Figure 3.22. Pendant Phallus. L37.5mm; W18mm; H21mm. Image from Bishop 1991: 9

All of these artefacts were important parts of the cultural assemblage, however, their distribution was limited. Even in such small numbers, the materials (i.e. jet and antler) and iconography (i.e. Medusan heads and phalli (Figure 3.22)), represent the cultural evolution for the north of England as they were a mixture of local and Empire-wide traditions. The ‘other’ artefacts elicit myriad cultural, semiotic and demographic conclusions. Pendants were widely distributed with examples from across the Empire and were manufactured in copper alloy, antler, gold and jet/shale with copper being the most abundant. Pendants operated in two ways; either attached to a horse harness or strung on chains like modern-day examples (Stout 1994: 78). Pendants were part of the assemblage introduced to Britain from the continent and as such, show similarity to those found across the entire Empire (Johns 1996: 104-108). In particular, many were adorned with phalli as a sign of fertility and luck (Greep 1994: 81-82). Additionally, the head of Medusa carried important ritual significance as a talisman, similar to the previously discussed jet/shale pins and bracelets (AllasonJones 2005b; Croom 2004: 290; Johns 1996: 104-108). The pendants were not new to Roman culture, but themes, like Medusa and materials (jet/shale), were exploited by local British craftsmen and distributed across the urban landscape and the countryside (Johns 1996: 106-107). They were used throughout the early and late periods with equal recovery in both.

Figure 3.23 Copper alloy Chain. L85mm; Link L 10mm. Image from Bishop 1996: 45

assemblage (Figure 3.23). They would have functioned in one of two ways. Some were used to link two brooches together—most commonly trumpet brooches (AllasonJones 2005b: 122; Johns 1996: 88-100, 160) while others were worn like necklaces (Stout 1994: 78). The use of the former was limited to the early period and was almost exclusively a feminine adornment (Allason-Jones 2005b: 122; Wild 1985: 396-397). The joined brooches functioned by securing the tube dress (Croom 2004: 138). However, Wild argues that based upon the evidence from the tombstone carved with the Menimane costume, the chain may have acted solely as an embellishment (Wild 1985: 396). The use of chains as necklaces would have been used continuously with equal losses from both periods. Lastly, only 11 torcs were found across the entire north of England (.3%). Torcs (Figure 3.24) originated in the Iron Age and were viewed as “a quintessentially Iron Age object” (Hunter 2008: 133). Torcs were ‘Celtic’ artefacts and predominantly worn by fighting men (Johns 1996: 27-28). However, after the Roman conquest, they were recovered in small numbers and Hunter argues that their metalwork and distribution suggests that they were Romano-British artefacts and part of the frontier culture, similar to dragonesque brooches (Hunter 2008: 133-136). As with many of the ‘Celtic’ inspired artefacts, they show the dynamism inherent within the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire introduced myriad cultural associations, absorbed local traditions and reinvented them as part of the regional assemblage. Additionally, Maxfield argues

Necklaces represented 0.3% of the complete assemblage. Although they were particularly rare in the archaeological record, many would have been made of beads, which as noted above, were recovered in abundance. It is probable that the majority of these beads would have been strung together to form necklaces and bracelets, meaning that the number in circulation was significantly higher. Necklaces were worn most frequently by women and children as a means of decoration, but evidence exists for soldiers being given gold necklaces in reward for military prowess (Allason-Jones 2005b: 117; Stout 1994: 80). Chains were recovered only marginally more frequently than necklaces and represent .5% of the complete

32

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE Military sites were located on good arable land, at points of strategic importance such as the intersection of major roads or along major rivers (Webster, G. 1969: 172174). Although all forts were constructed in the lowland zone, they spanned the Pennines as a means to maintain communication and military control. Even though the forts were all Roman, the soldiers hailed from across the Empire, so that the Roman material culture in the north was itself a new strain of ‘Roman’. This distinct culture was the product of dynamic cultural exchange among various identities (and commodities). For example, in the north, the cultural assemblage incorporates imports, such as brooches manufactured in Gaul, as well as those locally popular (i.e. trumpet, headstud, dragonesque). The material culture found in the north of England was most concentrated on military sites, thus making the cultural assemblage found on these sites integral in the formation of the north’s regional identity.

Figure 3.24. Torc. D10.2cm. Image from Macgregor, M. 1976: 205

The military assemblage of personal ornaments included 860 artefacts (23% of all artefacts from the study zone) from 38 forts.5 The three largest assemblages came from Castleford (198), York (179) and Manchester (72). The variation in assemblage size stems from the duration and intensity of excavation. For example, the fort at Castleford has been extensively excavated with numerous campaigns between 1974-1985 (Cool and Philo 1998: 1-7). It might be imagined that York’s status as a legionary fortress would yield an extensive collection of artefacts. In practice, less than .8 hectares of the 20 hectares have been excavated because the medieval and modern use of the city has impeded access to most of the area. Thus, while York has yielded 179 artefacts from inside the fortress, further

that torcs may have been given to soldiers as medals, again demonstrating the combining of cultural traditions (Maxfield 1974). Thus, the recovery of torcs no longer represents Celtic artefacts of Roman resistance but rather, locally popular parts of the regional assemblage. THE MILITARY ASSEMBLAGE The north of England remained a frontier throughout the Roman period and consequently, a number of the sites were continuously occupied by military forces. Forts housed soldiers, served as administrative centres, and manufactured military and civilian equipment including personal ornamentation (Webster, G. 1969: 167-268).

As noted in Chapter 2, sites along Hadrian’s Wall and the Stanegate were omitted. 5

Figure 3.25. A comparison of the proportions of artefacts found on military sites, with the number of individual artefacts in each-type category expressed as a percentage of all artefacts from military sites (n=860). The assemblage includes both early and late period artefacts.

33

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH excavation should yield substantially greater artefact numbers. The military assemblages included all types of personal ornamentation, but pins, brooches and beads constituted 76% of the complete military assemblage, while the least common items, intaglios and other (i.e. necklaces, pendants and torcs) represented 5% (Figure 3.25). Military Brooches 237 brooches (28% of the entire military assemblage) were recovered. Of these, 23 lacked sufficient data to be classified chronologically or typologically. Bow brooches accounted for 60% (128) of the brooch assemblage; 23% (50) were plate brooches and 17% (36) were penannular variations.

Figure 3.26. Aucissa brooch. L 4.85cm. Image from May 1996: 246

In addition to the more common trumpet and headstud brooches, the military assemblage yielded very few examples common outside the north. These included an Aucissa (Figure 3.26), four Hod hill (Figure 3.27), four zoomorphic, and a few other Gaulish and southern English variations. There was no clear pattern to the loss of these objects. Of the four zoomorphic plate variants, two second-century AD examples came from Ravenglass. One was a fish with green enamel and the second, a sea creature with engraved scales (Birley 1959b: 28-30). Ravenglass was located on the coast, so that these aquatic themes may reflect the importance of the sea in local culture. The rarity of the decoration also suggests that they were manufactured specifically for an individual, testifying to local wealth. These unique examples, although presumably manufactured locally, illustrate a localized trend with the population commissioning special designs associated with their own beliefs and surroundings.

Figure 3.27. Hod Hill brooch. L 4.68cm. Image from May 1996: 250

Figure 3.28. A comparison of the chronology for the three major brooch types on military sites. Each brooch type from the three chronological categories is expressed as a percentage of the total number of military brooches from within each category. For those brooches from datable contexts, they were more abundant in the early period. (n=214)

34

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.29. A comparison of bead composition on military sites. Each bead composition is expressed as a percentage of the total military bead assemblage. (n=238)

Brooches were recovered from all military sites. Dragonesque brooches, one of the ‘Celtic’ hybrids in the northern assemblage, were rare on military sites with only 15 having been recovered. They were predominantly found in Yorkshire/Humberside.

The most common type of bead was the turquoise melon bead. However, the military population also shows localized trends. For example, the only beads found at Filey were cylindrical disc beads, while spherical beads were recovered mainly at Catterick. Most were still made of turquoise, green or blue with minimal recovery of yellow and white. The most popular shape of bead was melon6 (59% of the bead assemblage) and cylindrical (7%), both of which were post-conquest additions to the northern cultural zone (Guido 1979: 91-101).

Most of the brooches were early in date. In addition to the greater variability of the early brooches, it is plausible that the recovery of early-period items may reflect their disposal in waste deposits when a number of forts were abandoned in conjunction with the Antonine invasion of Scotland. As visible in Figure 3.28, the military assemblage supported the manufacturing evidence with all varieties being more abundant in early contexts.

Two rare beads require special mention as they illustrate the diverse origins of Roman material culture diffused through the Roman north. For example, a single gold-inglass bead was found at Catterick. Other gold-in-glass beads are known from Brougham (Cool 2004) and Carlisle (McCarthy 1991). Although the manufacture of these specific artefacts remains unconfirmed, they were rarely recovered in the Western provinces; most examples come from West Pomernaria (Boon 1977: 197). Their isolated recovery in Britain and not Gaul shows that “uninterrupted commercial relations with that region” continued (Boon 1977: 197). Thus, the gold-in-glass beads provide direct evidence for the ‘globalization’ of Britain, with their recovery attesting to the inclusion of cultural elements not just from Gaul, but also from the rest of the Empire.

While the above listed explanation is plausible, the brooches were found in various states of repair and thus, many of the examples discarded were in working order and most likely accidental loss. Other damaged variations may have been discarded as the military moved north or in general waste deposits. Military Beads Two hundred and thirty-eight beads were recovered from military sites (28% of military assemblage) and they were the single largest artefact grouping from military sites. The military bead assemblage conformed to expectations with glass beads being the most common (Figure 3.29). Additionally, beads of amber, bone, copper, frit, jet/shale and stone were also recovered.

Secondly, an exceptionally rare coral bead of unknown date was recovered from Ilkley, a site occupied throughout the Roman period (Frere et al. 1984). Like the gold-inglass beads, the coral bead illustrates the diverse origin of the northern Roman assemblage.

The evidence from the military sites argues for the manufacture of glass beads inside forts or their associated annexes (Cool and Philo 1998; Cool et al. 1995; Guido 1979). Additionally, Guido states that the early importation of melon beads was replaced by imitated variations manufactured locally such as at Castleford (Guido 1979: 100).

Beads from military sites were recovered in greater quantities from early contexts (55% from early and 21% The abundance of melon beads largely stems from the extensive excavation at Castleford, where the majority of beads were recovered. Guido (1979: 100) suggests this is local imitation. 6

35

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Map 3.1. Distribution of military sites yielding pins.

from late contexts). Twenty-four percent of the beads at military sites did not have sufficient contextual data to be assigned to either period, or were recovered in secondary deposits. Their use throughout the Roman period indicates their importance as elements of personal ornamentation.

Germany has shown that by AD 104 women and children were present inside the common barracks and had varying degrees of interaction with the military population (Allison 2006; Van Driel-Murray 2001; 1998). Thus, while the pin assemblage suggests that women were present in forts in smaller numbers during the early period, the increase during the late period, the disappearance of some vici, the removal of the ban preventing soldiers from marrying and the reorganization of the barracks inside some forts all support the further integration of women into the fort population (Allason-Jones 2005b: 52; Hodgson and Bidwell 2004; Southern 2004: 395; Evans 1984: 43).

Military Pins In total, 170 were recovered made of bone, copper alloy and jet/shale and they were found across the entire region (Map 3.1). The recovery of such an abundance of feminine artefacts demonstrates that change occurred within the military during the late period and further supports work by Allison and Van-Driel Murray on the presence of women inside forts (see: Allison 2006; Allason-Jones 2005b; Hodgson and Bidwell 2004; Van Driel-Murray 1998).

Chronologically, the majority of pins dated to the late Roman period (87%) with the majority of examples (97 of 150) being found at York, the presence of late feminine artefacts was verified at the unpublished site of Binchester (Jones, R.F.J. pers. Comm.) Copper alloy pins were the most common in the early period, but still did not represent a quarter of the copper alloy assemblage (Figure 3.30). While some of these pins may have been part of the military kit, by the late period they were being used in hair, along with the bone and jet/shale examples. Thus, while non-hairpin examples were in circulation, they were minimal. The uniform increase of pins in all material demonstrates an increased visibility archaeologically of women in the late Roman period.

In the north of England, Allason-Jones studied gender in small finds as well as completing a comprehensive analysis of the turrets along Hadrian’s Wall (Allason-Jones 1995; 1988). Her review of the assemblages yielded no feminine small finds during the early Roman period when the turrets were in use (Allason-Jones 1988). However, she also observed that the division between civilian and military assemblages was blurred by the movement of people through forts and extramural civilian settlements (AllasonJones 1988: 220). As such, the lack of feminine finds does not mean that women were not inside forts. Evidence from

36

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.30. A comparison of the chronology for the three major pin materials from military sites. Each composition group is expressed as the proportion of pins from each composition type dated to the early or late periods. (n=170) Military Bracelets

but they were scattered across the entire region with no discernable distribution pattern (Map 3.2).

Like the pin assemblage, the recovery of bracelets from both the early and late Roman period alludes to the presence of women inside forts either on a transitory or permanent basis. Armlets, bangles and bracelets comprised nine percent of the military assemblage representing 77 examples from 18 sites. They were not found on all sites,

The bracelet assemblage paralleled the findings of the pin assemblage, with a substantial collection of late feminine artefacts being recovered. As visible in Figure 3.31, glass, copper alloy and jet/shale bracelets were the most common. Additionally, five bone bracelets were recovered. The

Map 3.2. The distribution of military sites with bracelets.

37

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 3.31. A comparison of military bracelet composition from both periods. Each bracelet composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total military bracelet assemblage. (n=77)

bone bracelets demonstrate localized popularity as well, with four of the five being recovered from Filey. The other example was recovered from York. All of the bone bracelets from Filey were rectangular cut.

ten of the fourteen jet/shale bracelets came from York and Castleford. Thus, their popularity was greatest east of the Pennines. Lastly, the recovery of bracelets confirms the arguments set forth by the pin and bead assemblage, Like Allison’s (2006) study in Germany, it appears that women were present in forts both before and after Septimius Severus’s AD 197 edict, which allowed soldiers to marry (Allison 2006: 161; see Chapter five). Thus, by combining Allason-Jones’s prior work, the material from Germany, and this artefactual study, it is possible to conclude that the degree of integration between men and women (military and civilian) varied, with the turrets yielding no feminine finds and the late military assemblage showing an increase in those objects commonly assigned to women (AllasonJones 2005b; Allason-Jones 1988).

Chronologically, the typological data of early glass bracelets being replaced by jet/shale and copper alloy variations is confirmed. For example 72% of glass bangles were early, while 55% of the jet/shale and 79% of the copper alloy dated to the late Roman period (Figure 3.32). The materials further suggest that while bracelets were worn in the early period they were more diverse and popular during the third and fourth centuries AD. The military bracelet assemblage also demonstrates localized distribution of the frontier culture. For example,

Figure 3.32. A comparison of military bracelet composition by period. Each composition group is expressed as the proportion recovered from either the early or late period. (n=77)

38

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE Military Rings

small quantities throughout the entire region. The rings demonstrated that while wealth was accrued and displayed in personal ornamentation, it was limited to a very select population located at important military sites.

Rings and earrings represented 11% of the military assemblage. The assemblage included a wide range of materials with copper alloy being the most prevalent (79% of the military ring assemblage). Precious metal rings were the second largest and only represented 10% and jet/ shale rings represented 4% of the military assemblage.

Only four earrings have been found on military sites. They were found at York, Castleshaw and Watercrook and made of gold and copper alloy.

While there was great variability within the assemblage, regional trends were also observed. For example, the amber rings were found at York and Castleford and dated to the late period. An iron ring was recovered at Hardknott. Iron rings are particularly problematic, as some items classified as ‘rings’ were part of the horse harness. As noted in the methodology of this study, only those iron rings with a diameter smaller than the largest copper alloy finger ring were used. However, it important to note that some of the iron rings recovered from the forts may not be finger rings. Two glass rings were recovered from Catterick and Manchester.

Chronologically, rings and earrings were worn throughout the Roman period with 55% coming from first and second century contexts and 43% dating to the late period. Military Intaglios Not surprisingly, given their value, intaglios proved to be the smallest grouping of personal ornaments found at military sites, with a total of 24 being recovered from only nine sites (Map 3.3). In accordance with Henig’s (1974b) work, deities were the most common decoration and represented a third of all intaglios recovered from military sites. Hunting scenes, daily life genre and nude figures were also worn (table 3.4). Naturally, categories were blurred with mixed themes, such as deities overlapping

Lastly, gold and silver rings were indicators of wealth in the northern assemblage. They were recovered in Animal

Deity

Emperor

Hero

Hunting

2

8

1

2

1

Living Scenes 1

Nude Figures 1

Other

Allegory Undecorated

3

4

1

Table 3.4. A comparison of the intaglio decoration from military sites. Each category is the absolute number of military intaglios from each grouping. (n=24)

Map 3.3. Distribution of military sites that yielded intaglios.

39

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH one was undecorated the other was stylized with a phallus. The majority were made of copper alloy, however there were two gold pendants recovered from the York sewer system. Like intaglios, these were valuable objects that at the time of lost were most likely not recovered because of difficulty in access. Chronologically, the ‘other’ assemblage was divided between the early and late periods. Summary of the Military Assemblage Figure 3.33. Cornelian intaglio decorated with Aequitas. Image from Macgregor, A. 1976: 7

The military assemblage, because of the intensity of excavation and duration of occupation, represents one of the most complete collections from the north. This assemblage included the full range of artefacts from both early and late periods and showed the types of artefacts being manufactured and distributed. Military sites also show the evolving identity in the Roman north, with the Roman culture adopting northern British elements and thus creating a unique Romano-British frontier culture. Furthermore, one is able to conclude that: first, women were present in varying degrees on the military sites. Second, there were regional assemblages within the northern zone. Third, the military sites were important conduits for the distribution of personal ornamentation.

with allegorical figures. However, as the symbolism inherent within the two groups differed, they were divided. The most commonly depicted deities were Mars (3 items) and Minerva (3 items). Mars was the god of war and thus, his image on military sites seems justified. Minerva was the patron of the crafts and a healing deity (Johns 1996; Henig 1974b). Other subjects included Cupid—who was associated with the soul and its travel in the afterlife—as well as Bacchus—the god of wine— Jupiter, the patriarch of the gods and Aequitas—the goddess of fair trade and honest merchants (Figure 3.33) (Henig 1974b: 57-115; Macgregor, A. 1976: 9-12). The latter is unique in being the only known example from Britain. Elsewhere, these icons represented a Roman theme popularized with Augustus, when Aequitas (honesty) was worshiped as one of his personal qualities. Although rare, her recovery from York implies that the owner was educated and had an understanding of Roman mythology and was Roman in his or her belief system (Macgregor, A. 1976: 9-12).

NUCLEATED SETTLEMENTS Nucleated settlements—which include towns, vici and villages—produced the second largest collection: 1730 artefacts from 18 sites, an average of approximately 96 objects per site. Catterick (485), Castleford (282) and Dragonby (219) yielded the three greatest artefact concentrations and were subject to large-scale modern excavations. While there were similarities between the population of vici and towns, the assemblages have been divided. Vici were integrated with forts by providing important commodities and housed the associated non-military population (Mattingly 2007: 170-171; Sommer 2006; Jones, G.D.B. 1984: 75-89; Sommer 1984; Salway 1980: 8-17; Johnson, S. 1975: 75-84). Towns were independent from forts and included the civitas capitals such as the civitas Brigantes at Aldborough and the possible centre for the Parisi at Brough (Mattingly 2007: 255-291; Bishop 1996: 1; Millett 1984: 65-74; Frere 1975: 4-7; Rivet 1964: 72-96). Other towns included larger sites like Catterick, which developed in the late period or conglomerates of roundhouses—like at Dragonby (Wilson, P.R. 2002; May 1996). Although both towns and vici were Roman institutions, their population included individuals native to Britain and others from across the Empire. They were not military sites and, accordingly, had different demographics, periods of use, and spheres of influence. They incorporated Roman military material culture as well as local British styled artefacts. Like the forts, towns and vici functioned as vehicles of cultural dispersal in the north.

Intaglios were brought to the region by soldiers and other Roman segments of the population and as such no preRoman examples existed (Henig 1974b: 30). Intaglios were most common in the early period (50%), while 42% of the intaglios were late (8% remain undated). ‘Other’ Military Artefacts Military sites yielded a total of 20 ‘other’ artefacts. This included two chains, 16 pendants and two necklaces, which accounted for two percent of the complete military assemblage. Chains were recovered from Ilkley and Castleford, however additional examples are known to have been found along Hadrian’s Wall at Carlisle and South Shields (see: McCarthy 1991; McCarthy et al. 1982; Allason-Jones and Miket 1984). The pendant assemblage was the largest from the north of England. It was predominantly comprised of copper alloy variations. None of the materials showed any geographical preference, with themes and compositional materials being widely distributed. Two of the pendants recovered were antler examples from the second century AD. While

40

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.34. A comparison of the proportions of artefacts found on vici sites. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total vici assemblage. The assemblage includes both early and late period artefacts. (n=592)

The Vicus Assemblage

Vicus Brooches

Vici formed outside the military sites and thus were heavily influenced by their associated forts (Mattingly 2007; 171; Sommer 1984: 12-29). However, while forts housed male soldiers, vici included women, children, and retired soldiers (Sommer 1984: 30-38). The exchange between the two sites was great, therefore making it impossible to divide the assemblage into civilian and military (Mattingly 2007: 171; Allason-Jones 1988: 220). Additionally, the chronology of vici differ from the forts, with a few— Ambleside (Drury and Dunwell 2004: 98-100; Mann and Dunwell 1995: 79-84), Doncaster (Buckland 1986: 11-22), Kirkby Thore (Buckland 1986: 11-22), Melandra Castle (Nevell 1992: 70-72; Webster, P.V. 1971: 79-80; 1967: 161-162; Petch 1963: 1-7), Saddleworth (Booth 2001) and Watercrook (Potter 1976: 60-64 and 1979)—being abandoned at the time of Antoninus Pius and not being reoccupied in conjunction with their associated forts. Vici were dependent upon the military but were not under its direct control (Sommer 1984: 27-29).

Brooches were the second largest artefact grouping with 171 being recovered (29% of the complete vici assemblage). Bow brooches were the most common and represent 69% (118) of all brooches, while 15% (25) plate brooches and 12% (21) penannular brooches were recovered. The vici sites yielded a largely regionally distinct assemblage. The assemblage included two unique continental examples: a Kaer Lheion from Kirkby Thore and a Kraftigprofierte from Ribchester (Buxton and Howard-Davis 2000; Charlesworth 1964). Although isolated examples, they attest to the movement of goods from across the Empire and the ever changing cultural assemblage that coincided with the expanded Roman trade network. The recovery of six knee and crossbow brooches from Castleford, Malton, Old Penrith and Ribchester demonstrate the fluid nature of the military and civilian boundaries. Their recovery, although important, suggests that individuals associated with the military were engaged with the surrounding civilian community.

The vici assemblage was characterized by a large bead and brooch collection, with only small concentrations of the remaining artefact groupings. Additionally, the artefact distribution was biased by the large excavations at Castleford, which yielded 47% of the complete collection. The vici artefact concentrations are expressed in Figure 3.34.7

The plate and penannular brooch assemblage also included some unique examples. These included two wheel brooches, which as mentioned earlier, were associated with Celtic deities (Hattatt 1985: 151) and a native inspired leaded bronze plate brooch from Ribchester. These three brooches operated in the same way as those from the continent, by representing pre-existing cultural traditions that were expressed by the urban population. Additionally, four penannular brooches with proto-zoomorphic terminals were recovered.

Although Castleford accounts for approximately half the assemblage the other vici sites show similar results. For example, the removal of the Castleford assemblage sees the proportion of brooches remain constant, an increase in the proportion of bracelets and rings and a decline in the bead percentage to 35%. 7

The majority of the brooches recovered dated to the first and second centuries AD. These northern brooches also appeared in a number of late contexts, even though

41

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Map 3.4. Distribution of vici yielding beads.

the typological data suggests their manufacturing had ceased. Plate brooches also showed a preponderance of early British styled brooches from late contexts. Plausible explanations for this trend include: the retention of early artefacts into the late period with changes to the costume being limited in Britain or the possibility that the dating for artefact manufacture is incorrect (Allason-Jones 2005b: 130).8 Alternatively, the recovery of typologically early artefacts from late contexts may be evidence of waste disposal as sites fell into disuse. For example, the site of Ribchester was in decline from the early Roman period throughout the mid-third century AD and was completely abandoned by the fourth century (Edwards and Webster 1985a: 9-11). Yet, many early brooches were recovered in the third century AD. Thus, it is feasible that these artefacts came from waste deposits used to fill derelict buildings—an idea supported by the recovery of numerous objects from the Ribchester’s final phase (Buxton and Howard-Davis 2000: 127-137).

They were widely distributed, with examples found at Old Penrith, Greta Bridge, Watercrook, Malton, Manchester, Ribchester, Castleford and Wilderspool. While Guido argues for the production of beads inside some of the forts, additional manufacturing may have occurred inside the vici (Cool and Philo 1998: 57-62; Sommer 1984: 35-41; Guido 1979).

Vicus Beads

Most of the assemblage derived from excavations at Castleford, where melon beads were manufactured (Guido 1979: 100). Accordingly, turquoise melon beads were by far the most common. Other popular types were cylindrical and square-shaped beads, again predominantly found at Castleford. However, the further distribution of the turquoise, green and blue glass beads across the other vici sites, shows that even with such local production, they were still popular with those living outside forts.

The bead assemblage was not diverse in composition, with 97% being made of glass or frit. The remaining three percent (or eight individual beads) included: three jet/shale, three copper alloy and two amber examples. The amber beads were recovered from Ribchester and Castleford and were believed to possess magical properties similar to jet (Puttock 2002: 102; Gonzalez-Ruibal 2003). They had prehistoric origins and were arguably only worn by women (Allason-Jones 2005b: 122). The limited recovery from the northern vici suggests that this practice was not particularly popular.

Beads were the predominant artefact on vici, with the largest single assemblage coming from Castleford. Of the eleven vici sites, beads were found on eight (Map 3.4). These explanations remain unsubstantiated, however possible exploration of period assemblages from northern sites may allow for an accurate understanding of the artefacts in circulation by period to be contrived. 8

42

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE Vicus Pins

Vicus Bracelets

Only 47 pins were recovered from five vici sites (Map 3.5). While the majority of vici were early in date, the proportion of pins remains surprisingly low. It therefore seems that while pins occasionally were used, they were not an integral part of the early assemblage for the nonmilitary civilian population.

Bracelets from vici sites only represented seven percent of the entire assemblage. Of the twelve vici, bracelets were only found on six with Malton producing the single largest collection (12). Glass bangles represented 44% of the assemblage, while copper alloy and jet/shale accounted for 28% and 24% respectively (Figure 3.35)

Although most hairpins were made of bone, on vici approximately 34% of the pins recovered were copper alloy. While some may have functioned as dress-fasteners, the similarity in design to the bone hairpins suggested that most operated as hairpins (Johns 1996: 137).

The majority of the vici excavations from the north of England were limited to early deposits. As such, the recovery of large quantities of glass bangles conforms to expectations. Additionally, with the bracelet assemblage only representing seven percent of the complete assemblage, it is apparent that while glass bangles were an integral part of the early assemblage, bracelets were more popular in the urban landscape during the late Roman period. For those sites that did yield copper alloy bracelets—Castleford, Norton, Old Penrith, and Ribchester—there was late activity on these sites. The jet/shale bracelets were recovered from sites in the east of England near the Yorkshire coast and at York, one of the known jet manufacturing sites (RCHM 1962: 143).

Even though the assemblage is very small, the differing distribution of copper alloy and bone pins elucidates the occurrence of local assemblages, in particular, in the early period. For example, Malton yielded predominantly bone examples, while copper alloy pins were more common at Old Penrith than on other vici. In both cases, there were chronological variations, with the early copper alloy pins giving way to the more diverse and delicate bone pins. Based upon the assemblage, one is able to further argue that women in the provinces transitioned from common hairnets, diadems and wreaths of the first century AD to more elaborate styles in the late Roman period (Johns 1996: 135-138).

The vici assemblage also yielded a single gold example. The bracelet was found at Ambleside and was made of a very pure gold (Leech and Scott 1993: 70). Its recovery was the only example from non-military urban sites. The

Map 3.5. Distribution of vici yielding pins.

43

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Map 3.6. Distribution of vici yielding rings.

Vicus Rings

lack of high quality gold from northern assemblages implies that it was commissioned for a wealthy individual. Its recovery at Ambleside vicus is surprising as the site was isolated and yielded no other evidence of similar wealth.

Rings and earrings represented ten percent of the vici assemblage and were found on eight sites from across the entire region (Map 3.6). The majority of rings were made of copper alloy (66%). Additionally, eight iron rings, nine precious metal and three jet/shale variations were recovered. Only two earrings were positively identified and both were made of copper alloy and came from Ribchester. Rings were recovered marginally more frequently in early contexts.

The vici assemblage was fairly evenly divided chronologically. Although glass bangles were recovered in the late period, they were mainly an early phenomenon, while copper alloy and jet/shale were late. The trends from vici parallel those of the military sites and show that the northern cultural assemblage was internalized both by the military and civilian population.

Figure 3.35. A comparison of bracelet composition from vici. Data are the proportion of objects made of a specific material versus the entire vici bracelet assemblage. (n=45)

44

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE Unlike the iron rings from military sites, all of the examples from vici either contained intaglios or had bezels confirming their function as finger-rings. The precious metal rings (two gold and seven silver) were recovered from Castleford, Doncaster, Ribchester, Kirkby Thore, Old Penrith and Watercrook. Between the materials there appeared to be a geographical distribution trend, with the gold examples found in the southern part of the region on major thoroughfares. Conversely, silver rings, were found on sites in the northwest. These variations may demonstrate that the southern part of the region was more closely allied with the pacified south and developed more wealth or, alternatively, was integrated into the southern regional assemblage.

Figure 3.36. Red jasper intaglio decorated with Mars. Image from Macgregor, A. 1976: 7

Vicus Intaglios Twelve intaglios were recovered from the vici with four from Castleford, three from Doncaster, two from Old Penrith and Watercrook, and a single example from Ribchester (Map 3.7). The vici assemblage, although limited in number, yielded only five different scene categories: deity, hero, hunting, animal and daily life. The deities included: Jupiter, Mars (Figure 3.36) and Ceres. Mars was a popular character for the frontier population and his importance was expressed by those inside the forts and in associated extramural settlements. Ceres, or the god of agriculture, was unique to vici in the north. Recovery of artefacts with his image suggests that although the population was closely allied with the military, it was also part of the wider

landscape and depended upon the crop yields from local agriculturalists. He is a reminder of the site functioning in both the frontier and the hinterland. One hero scene was of Achilles preparing for his destiny—a common theme from forts (Henig 1970: 252). The second heroic scene included a man standing with his spear possibly preparing for battle. Other intaglios included: a named parrot, an eagle showing its plumage, a war gallery and an oil lamp. Parrots were exotic birds from North Africa and the example from Castleford was identified with its scientific name; Psittacus torquatus (Figure 3.37) (Cool and Philo 1998: 23). Named

Map 3.7. Distribution of vici yielding intaglios.

45

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 3.37. Red Jasper intaglio decorated with an Indian parrot. Image from Cool and Philo 1998: 25

Figure 3.38. Glass intaglio decorated with a warship from Castleford. Image from Cool and Philo 1998: 25

animals were exceptionally rare and this example was one of few parrots found in the Roman north. While the ownership remains unclear, it was manufactured outside of Britain and presumably owned by a soldier from one of the provinces (Cool and Philo 1998: 23). The war galley was a military theme recovered from Castleford (Figure 3.38). Although not from a fort, the theme suggests ownership by a retired sailor or was acquired through trade (Henig 1974b: 143). Lastly, the oil lamp, recovered from Castleford, was very rare and had strong links to Naix-aux-Forges (Cool and Philo 1998: 23). This culturally diverse intaglio collection shows the diversity of ethnic origins inhabiting the north of England with themes coming from across the Empire including: Naix-aux-Forges and North Africa.

Vici became key sites in the formation of the northern cultural assemblages by housing retired soldiers, families of soldiers and merchants, who brought their own culture and material culture to the north (Sommer 2006 and 1984: 34-36). They were closely allied with the forts but also incorporated the native population and their artefact assemblage shows this blending. The vici also were important manufacturing sites and the acquisition and distribution of artefacts was driven by these local centres. THE TOWN ASSEMBLAGE Towns and vici functioned in similar ways by housing the non-military population. However, some fundamental distinctions subsisted. First, towns existed without an immediate military presence,9 whereas vici “were part of the military community and profoundly affected by its culture, economy and political outlook” (Mattingly 2007: 171). Towns were Roman entities responsible for the administration of the province. In the study zone, six towns were recorded. They included the civitas capitals Aldborough10 and Brough-on-Humber, the Colonia at York and other settlements of various sizes.

In regards to the dating of the intaglios, the bulk of the collection was early with only two late variations from Ribchester and Old Penrith. The late variations included: a hunting scenes and one male holding a spear. Based upon the hitherto mentioned early bias of the material and the limited nature of the intaglio assemblage, the chronological conclusions remain of little use. The ‘Other’ Artefacts from Vici

The southern evidence indicated that towns were constructed and expanded after the region was pacified (Mattingly 2007: 255; Black 1987: 1-13). This civilizing process apparent in the hinterland, suggests a more culturally Roman southern landscape, evidence further attested to by the rapid development of the villa landscape (see Chapter five; Black 1987: 11-13; Haselgrove 1984). In the north of England, town origins were not temporally uniform, but occurred largely in the late period as the region became pacified (McCarthy 2005: 47-49). Even though many of the towns had military origins, they allowed for the formation of a unique population, which included not only individuals from the surrounding landscape but also merchants, prostitutes, and retired soldiers (Mattingly 2007: 255-291; Millett 1990: 48ff and 1984: 65-69; Drinkwater 1983: 66-107; Rivet 1964: 72-96). Like the vici assemblage, the towns yielded a large grouping of beads and brooches, as seen in figure 3.39.

Only ten ‘other’ artefacts were recovered: five chains and five pendants. The chains came from Castleford, Ribchester and Watercrook and in all five cases functioned by linking brooches together. As women most commonly wore interconnected brooches, the chain evidence only substantiates that which is already known; women lived outside forts (Allason-Jones 2005b: 121; Johns 1996: 149). Of the five pendants three were made of antler and the remaining two were fashioned out of copper alloy. All five were recovered from Castleford thus suggesting a localized trend. Additionally, the decoration suggests cultural evolution with the a late example decorated with a phallus made on deer antler sources to the northwest provinces (Greep 1994) Summary of the Vcus Assemblage The assemblage from the vici was cosmopolitan with the recovery of both military and civilian artefacts. Additionally, a host of cultural regions were represented, including the south of England and the rest of the Empire.

Towns in most cases developed out of vici and military forts (Millett 1990, Rodwell and Rowley 1975; Rivet 1964). 10 The majority of finds from Aldborough are unprovienced and thus most of the data on period has been lost. 9

46

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.39: A comparison of the proportions of artefacts found on town sites. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total town assemblage. The assemblage includes both early and late period artefacts. (n=1125) Town Brooches

of early and continental designed brooches were also recovered. Dragonby, the most southerly site yielded both ‘Gaulish’, keyhole Rosette and simple wire brooches, all of which were rare in northern assemblages and appeared more commonly in the south of England (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 150-151; May 1996: 252-269). In the penannular brooch assemblage, Dragonby yielded the single largest collection, again differing from other northern sites. Of these, Fowler type ‘C’ were most abundant. This site clearly differs from the normal distribution pattern, suggesting that its geographical position exposed it to both the northern and southern regional assemblages.

Proportionally, fewer brooches were recovered on town sites than vici. The causal factors for this were less likely to be resistance to the Roman costume in the early period and more likely to be the dominance of the larger late assemblages such as at Catterick and York. However, for those sites with significant early occupation, the brooch assemblage was larger. For example, the site of Dragonby, which was used throughout the Roman period, yielded 145 brooches or 54% of all brooches recovered from town sites. The largest brooch category was the bow brooch as seen in figure 3.40.

Likewise, the zoomorphic plate brooch collection showed strong links to the continent. Although only five examples were recovered, two of them were adorned with a hare, which originated on the continent and was associated with the unconquered goddess (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 174;

The bow brooch assemblage showed a high degree of variability with 26 varieties existing within the 171 examples. Although the majority of brooches recovered were part of the regionally distinct assemblage, a number

80 70 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Bow

Penannular

Plate

ƌŽŽĐŚdLJƉĞ  Figure 3.40. A comparison of brooch types from town sites. Each brooch type is expressed as a percentage of the complete town brooch collection. (n=256)

47

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Map 3.8. Distribution of towns yielding brooches by period.

Puttock 2002: 85). Even though the majority of town finds were chronologically late, the number of crossbow and knee brooches recovered was minimal, with the majority of examples coming from Catterick. The limited distribution of such brooches suggests that they were only selectively worn by soldiers and not a common element of all military populations.

wearing a number of artefacts from Gaul and the south of England. Excavations at Catterick yielded one of the largest knee and crossbow assemblages. The three sites also had different characters with Aldborough being the civitas capital; Catterick, a fortified town in the central communication network; and Dragonby, a collection of roundhouses in a southern position. All three sites contributed to the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage and even though variations in the assemblage existed, they all showed the internalization of a common cultural assemblage.

The bow brooch assemblage followed the expected trend, where 87% of the assemblage was both manufactured and recovered from early contexts. Early brooches were recovered from seven sites. York yielded an exclusively early collection (Map 3.8). Although far fewer examples were recovered, five sites yielded late assemblages (only Irby was exclusively early) (Map 3.8). Additionally, only nine early-period brooches were recovered from late contexts. Penannular brooches were recovered in all centuries. Plate brooches were predominantly late, with disc and zoomorphic brooches being found in small numbers from early-third century contexts.

Town Beads Beads were recovered from the majority of towns in the north of England (Map 3.9). They were produced en masse along with Roman glass vessels, window glass and other ornamentation (Buxton and Howard-Davis 2000: 405-408; Cool, Jackson and Monaghan 1999; Guido 1979; RCHM 1962: 136). Although limited evidence exists, towns appear, like forts and vici to have been important manufacturing sites. Evidence for glass manufacturing comes from the Colonia at York, where 185 black glass beads, as well as malformed beads and wasters were found (Tweedle 1986: 181). Catterick also accounted for a large proportion of the bead assemblage, which may too be a reflection of local manufacturing (Wilson, P.R. 2002: 24-

The variation within the town assemblage reflects the region’s diverse population. If one compares Aldborough, Catterick and Dragonby, then three very different assemblages appear. Aldborough favoured the ‘Celtic’ and penannular brooches, while Dragonby was linked to other trade networks, with its population owning and

48

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Map 3.9. Distribution of towns yielding beads.

 70 60 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ

50 40 30 20 10 0 CopperAlloy

Frit/Glass

Jet/Shale

other

ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ  Figure 3.41. A comparison of bead composition from town sites. The proportion of each bead composition category is expressed as a percentage of the town bead assemblage. (n=394) their local manufacture and recovery at York. Although unstratified, it is possible that the beads dated as late as the twelfth and thirteenth century AD, but they show similarities to other Roman examples (Tweedle 1986: 223). Even if one disregards these beads, York still yielded a greater than average black bead assemblage. Conversely,

264). As noted previously, beads were made in a host of materials and, while glass was the most common, beads of other materials were also recovered (Figure 3.41). The most popular glass bead colours were black, green and blue. However, the popularity of the former stemmed from

49

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH green and blue beads were popular throughout the region. In addition to the green and blue beads, a number of opaque yellow variations were recovered. These were part of the pre-Roman tradition and were present throughout the Roman period; however, they represent local popularity and also were found predominantly at York. Other common bead types were cylindrical and globular beads, both of which were locally popular at the site of Catterick.

of the post-conquest expanded trade networks (Wilson, P.R. 2002: 27; Boon 1977). These beads were nonBritish and may have been associated with the arrival of 5500 cavalrymen from the Lazyges tribe (Boon as cited by Cool 2004: 387). These unique objects were added to the larger cultural assemblage that formed in the north of England and combined cultural components from across the Empire.

Jet and shale became increasingly popular in the late Roman period and accounted for 30% of the bead assemblage. While jet and shale beads were worn in the late Iron Age, their popularity diminished after the conquest, until their resurgence in the third and fourth centuries AD. However, the jet/shale distribution was not uniform, with a large collection from Catterick, isolated examples from Dragonby, and one bead from Brough-onHumber. All three sites were in the east, reflecting the close association between artefact use and material source. Even though Catterick produced the largest number of jet/ shale beads, the limited distribution implies that it was locally popular. It is also interesting that York, one of the known producers of jet, yielded no jet beads from within the Colonia (Wacher 1997: 181).

The majority of the town beads dated to the third and fourth century AD. This bias is similar to those visible on the vici sites, where a single excavation skews the data. From the town sites, the bulk of the material from Catterick dated to the late period. However, the trend visible at Catterick was supported by other sites, with an overall increase in the number of beads from late contexts. Additionally, the assemblage illustrated continuity in colours between the early and late period.

In addition to the more common glass and jet/shale beads, copper alloy, stone and ceramic beads derived from town deposits. Lastly, two gold-in-glass beads were found at Catterick. These were significant finds as they originated in the Eastern Empire and can be used to support examples

Pins were the third largest artefact grouping from town sites and comprised 20% of the complete assemblage, with a total of 220 being recovered from just five sites (Map 3.10). Catterick, the most prolific site, yielded just under half the assemblage with 104 examples. This can be

Within the bead assemblage chronological variations existed. For example, the majority of jet/shale beads were post-Severan. Town Pins

Map 3.10. Distribution of towns yielding pins.

50

WĞƌĐĞŶƚ

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

unknown Late Early

Bone

CopperAlloy

Other

ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ  Figure 3.42. A comparison of pin composition by period from town sites. Each composition group is expressed as the proportion of pins from the chronological periods within each composition category. (n=220) contrasted with York, which produced only 12 pins even though it represents the only Colonia in the north. However, this deviation does not imply that the individuals living within the more important Roman centres were not styling their hair in such a way. It is more a consequence of the city’s urbanization, which rendered large-scale excavations of the Roman deposits difficult. Thus, the pins

recovered from York only account for a small percentage of those worn at the time. While bone was the most common material, glass and jet/shale were also in use. In addition to the more common bone and copper alloy pins, which accounted for 75% and 20% of the pin assemblage respectively, glass pins were also found. Glass

Map 3.11. Distribution of towns yielding bracelets.

51

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH examples came from both Catterick and Dragonby. All four examples dated to the late Roman period. Glass pins were rare because of their fragile nature (Croom 2002: 98; Johns 1996: 136; Allason-Jones and Miket 1984: 275278).

of the assemblage dated to the late period with only glass bangles and five jet/shale bracelets being recovered in early contexts.

In the early period, copper alloy pins were again more common than their bone counterparts, but still made up only a small subset of the hairpins in use in the north of England (fewer than 18% of pins dated to the first and second century AD) (Figure 3.42). The town evidence further demonstrates the wider trends with numerous changes in feminine artefacts occurring in the late period.

The ring assemblage represented nine percent all artefacts from the town sites. In total, three earrings and 99 rings were recovered, with examples made of amber, bone, copper alloy, iron, glass, gold, jet/shale, silver and stone. Copper alloy was the most common (Figure 3.44) [Map 3.12].

Town Rings

The ring assemblage conforms to the trends established in the military and vici assemblages. In addition to the copper alloy and iron rings, the northern assemblage includes two glass rings from York, four bone examples from Catterick and one jet/shale variation also from Catterick. One of the glass rings was made of black glass. All the bone rings were found at Catterick, but came out of context. While Johns (1996) argues that bone rings were quite common, this research has shown them to be rare in northern assemblages (Johns 1996: 68). Additionally, Catterick yielded only one jet/shale ring. This quantity differs from the bracelet and bead assemblages, which suggested that Catterick may have been a manufacturer of jet/shale objects.

Town Bracelets Eleven percent of the town assemblage consisted of bracelets, bangles, and armlets. They were recovered from five sites (Map 3.11). The largest individual collection was from Catterick, with other significant groupings from Aldborough and Dragonby. The majority of bracelets were copper alloy as seen in figure 3.43. The second largest grouping was the jet/shale bracelets. The ‘other’ bracelet composition consisted of three antler examples from Catterick. Excavations yielded eight glass bangles and all but two came from early contexts. As discussed previously, towns include the civitas capitals at Aldborough and Brough, as well as the roundhouses at Dragonby. Interestingly, these sites, which had British tribal origins, yielded none of the glass bangles. Thus, while historically they elicited ‘Celtic’ associations, by the Roman period they were forming part of the cultural assemblage and those previous associations appear to have diminished. They were simply part of the regional assemblage.

The precious metal assemblage from the north included two gold rings from Aldborough and York, while the silver collection came from Aldborough, Dragonby, and York. Three of the silver rings were found inside ‘building 1’ at Dragonby (May 1996: 69-85). This location and its unique assemblage remain enigmatic. The chronology of the town ring assemblage was the inverse of the vici assemblage, with a larger late collection. In fact, only 11 early rings were recovered (five copper alloy, three iron and three silver).

In contrast with the vici sites, as a site grouping, towns were largely a late phenomenon. Accordingly, the majority

80 70 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Glass

CopperAlloy

Jet/shale

Other

ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ  Figure 3.43. A comparison of bracelet composition from town sites. Each bracelet composition category is expressed as a percentage of the complete town bracelet assemblage. (n=120)

52

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Map 3.12. Distribution of towns yielding rings and earrings. Those sites with both are identified with both colours.

 70 60 WĞƌĐĞŶƚ

50 40 30 20 10 0 CopperAlloy

Iron

PreciousMetal

Other

ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ  Figure 3.44. A comparison of ring composition from town sites. Each ring composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total town ring assemblage. (n=102)

53

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Map 3.13. Distribution of towns yielding intaglios.

Town Intaglios

popular in the second century AD. Thematically, all of the undecorated examples were from the first and second century AD, while all other imagery showed no clear trends.

A total of 12 intaglios were recovered from four sites (Map 3.13). The largest collection was from Dragonby, where five intaglios were recovered in early contexts. The intaglios were decorated with a variety of themes. Mythological characters and deities including: Minerva, a satyr, Bonus Eventus, and Fortuna.

The ‘Other’ Town Artefacts The other artefacts from town sites included: one chain, one necklace and seven pendants. The chain was made of copper alloy and, as observable in the Menimane costume, was most likely worn by a woman.

Undecorated intaglios were most common on town sites and an example from Dragonby was the earliest intaglio recovered in Britain (May 1996). This intaglio was found in conjunction with an example decorated with Sol—a theme directly related to Syrian sun worship, which was also dated to the early period (Henig 1974b: 119). Dragonby and its intaglio assemblage showed the inherent value of personal ornamentation. For example, the personal ornaments at Dragonby show acculturation shortly after the conquest, while architecturally no change occurred. Additionally, the material culture recovered from Dragonby further demonstrates the variety of cultural artefacts in circulation. It included objects from the south of England’s regional assemblage as well as those from the north.

The necklace was recovered from Catterick and was styled into dolphins and tusks (Wilson, P.R. 2002: 192). The example dated from the late second century AD and the dolphins show possible parallels to an example from Verulamium (Frere 1972, 152 fig 56, 210). The unique nature of the object suggests that it was not locally produced and most likely was introduced to England after the conquest. The pendant collection contained only seven examples from four sites. The majority were made of copper alloy, but two bone and one jet/shale example were also recovered. Aldborough produced the greatest number of pendants; however, the site’s acidic soils deteriorate bone and other organic materials (Bishop 1996: 3). Accordingly, all examples found were metal. One of the copper alloy

Intaglios were found throughout the Roman period, but as noted previously, no examples were recovered preconquest. The town assemblage shows they were most

54

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.45. A comparison of artefacts recovered from funerary sites. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total cemetery assemblage. The assemblage includes both early and late period artefacts. (n=345) pendants was decorated with a phallus. The non-metal examples were undecorated and located exclusively at Catterick. The pendant assemblage was predominantly late, with only one of the copper alloy variants from Aldborough dating to the early period.

were located near large military centres (i.e. York and Brougham). Second, the non-urban burials were so rare that their assemblages cannot be universally accepted as indicative of larger trends. Thus, while the evidence from all burials argued for the development and acceptance of a Romano-British cultural set, this evidence derived from a small proportion of the population. Arguably, this paucity itself may be a reflection of resistance to Roman style burials, with the bulk of the population disposing of the deceased in traditional methods.

The Summary of the Town Artefact Assemblage .E Like the other urban collections, the town assemblage highlights the diversity of artefacts inherent within the north of England. Although the town assemblage is largely late in date, it can be compared with the vici assemblage to understand how the civilian-urban assemblage shifted between the early and late period—a theme that will be expanded in Chapter four. Additionally, the assemblage reflects the cultural diversity of the region, with objects from across the Empire being recovered in conjunction with those most popular in the study zone.

In Gaul, the evidence for ‘Romanization’ in funerary practices is mixed. For example, the population adopted Roman funerary practices, while not changing their names. This suggests that the local elite were imitating but not adopting Roman identity (Woolf 1998: 103). Likewise, Roymans observed marked changes in the funerary traditions with those along the Rhineland frontier having intensified martiality and those in the more agrarian hinterland adopting a more ‘civilized’ lifestyle and burial process (Roymans 1996: 13-39)

THE CEMETERY ASSEMBLAGE The cemetery sites, unlike all other site types, centred upon the intentional deposition of a body and associated material culture (Cool 2004: 437-484; Woolf 1998: 103). Burial contexts are particularly valuable as they not only provide the most holistic archaeological assemblage but also illustrate the way artefacts were worn (Philpott 1991). Burials can be divided into two groups: inhumation and cremation.11 The northern material has limitations. First, the majority of cremations and burials excavated

The cemeteries were almost exclusively late by period and thus illustrate the adornment popular during the third and fourth centuries AD. Although the funeral assemblage yielded only 345 objects from ten sites, it differed from the other sites discussed. For example, as one can see from figure 3.45, the brooch assemblage was small (only making up six percent of the assemblage) and the largest single artefact type; beads (124), accounted for 36% of the assemblage.

11 The excavation of funerary deposits in the north of England is dominated by larger sites located near Roman centres, thus the predominance of Roman finds was expected. However, even the burials from rural sites produce Roman artefacts suggesting the theme was universal (Londesborough 1852; Jones, R.F.J. 1984d; Dickenson and Wenham 1957; Wilson, Wright and Hassall 1973; Cool 2004; Bellhouse and Moffatt 1959; Hogg, R. 1949; Patten 1974; Turner 1990; Wenham 1968b; Davey 1935; Barber and Bowher 2000)

Cemetery Brooches Brooches were the third smallest artefact grouping from funerary contexts and accounted for only six percent of the complete assemblage. Eleven bow brooches

55

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH (52% of brooches) were recovered, while one plate and two penannular brooches were found. The small brooch assemblage coincides with the excavation of predominantly late period sites. Additionally, while many sites show a significant recovery of early-manufacture brooches in the late period, all but three of the brooches recovered in funerary contexts coincided with the correct period of manufacture. Of the 21 brooches, three came from early sites, while the remaining 18 dated to the cusp between the end of the second century through the fourth century AD. For example, Low Borrowbridge Cemetery was used in the late second century AD and included a mixture of military style late brooches and early bow brooches. The funerary assemblage therefore, demonstrates that by the late Roman period, the majority of the population was being buried in clothing that did not require brooches. Additionally, the lack of early brooches from late contexts shows that while subsets of the population continued wearing brooches that were no longer being manufactured, in funerary contexts this was extremely rare. Alternatively, the paucity of brooches in the funerary record may derive from individuals being buried in a plain tunic or shroud, where brooches would have been unnecessary.12

Figure 3.46. Iron bucket Pendant. L18mm; D13mm. Image from Cool 2004: 178

As noted in the artefact summary, beads had a ritual function as well as an ornamental use. The large presence of beads in the funerary assemblage reflects both these traditions, with many of the examples being found in the same context as other beads. The recovery of individual beads may support Puttock’s (2002) argument whereby single beads were removed from other objects as a sign of solidarity with the deceased or to avert the evil eye (Puttock 2002: 95).

Cemetery Beads Beads were the most common funerary artefact and represented over a third of all objects recovered. They were found at four sites with Brougham yielding the largest concentration. All but eight of the beads were made of glass and the most common colours were blue, green or black. The latter were mainly from York, and the recovery of black beads illustrates links between manufacturing inside the Colonia and their appearance in funerary contexts outside the city.

Cemetery Pins Even though cemeteries dated primarily to the late period, pins accounted for 17% (60) of the complete collection. The gender association and the significant number of women buried at York and Brougham makes the small assemblage particularly surprising. Furthermore, the pin assemblage from military and urban sites shows that women were using pins in their hair across the entire region, but these trends were not translated into the funerary evidence, with all but one of the pins coming from York. The recovery of pins from inhumations also provides information in regard to positioning and quantity used to hold hairstyles in place. The northern material only produced two in situ examples and one example used two pins while five pins were recovered from the second (RCHM 1962: 70-79).

Of the remaining eight beads, five were gold-in-glass beads, all of which were recovered from Brougham. Their recovery further attests to the influx of different Roman cultural groups. Although recovered in small numbers, they suggest that some of the auxiliaries were of Eastern descent.13 This claim is further supported by the presence of the rare iron bucket pendants (Figure 3.46), which will be discussed on pages 156-157. Thus, in the funerary assemblage, one can clearly see the dynamic nature of culture, with examples from across the Empire, myriad local examples and regional manufacturing all shaping the cultural assemblage and presumably the culture as well.

Pins were manufactured in bone, copper alloy, jet/shale and one ivory example has been recovered at York. The funerary assemblage differed from all other site types as jet/shale was the most common material recovered (figure 3.47). This trend stems from not only the local production of jet/shale at York, as evidenced by large blocks of jet, but also its ritual function (RCHM 1962: 143; AllasonJones 1996). The dynamic nature of the northern cultural assemblage is expressed with the recovery of an ivory pin. Ivory was uncommon in England and originated in North Africa (Cool and Philo 1998: 268; Johns 1996: 15-16). Like other unique artefacts, its recovery may derive from an individual bringing the artefact in their travels or via trade.

In relation to the Roman cemetery at Brougham, Cool notes that “it seems very likely that the dead may have gone to their pyres dressed in life rather than simply wearing shrouds” (Cool 2004: 438). 13 Little evidence is known about who was stationed at the fort. The inscription fragment GALLOR TRIB MIL LEG VIII AVG argued for the possibility of a Gallic cohort, but no additional evidence exists (RIB 782) 12

56

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.47. A comparison of pin composition from funerary sites. Each pin composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total cemetery pin assemblage. (n=60) Copper alloy pins were also an important part of the late funerary assemblage. While jet pins reflect ritual beliefs, the presence of copper alloy examples remains unclear, as on all other sites types they were less popular than their bone counterparts. The pin assemblage on the cemetery sites was unique but limited. It suggests that by the late period Roman hairstyles requiring pins were uncommon in funerary practices. Additionally, regional divides were evident with only York producing a meaningful pin

assemblage. Brougham, which remained in use during the same period, yielded none. Was this because the population had different cultural beliefs? Did the pins simply not survive? Additionally, the funerary assemblage deviates from the living assemblages. This trend, which has been recently studied in the south of England by Rosten (2007b) in her doctoral thesis, occurs both in the north and south of England.

Map 3.14. Distribution of funerary sites yielding bracelets. 57

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 3.48. A comparison of bracelet composition on cemetery sites. Each bracelet composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total cemetery bracelet assemblage (n=66). Cemetery Bracelets

Cemetery Rings

Six funerary sites yielded 66 bracelets with the single largest grouping coming from York. However, they were found across the northern region (Map 3.14). The chronology of the cemeteries meant that copper alloy and jet/shale should feature more prominently and, as visible in Figure 3.48, this occurred.

The cemetery site yielded 54 rings. Of these, 13 were clearly identified as earrings, making the collection the largest from any site category in the north. This does not mean that earrings were more popular in funerary contexts, but derives from the nature of the excavations at York and Brougham, where the artefacts have been reclassified to distinguish rings from earrings. The earrings were predominantly made of gold, however, one silver and three copper alloy examples were also recovered. All were found in female burials.

While the previous site types have demonstrated that copper alloy bracelets became increasingly popular in the late period, Cool, in her specialist report on Brougham observed that the relatively small bracelet assemblage stemmed from a decrease in their popularity in the late Roman period (Cool 2004: 390). She further argued that in the late Roman period, jet and shale became the most common and popular bracelet type (Cool 2000a: 52). This research shows that jet/shale became increasingly popular and the ritual functioning of jet made it an integral part of the late assemblage. However, while the abundance of copper alloy bracelets recovered on cemetery sites did not mimic the findings of forts, towns and vici, they remained an important part of the late regional assemblage.

The ring assemblage derived from six cemeteries with the largest collections coming from Brougham and Trentholme Cemetery, York. They were made of bone, copper alloy, jet/shale and a few precious metal examples (Figure 3.49). The precious metal rings were predominantly found in burials around York. Although precious metal rings were being used selectively across the north of England, their recovery suggests a correlation between wealth and the legionary fortress. Interestingly, while York yielded copper alloy, iron and precious metal rings, all non-metal variations were found at Brougham. Does this mean that the population at York chose not to wear bone or jet/ shale rings? The recovery of rings of all materials from the full range of sites suggests that they were being worn across the Empire and may have been selected by the local population as funerary objects in Brougham and not elsewhere. However, with such a small assemblage, the variation remains ambiguous.

The recovery of bracelets associated with human remains allows one to address questions of gender. First, the recovery of multiple bracelets from single contexts supports Allason-Jones’s claim that women wore several bracelets at a time (Allason-Jones 2005b: 118). Additionally, one bracelet was found in a male burial suggesting that although predominantly feminine, some of the examples found on other sites may have been lost by men (Cool 2004: 391).14

Cemetery Intaglios Two intaglios were found: a carnelian from a small cremation of the first and second century AD in YorkFishergate and a Cornelian of Ceres—the goddess of

The gender association of artefacts has been well-documented see Hill, J.D. 2001; Allason-Jones 1995; Van Driel-Murray 1995. 14

58

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.49. A comparison of ring and earring composition on funerary sites. Each ring/ earring composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total cemetery ring/earring assemblage. (n=54) agriculture—found in an urned cemetery in Brougham dating between AD 280 and 300 (Burnham et al. 2003: 312-314; Cool 2004: 219-220). These two artefacts were uncommon in funerary contexts as only a handful of intaglios have been recovered from such sites across the whole of Britain (Henig 1974b: 65).

settlement existed nearby (Daniels et al. 1987: 4). Although of a very limited nature, the necklace from Hartlepool provides evidence for the adoption of Roman material culture by the non-urban population. The preference for jet/shale may have been geographical or could further illustrate the local adoption of beliefs associated with the objects (Van Der Leeuw 1983: 24-25). The isolated nature of this burial reminds one that the funerary context revolves around Roman forts and the rarity of the rural burials may be evidence for Roman cultural change not taking hold in the countryside (Mattingly 2007: 210, 526; Millett 1990: 99-107).

The ‘Other’ Cemetery Artefacts The cemeteries generated the largest proportion of ‘other’ artefacts with four chains, eight necklaces and seven pendants being recovered. Of the four chains, only one functioned by joining brooches together. This example, from a female burial in York, was found without the associated brooches (RCHM 1962: 91). The other three, two of gold and one of copper alloy, were fine chains similar to necklaces. The two gold necklaces both came from urned burials at Brougham. One belonged to a woman, while the other remained unsexed (Cool 2004: 382).

Lastly, seven pendants were found on four cemetery sites. Of these three, very rare, iron bucket pendants from Brougham. A fourth example, also from Brougham, was fashioned in gold and decorated with a Capricorn. The iron bucket pendants were the only examples recovered in all of Britain and had links to the Samarian culture originating in the Pontus area (Cool 2004: 384). As illustrated by the gold-in-glass beads, the inhabitants of Brougham had eastern cultural associations incorporated in the overarching Roman material culture. Thus, Brougham was either engaged in different trade patterns than other northern sites or more likely, the inhabitants of the fort had eastern origins. The cemetery at Brougham, is a “perfect example of the potential complexities of the military community both in terms of what was held in common with other soldiers and how much unusual cultural baggage could be present at a single garrison post” (Mattingly 2007: 224). Furthermore, the burials at Brougham included those commemorated as ‘Celtic’, but the evidence suggested that these were not Britons but Germanic (Mattingly 2007: 224).15 Brougham and its material culture—all of which was ‘Roman’—reflect

The jet/shale necklaces from York and Catterick presumably functioned similarly to jet/shale pins and pendants and aided women in the afterlife (Puttock 2002: 59ff; AllasonJones 1996: 15-17). The ritual evidence is highlighted by an example from York, where a Gorgon pendant was attached to a necklace. (RCHM 1962: 142-143) Gorgons were long associated with the Roman conquest of evil and, in some cases, women’s power. Gorgons also played an important part in warrior culture as symbolizing the overcoming of evil (RCHM 1962: 142-143). Two bead necklaces were recovered—one from Catterick of jet/shale beads and a second also made of jet/shale beads form Hartlepool (Figure 3.50). The example from Hartlepool was one of the few rural burials recovered. It dated to the fourth or fifth century AD and no known

Mattingly cites the recovery of White Horses in cremations and Germanic burial rites as evidence (2007: 224). 15

59

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 3.50. An illustrative sample of beads from the Hartlepool necklace. Image from Daniels et al. 1987: Figure 2, pg. 2

the diverse and complex nature of such an identity and the wide range of different cultural identities that were compounded in the north of England.

phenomenon, with only Welton producing any pre-third century material (Mackey 1999; Jones, R.F.J. 1984c). The late development of the villa landscape can be contrasted with the south of England, where villas appeared in the early period immediately following the pacification of the region (Black 1987).

The Summary of the Cemetery Assemblage Even though cemeteries were valuable sites, the small assemblage and limited data set means that the collections was biased in favour of the urbanized population. The sites showed little about the burial traditions of the rural population and the ways in which these evolved. Nevertheless, the funerary assemblage parallels trends discerned from other site groupings. For example, as on all site types, the regionally popular artefacts formed the majority of material culture from funerary sites. These artefacts were then combined with ethnic artefacts from across the Empire, expressing a new strain of Roman. Additionally, the evidence from burials suggests that beads, bracelets and pins, were predominantly feminine artefacts, while brooches, rings and intaglios were worn by men and women.

Although the specific cultural identity of villa owners is controversial, the construction of such buildings can be viewed as a clear display of Romanness (see Mattingly 2007: 353ff; Millett 1990: 92-94; Branigan 1980; Johnston 1979). The villa landscape was also a testament to the evolved economic system in place, as all were located on the arable soils near major urban settlements. Thus, their construction stemmed from the fiscal benefits of engaging with the Roman economic system (Mattingly 2007: 371372; Wallerstein 1974). Villas and their assemblage are particularly interesting as they were clearly Roman settlements, but positioned in a largely unchanged countryside. Additionally, the ownership of the villas raises questions of cultural change with their construction being consigned to retired soldiers or native elite (Branigan 1980). Villas were the smallest site grouping, with only ten sites and a yield of 218 artefacts. The two largest assemblages came from Beadlam (56) and Winterton (54). Like the urban landscape they produced a wide array of artefacts, with brooches being the most common (Figure 3.51).

THE VILLA ASSEMBLAGE Villas were characterized by large stone structures that included mosaics, wall plaster and other Roman material culture and were only found within reasonable proximity to towns, on the rich arable land along the Vales of Pickering and York. In the north of England, they were a late

60

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.51. A comparison of artefacts recovered from villa sites. Each artefact groupings is expressed as a percentage of the complete villa assemblage. The assemblage includes both early and late period artefacts. (n=218) Villa Brooches

late contexts. Likewise, no plate brooches were recovered from the first and second century AD, even though seven percent (or five objects) were typologically early. The three brooch categories illustrate the continued styling of the villa inhabitants with early adornments post-villa construction. These individuals were clearly culturally Roman, but for unknown reasons showed an affinity to an outdated regional assemblage. While some of the brooches recovered may have been part of levelling deposits at the time of construction, many of the examples were found on floor surfaces along the walls with late pottery, providing a terminus post quem of the early third century AD.

The villa sites yielded 65 brooches from just six sites. Bow brooches comprised 50% of the assemblage with penannular and plate brooches equalling 38% and 12% respectively. Although the assemblage conformed to the popular brooch types across the entire region, it had limitations as well. For example, trumpet brooches were the most common (14 were recovered), however their popularity was not uniformly distributed as 11 came from Rudston. Likewise, no late knee and crossbow brooches were recovered, even though villas were not constructed until the late Roman period.

Villa Beads The penannular assemblage from the villa sites was one of the larger collections, but like the trumpet brooches, showed disparity in distribution with large collections coming from two sites; Rudston and Winterton. The plate brooch assemblage yielded no dragonesque brooches, even though all villas were located within their manufacturing zone. Although dragonesque brooches were early in date, the continuity of other early manufactured brooches in late contexts suggests that they were not popular with the villa owners.

Forty-five beads were recovered from six villa sites (Map 3.15). The majority were made of glass (38), with one frit and six jet/shale beads. No evidence for glass working existed on any villa sites, meaning that all beads recovered originated elsewhere. Green cylindrical variants were the most common. As occurred on the previously mentioned site types, the local popularity of certain objects or designs was visible. For example, of the six jet/shale beads recovered, four were excavated from Winterton. By virtue of the villas’ positioning near the coast and its late construction when jet/shale was an integral part of the assemblage, one would have expected to find a larger jet/shale grouping on all villa sites. Thus, the paucity seems suspicious. Were jet/ shale objects being disposed of in a different manner, such as in burials? Or were the villa-owners not connected with those sites where jet/shale was manufactured? The villas were also devoid of metal beads. While jet/shale and metal beads do not account for a large proportion of the bead assemblage from any site type, they were still visible in the

The villa brooch chronology remains particularly enigmatic. The villas were all constructed in the late Roman period, and yet an abundance of the brooches recovered were early manufactured examples. This is illustrated in figure 3.52, which divides the artefacts into four categories: pre-villa (early); typologically early variations from late contexts (early in late); typologically late from late contexts (late); and typologically continuous or recovered out of context (throughout). All of the recovered bow brooches were typologically early, yet a third of the assemblage was recovered from 61

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Map 3.15. Distribution of villa sites yielding beads.

of the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage. However, their popularity remained far from universal. For example, Rudston produced copper alloy variations but no bone pins.16 The other villa sites, in particular Winterton, yielded opposite results with a larger bone assemblage.

urban landscape. The evidence therefore may suggest that the villa-owners collected and adorned themselves with different objects than the urban population. Due to the comparatively late construction of the villas, only three glass beads—of the 82% that can be dated— came from pre-villa levels and 71% from the late Roman period. All but one of the jet/shale beads were recovered in secondary contexts and the single datable example was recovered from a late context at Beadlam.

There were four pins classified as ‘other’ (1 glass, 1 silver, 2 jet/shale). These anomalies are of particular interest as they came from other manufacturing sites and illustrate specific preferences by the owners. The glass pin, found at Beadlam, was made of green glass and was rare on villa sites in the north of England (Neal 1996: 108). Green glass pins were more common in the south of England and may be evidence of the owners relocating from the south (Woodward and Steer 1936). The silver pin was found at Dalton Parlours. These two pins were isolated examples, yet they provide insight into the evolving material culture in the north of England including: networks of exchange, wealth, and personal taste collaborating to create local provincial Romano-British identity.

Villa Pins The villa pin collection formed 17% of the overall assemblage—36 examples from only five sites (Beadlam, Dalton Parlours, Langton, Rudston, and Winterton). The largest individual assemblage was from Winterton, where 16 pins were found. The pins were made of bone, copper alloy, jet/shale, glass and silver, with the bone pins being the most common as seen in figure 3.53. As with the cemetery sites, the number of copper alloy pins suggests that while the urban population preferred bone pins, copper alloy was an important component

The recovery of other bone artefacts eliminates non-cultural formation processes as the cause. 16

62

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.53. A comparison of pin composition from villa sites. Each pin composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total villa pin assemblage. (n=36) Villa Bracelets

one would expect to find a high proportion of copper alloy and jet/shale bracelets because of the sites’ chronology, the bracelet assemblage shows similarities to the brooch collection, where a number of early—in this case glass bangles—were recovered. Figure 3.54, shows the bracelet composition by percentage.

Bracelets were the second largest artefact type and accounted for 19% of the total villa assemblage. They were found on all nine sites with the two largest assemblages coming from Winterton and Rudston (Map 3.16). While

Map 3.16. Distribution of villa sites yielding different bracelet types. Glass bangles were most abundantly dispersed, even though their manufacture was limited to the early period. 63

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 3.54. A comparison of bracelet composition from villa sites. Each bracelet composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total villa bracelet assemblage. (n=42) The villa assemblages differ from other late sites. Not only was the assemblage comparatively small but also included numerous glass bangles recovered from Roman structures. Although the causal factors for such a discrepancy remain unclear, the pre-Roman associations of the bangles may suggest that the villas were constructed by the native elite, who, like soldiers bringing items from their home nations, decided to retain their own culturally charged objects. In addition to the late jet/shale and copper alloy examples, two ‘other’ bracelets were recovered. These included one bone and one silver example. The silver bracelet further supports the economic gains and assumed wealth of the villa owners.

and Winterton. While precious metal rings were recovered on all site types in small numbers, the four gold rings from North Stainley all came from a single context suggesting that they may have been part of a hoard17 (Richmond 1924b). The ring assemblage from the villa sites was largely late. From the entire northern assemblage, only one copper alloy spiral ring from Dalton Parlours dated to the early period. Villa Intaglio A single intaglio was recovered from the site of Dalton Parlours. This example was decorated with a man holding a spear was made out of black glass and recovered inside a silver ring. Although, an individual example, it suggest the influx of new owners into the villa as its ownership most closely parallels examples found in the south of England—in particular along the Bristol channel (Wrathmell and Nicholson 1991: 83). It is an example of the arrival of objects and themes from across the Empire, in this instance from the south.

The bracelets from the villa sites dated to the late period, as supported by the architectural evidence. However, as noted previously, a large residual early assemblage exists. This trend is discernable on most of the villa sites, suggesting that there were similarities in ownership or that the chronology of the artefacts was extended in the countryside. The recovery of early artefacts from late assemblages occurred on all site types, but in far greater concentrations on villa sites. These proportions even outweigh the rural sites—a dialogue which will be expanded in Chapter four.

The ‘Other’ Villa Artefacts The villa sites produced only three artefacts classified as ‘other’: one necklace, one pendant and one chain. The necklace originated from Dalton Parlours and was made of 15 glass beads strung together. The popularity of bead necklaces for women and children and the overall length suggest that it was worn by a child (Puttock 2002: 23; Wrathmell and Nicholson 1991). Complete bead necklaces were rare—only four examples have been found from northern sites. The recovery of intact necklaces provides insight into the style of manufacture

Villa Rings There were 25 rings found at six sites with the largest assemblage coming from Winterton. Only one earring has been positively identified. The rings were constructed out of metal with only a few jet/shale examples. As visible in figure 3.55, copper alloy rings were most abundant. When combined with precious metals, metallic rings accounted for over two-thirds of the total assemblage. Precious metal rings reflected the accumulation of wealth and the individuals’ intention to display it. On the villa sites four gold rings were recovered from North Stainley, while two silver rings were found at both Dalton Parlours

A villa is known at North Stainley, however the excavation of the site has been limited and future work would improve our understanding of the site. 17

64

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.55. A comparison of ring/earring composition from villa sites. Each ring composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total villa ring/earring assemblage. (n=26) and the number interconnected for a complete object. However, from the four different examples, it is clear that no universal trends existed, with ranges of 15 beads to 146. Unfortunately, based upon the northern evidence, the compilation of beads from similar contexts into necklaces and bracelets is unfeasible.

a large number of late manufactured hairpins and only a small number of early brooches, while Rudston produced a largely early manufactured brooch assemblage. THE RURAL ASSEMBLAGE The most common site in the zone of study was those termed ‘rural.’ A total of 158 sites have been excavated and many others observed through aerial photography, field walking and general landscape studies (Taylor, J. 2007; Collens 1998; Knight et al. 1998; Stoertz 1997; Caruana 1989; Nevell 1989; St Joseph 1977, 1973, 1969, 1965, 1955; Bartlett and Varley 1972). Although rural sites were the most common, they only yielded 285 artefacts, which equates to a mean of just over 1.6 per site. Many of the sites predated the arrival of the Roman Empire and sustained only minimal changes before the end of the fourth century AD (Mattingly 2007: 421-22; Taylor, J. 2007; Ottaway et al. 2003; Jones, R.F.J. 1984c; Haselgrove 1982; Hart 1981; Jobey, G. 1959-1971). The archaeological remains, both small finds and architectural changes, illustrate a diverse array of experiences on rural sites. These ranged from complete isolation, to changes in architecture, to the adoption of utilitarian objects of material culture or restyling themselves with Roman costume. Furthermore, the rural assemblage showed that while Roman material culture entered the countryside, the process was far from universal. Pottery was found most commonly on rural sites. Although pottery has not been incorporated into the present study, its recovery attests to contact and interaction with the larger Roman network. It is important to note that pottery was found in greatest quantities on all sites and thus, is most likely to be recovered across the full spectrum. However, as visible in figure 3.56, only 39% of the excavated rural sites yielded any personal ornaments. Map 3.17 shows the density of known sites in the north of England, while Map 3.18 presents only those sites with personal ornaments.

The only pendant recovered was a late Roman, bronze example from Rudston. Its terminus post quem was the third century AD. Pendants were clearly not a common piece of personal ornamentation from the villa sites. Lastly, one chain was recovered from the site of Langton. It was made of copper alloy and based upon its style would have functioned by linking two brooches together. Like the bracelets and brooches, this chain was retained for use in the late Roman period (Corder and Kirk 1932: 60-61). The Summary of the Villa Assemblage The construction of villas in the north of England represented a change in the cultural behaviour of the inhabitants. Although some of the villa owners may have been retired soldiers, select segments of the rural population chose to rebuild their domestic structures in a Roman style with all the associated luxuries. Yet the cultural assemblage was deeply rooted in the first and second century AD. Thus, the villa assemblage raises a number of questions about acculturation in the north. It appears that after the conquest, artefacts were dispersed across the landscape and that the owners of the villas styled themselves with said objects. However, unlike on urban sites, the artefacts manufactured in the early period remain prevalent throughout the third and fourth centuries AD. This variable experience still reflects cultural change within the countryside, but also demonstrates the discrepant identity within even the population living in Roman domestic structures. Furthermore, variation existed between sites. For example, Winterton adopted

65

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 3.56. A comparison of artefact yields from rural sites. The data presented are the number of sites yielding specific types of objects versus the entire rural site assemblage. (n=158)

Map 3.17. Distribution of known rural sites within the zone of study. Only 37% of the sites yielded personal ornaments.

66

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Map 3.18. Distribution of rural sites yielding personal ornamentation.

Although the degree of acculturation varied, the recovery of Roman material culture does illustrate cultural change. The rural population, whether acquiring Roman material culture with the intention of appearing Roman or interacting with the Roman cultural system by chance, still engaged and adapted the form of Roman material culture present in the north of England (Ferris 1995). In Gaul, Roman eating habits appeared beyond the Limes in the native population suggesting that pottery transcended cultural boundaries (Walter 2005). In Britain, lower quantities of tableware demonstrate that while pottery was being adopted, food was still being served differently (Cool 2006: 54). Thus, while pottery and its recovery from countryside locations illustrate a degree of cultural change, the variation in assemblage demonstrates that the rural population was selectively adopting elements of the regional assemblage.

(2002), “the internalisation of Roman culture renders the division of ‘Roman’ and ‘native’ redundant and makes it possible to view the use of Roman material culture at all levels of provincial society as an expression of more complex and differentiated social identities by competent human agents” (Roth 2002: 37). Millett argues that the sterile nature of many rural sites illustrates the unsuccessful Romanization in the north (Millett 1990: 101). These sites produced minimal waste, including a lack of food or even native pottery. Thus, one can argue that different waste disposal techniques were employed. However, the nature of the rural excavations themselves may also contribute to the paucity, as excavations did not reveal rubbish dumps, which if recovered would have changed the nature of the evidence. Alternatively, cultural and non-cultural formation processes may have obliterated all the data from these sparse sites (Schiffer 1987).

Like pottery, personal ornamentation was an essential element of material culture that was internalized by the entire population within the study zone. As noted by Roth

67

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 3.57. A comparison of the rural artefact assemblage. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total rural assemblage. (n=286) Rural Brooches

On the sites where personal ornamentation was found, brooches were the most common and accounted for just under half the assemblage. Bracelets and rings, accounted for an additional 24% of the assemblage, also featured heavily. Figure 3.57 shows the division of artefacts by percentage.

A total of 166 brooches, the majority of which date to the early Roman period, were recovered from the rural sites. They were distributed across the entire region as seen in Map 3.19. Of these brooches, 28 lack typological information. Bow, penannular and plate brooches were

Map 3.19. Distribution of rural sites yielding brooches.

68

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.58. A comparison of brooch types from rural sites. Each brooch type is expressed as a percentage of the total rural brooch assemblage. (n=166) all found on the rural sites, but the former was the most prevalent as seen in figure 3.58.

hare was a continental theme (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 174).

The majority of the bow brooches were those that formed part of the regionally distinct assemblage; however the presence of Hod Hill and Gaulish variations demonstrates that the countryside, via Roman centres was integrated into the larger Roman economic system as well. The same trend can be discerned in the plate brooch assemblage, where dragonesque brooches were popular. As noted previously, these were hybrids, blending Roman and Celtic designs and formed a unique component of the northern assemblage. They were distributed across the entire northern landscape. Only three zoomorphic brooches were recovered and they were decorated reflecting connectivity to the larger cultural assemblage. Adornments included a hare from Old Winteringham and a fish from Norton. The

Although bow brooches were the most popular on rural sites, all three categories of brooches show elements of the Empire-wide, regional and localized cultural assemblage. The rural assemblage chronology favoured the early period with 65% of brooches dating to the first and second century (Figure 3.59). It was only penannular brooches that differed from the early dominance and this occurred because of their duration of use and the poor contextual data. The weak evidence resulted in a large undatable collection. However, for those examples with clear chronology, the excavations suggest that penannular brooches were worn in approximately equal numbers during both the early and late periods. Of

Figure 3.59. A comparison of brooch type by period from the rural sites. Each brooch type is expressed proportionally by chronological period. (n=138) Note 28 brooches were published without being classified by brooch type.

69

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Map 3.20. Distribution of rural sites yielding beads. They appear to have been most popular with the eastern rural population. the late brooch types, seven were early examples carried into late contexts and 21 were typologically late.

penannular brooches. The predominance for brooches does show that, after the conquest, there were changes in costume. But the changes were far from universal and only small segments of the population accessed the wider Roman cultural system.

As mentioned previously, brooches were the largest artefact grouping from the rural sites. The wearing of brooches increased exponentially post-conquest and the origin of examples from across the Empire illustrate the globalized nature of the northern Romano-British countryside (Bayley and Butcher 2004). However, it was the regional varieties including the trumpet, headstud, and dragonesque brooch that became the most popular on rural sites. They attest to the rural population’s adoption of the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage. The rural assemblage shows that, for those adopting Roman material culture, they were acquiring the same cultural assemblage as individuals from all site types.

Rural Beads There were 26 beads from 17 sites. They were slightly more common in the eastern half of the study zone and most sites produced only one example (Map 3.20). The majority of beads (69%) were made of glass, while jet/shale beads accounted for an additional 31%. As noted previously, beads were notoriously overlooked in excavations because of excavation techniques coupled with their relative size.18 As a result, it is highly likely that a greater number of bead necklaces and bracelets were worn than appeared in the archaeological record. Likewise, for those sites with beads, it is likely that the original artefacts would have incorporated more than a single example. The recovery of beads manufactured on urban sites from rural assemblages illustrates the movement of a full range of artefacts. Beads

The brooch assemblage in isolation portrays a rural population heavily influenced by Roman culture and material culture, but the evidence contradicts such assumptions. Numerically, very few artefacts were recovered in comparison with other ‘Roman sites’. Additionally, by the late Roman period, the rural inhabitants had abandoned the majority of brooches and were either wearing outdated examples or continued wearing

Many excavations use sieves with screens that are too large to capture them. For those sites that only capture sight finds, beads are frequently missed. 18

70

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.60. A comparison of the period of recovery of glass and jet/shale beads from rural sites. Each temporal bead composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total number of beads made of either glass or jet/shale. (n=26)

were of a low value, but their distribution in conjunction with other artefacts reflects the cultural evolution on all site types.

north of England, with examples found both east and west of the Pennines (Map 3.21). Thus, their distribution was based upon the active movement of objects by individuals and not the immediate popularity of local artefacts. The largest single collection originated from the site of old Winteringham, where nine of the 17 pins were found. Only three of the sites—Catcote, Norton and Old Winteringham—yielded multiple examples

The rural glass bead assemblage showed a great deal of continuity with the urban sites in terms of colour and style. Melon beads were the most common style and blue the most abundant colour. However, rural sites also yielded a high proportion of translucent blue glass beads. Unfortunately, many of the beads lack any further details and thus, the type and colouring evidence is of limited use. As the beads were recovered as isolated examples, it is impossible to identify if the beads were functioning symbolically, in isolation or as part of a necklace or bracelet. The largest single collection came from Old Winteringham, however seven sites yielded multiple examples.

The composition of the pins was similar to those collections from military and non-military urban sites. The most abundant material was bone, followed by copper alloy. One ferrous example was recovered. Like the villa sites, the use of copper alloy and bone pins appeared to be a matter of choice with only one site—Old Winteringham— yielding examples of both. All other sites produced pins of only one composition. Chronologically, only the pin from Staxton dated to the late period.

The majority of beads were dated to the early period with a significant proportion unknown. The latter came from contexts lacking clear chronology. Figure 3.60 shows the beads’ period of loss by percentage. The number of jet/shale beads recovered number only eight. Thus, while a greater number were found in early deposits, the conclusions drawn on jet/shale bead chronology are very limited. However, for the datable beads, the jet/ shale examples recovered parallel the trends visible from the larger glass bead assemblage. Consequently, one can conclude that beads were marginally more popular in the early period, but remained in use throughout the Roman period.

Even though pins were an integral part of the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage, they were relatively rare on rural sites. While they became more abundant in the late period, they were more common, but far from universal. The popularity of pins can be juxtaposed with the brooches, which formed an integral part of the rural cultural assemblage. These two artefacts were both Roman; however the brooches were more functional and less gender specific. Thus, the resistance to hairpins may be further evidence of women choosing not to follow their urban counterparts or a lack of exposure to the necessary infrastructure and wealth to use and purchase hairpins.

Rural Pins

Rural Bracelets

Only seven rural sites yielded pins. Additionally, pins comprised only six percent of the rural assemblage, making them only more abundant than intaglios and ‘other’ artefacts. They were distributed across the entire

Fourteen percent of the rural assemblage was comprised of bracelets. They were found on 21 sites. The two largest collections came from Norton and Stonygate, both of which were located in East Yorkshire. Bracelets were

71

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Map 3.21. Distribution of rural sites yielding pins. They were largely confined to the arable eastern zones.

Figure 3.61. A comparison of bracelet composition from rural sites. Each bracelet composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total rural bracelet assemblage. (n=36)

72

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Map 3.22. Distribution of rural sites yielding bracelets. No discernable pattern for recovery is visible in the various compositions.

made of glass, copper alloy, jet/shale, silver and stone. Figure 3.61 shows the bracelet assemblage composition by percentage.

Roman period (Figure 3.62)—a trend observed on all site types. The popularity of jet/shale has hitherto been shown to increase in the late Roman period; however, on the rural sites they were more popular in the first and second centuries AD. All the jet/shale examples are similar in appearance to those found in early contexts on urban sites and as such, their recovery suggests that they dated postconquest. However, while small groupings of artefacts reflect the formation of localized assemblages, their wide distribution argues for alternative explanations including retention of Iron Age symbolic material or affordability.

Copper alloy bracelets were the most abundant type and were distributed across the entire region (Map 3.22). Jet/ shale bracelets were marginally more common than glass bangles. The largest collection of copper alloy examples came from three small enclosures located in Norton Parish near the fort and vicus at Malton (Wenham and Heywood 1997; Riley 1977) however, no clear geographical preference was discerned (Map 3.22).

Even though the bracelet assemblage was small, just 36 in total, a number of trends can be discerned. First, the presence of copper alloy and precious metal bracelets showed that the traditional Roman displays of wealth occurred selectively within the rural population. Second, bracelets were more common in the early period. Third, the rural assemblage demonstrated greater connectivity with the Roman urban landscape during the early period

Two precious metal bracelets were recovered. One gold bracelet from Whorlton and a silver bracelet from Melton provide evidence for high value Roman objects entering the countryside. The gold bracelet was recovered from an enclosure that had a terminus post quem of the third century AD (Hayes 1988b: 37). It was recovered in the same context as a Roman coin, showing that in addition to Roman personal ornamentation, the individual’s living in the roundhouse were part of the Roman economic system (Reece 1991; Hayes 1988b: 37).

Rural Rings The ring and earring collection was the fourth largest artefact group and accounts for ten percent of the entire assemblage. Their distribution was not as varied as

Chronologically, the majority of bracelets dated to the early Roman period. In the countryside it was only copper alloy bracelets that became more popular in the late

73

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 3.62. A comparison of the rural bracelet composition by period. Each temporal composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total number of bracelets manufactured in copper alloy, glass jet/shale or other. (n=36)

Map 3.23. Distribution of rural sites yielding rings.

74

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.63. A comparison of ring composition on rural sites. Each ring composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total rural ring assemblage. (n=30)

Figure 3.64. A comparison of ring composition from rural sites by period. Each bracelet composition category is expressed as the proportion recovered from either the early or late period. (n=30)

brooches and the majority of examples were located east of the Pennines. (Map 3.23). The two largest producing sites were Old Winteringham and Norton Parish.

Compared with the copper alloy rings, a limited number (five) of jet and shale variations were recovered. It is important to note that the simplest rings—those made of bone and antler—were completely lacking from rural sites, suggesting that for those who adopted Roman material culture, they acquired the more readily accessible and mass produced objects.

The majority of rings were made of copper alloy—a popular material both because of its similarity in appearance to precious metals and its widespread availability (Figure 3.63). Additionally, two precious metal rings were recovered. These rings were all found in close proximity to the forts and attest to a variety of experiences that existed in the rural landscape, largely due to the relationships between the urban and local populations. These rings provided clear evidence of wealth. One of these rings included a plain glass intaglio, while the second may have been part of a chain or a simple finger ring (Wooler 1913: 410).

The ring assemblage was predominantly early. Figure 3.64 shows the percentage of ring loss.19 Based upon the evidence, copper alloy varieties were lost in greater quantities during the early period, while all the precious metal and iron rings dated to the early period. Seven rings have been omitted because the contextual data is lacking, making their chronology impossible to decipher. 19

75

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Likewise, three of the five jet/shale examples predated the third century AD. Thus, there appears to be a slight decline in the number of objects being worn in the late period and this decline elicits myriad conclusions. For example, the rural inhabitants may have abandoned the Roman costume by the late period and returned to the wearing of the Gallic costume (Croom 2002: 52ff; Wild 1985). Alternatively, access to jewellery may have diminished as the military moved north into Scotland. The evidence from other sites shows that rings were still worn during the late period and thus, the rural assemblage was an exception.

pendant was found at Crossgates Torcs have a long preRoman history, however as Hunter has recently argued, their continued use into the Roman period may suggest a semiotic transition from Late Iron Age culture to Roman frontier culture (Hunter 2008). They were all bead varieties recovered in contexts dating to the early period. The Summary of the Rural Assemblage The rural assemblage illustrates two main points. First, cultural change did occur after the Roman conquest, with material culture entering into the rural landscape. The assemblage varied significantly with many of the most popular artefacts being Celtic-themed Roman artefacts. Second, there was a wide range of experiences visible through the material culture. Some wore their hair in Roman ways, adopted local brooches and used Roman technology to build their houses. However, for the majority of rural inhabitants, life continued largely uninterrupted.

Rural Intaglios The intaglio collection from the rural sites was very small with a total of three examples. The distribution followed no clear trend and no sites yielded more than one example. Thematically, two of the examples demonstrate heroic themes, with an example of Hercules wrestling a lion from Site 10 and Ulysses at camp from Eastburn. The third intaglio was decorated with Bacchus and recovered at the site of Wigton. Although the chronological evidence for rural sites is limited, the intaglio assemblage was predominantly early. There was no correlation between themes and period or geographical region.

THE CAVE ASSEMBLAGE Caves were found in the highland zone of Yorkshire (Map 3.24). The variety of archaeological evidence, including hearths, furnaces, high-quality goods, poor access, and the range of finds, elicit myriad conclusions. The hearths and furnaces suggest manufacturing, while Collingwood argued in 1969 that they were most likely functioning as domestic structures (Waltham 1974: 185; Collingwood and Richmond 1969). However, the difficulty of access,

The ‘Other’ Rural Artefacts Of the ‘other’ artefacts, only one pendant made from jet/shale and seven torcs were recovered. The jet/shale

Map 3.24. Distribution of cave sites yielding personal ornamentation. 76

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 3.65. A comparison of artefacts recovered from cave sites. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total cave assemblage. The assemblage includes both early and late period artefacts. (n=249) high-quality remains and similarity to temple assemblages argue for a ritual function. The recovery of a chariot from Attermire Cave and the remains of 23 individuals from Dog Hole further support this argument (Waltham 1974: 198-199).

conducive for the preservation of metal. The high percentage of metal artefacts was not exclusively environmental, as the recovery of metal jewellery stemmed from personal choice as well. Cave Brooches

The caves produced 249 artefacts from only eight sites. This equates to an average of 31 artefacts per site—a per situ average only surpassed by forts, vici, towns and cemeteries. Although brooches were the most common artefact and made up 51% of the entire assemblage, all categories of personal ornamentation were present. The majority of finds (69%) were rendered in copper alloy. Figure 3.65 shows the percentages of artefacts found on the cave sites.

Similar to the rural sites, brooches were the most common artefact. They were the only artefact recovered from all eight sites. The largest assemblage came from Victoria Cave with 64 brooches excavated. In the caves, all three brooch groupings were recovered in almost equal numbers and penannular brooches were the most common, as seen in figure 3.66. Victoria’s Cave was the largest producer of penannular brooches, but examples were distributed across other cave sites including: Kelco, Sewell, Attermire and Dog Hole.

The high level of metallic finds derived from non-cultural formative properties, as the sites were particularly

Figure 3.66. A comparison of cave brooch types. Each brooch category is expressed as a percentage of the total cave brooch assemblage. (n=120) Note 16 brooches were published without being classified by brooch type.

77

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 3.67. A comparison of brooch type chronology on cave sites. Each brooch type is expressed as the proportion recovered from the chronological periods. (n=120) The penannular brooches recovered were predominantly Fowler Type A. The bow brooch assemblage included trumpet and headstud brooches mixed with those from the continent and south of England. Although all the brooches were ‘Roman’, the variety excavated demonstrates the complex culture of the population visiting the sites. The brooches recovered were those popular on all site types.

The stratigraphy of many caves was limited, resulting in a large number of undatable brooches. Additionally, while the periods of manufacture for many of the bow and plate brooches can aid with the dating of contexts, the broad chronologies of penannular brooches is a limitation on defining chronological data. Even with the ambiguity of the penannular assemblage, it is clear that the majority of finds deposited at the cave sites were early.

The plate brooch assemblage also differed from other sites by producing the largest number of dragonesque brooches. Other plate brooches excavated included disc brooches from Victoria Cave, Attermire Cave and Settle.

Cave Beads Forty-six beads were recovered from only three caves. Of this collection, 25 came from Victoria Cave. Like all bead assemblages discussed hitherto, glass beads were the most common (62% of the bead assemblage) as indicated in figure 3.68.

Most brooches dated to the early period with only 11 dating to the late period. The recovery of brooches, in the correct typological period, suggests that the offerings were made when the artefacts were “in fashion”. Figure 3.67 shows the period variation of brooches in the north of England.

Figure 3.68. A comparison of bead composition from cave sites. Each bead composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total cave bead assemblage. (n=46)

78

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE Cave Pins

Of the glass beads, only 18 (62%) were included in site reports with information regarding colour, and all except for two were blue, green or turquoise. The cave assemblages showed further integration into the regional frontier assemblage by yielding melon, cylindrical and segmented beads, all of which were Roman styles manufactured in England during the Roman period (Guido 1979: 91-100).

The pin collection (35 pins) accounted for 14% of the total assemblage. They were recovered from only one site—Victoria Cave (Dearne and Lord 1998). They were primarily made of bone, with two copper alloy examples. They all dated to the late Roman period. It is particularly interesting that although ten caves are located within one mile of Victoria Cave, no other Yorkshire cave produced any pins.

Jet/shale beads were less widely distributed, with most coming from Dog Hole. The examples were all from late contexts and were found in association with human and animal bones. It is unclear if the remains were ritual or funerary in function. Jet/shale was perceived to have supernatural powers and its frequent recovery from funerary contexts suggests that the remains could have been from either cause (Allason-Jones 2005b: 123; Puttock 2002: 102; Allason-Jones 1996).

Cave Bracelets Three sites produced 27 bracelets (or 11% of the cave assemblage) [Map 3.25]. Of the 27 bracelets, three were glass, one was made of jet/shale and one of bone, while the remaining 22 were copper alloy. While the metallic bracelets were found in all three caves, all the non-metal examples came from Victoria Cave.

Due to the limited stratigraphy within cave sites, the chronological sequence was unclear. Consequently, most of the beads could not be dated. Based upon evidence from datable contexts, glass beads were used and lost in equal quantities between the early and late Roman periods; ten of the 12 jet/shale beads (nine from one site) came from deposits dated to the third century AD.

The cave assemblage followed all the regional trends with the early glass bangles being replaced by superior copper alloy variations in the late period. Included within this assemblage were two five-stranded bracelets from Dog Hole and Victoria Cave (Dearne 2002; Deane and Lord 1998: 67-69). Their recovery supports Johns’s observation

Map 3.25. Distribution of cave sites yielding bracelets.

79

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH that the quality of bracelets improved in the late period (Johns 1996: 111).

excavated. The bronze beaded torc was found at Attermire Cave (Dearne and Lord 1998). It dated from the early Roman period.

The majority of bracelets dated to the late period with only three glass bangles consigned to early contexts. This transition further demonstrates that while glass bangles were an integral part of the early frontier assemblage, it was in the late period that bracelets (and other feminine artefacts) became increasingly prevalent. The cave assemblage does have limitations. For example, the majority of the data comes from Victoria Cave, which was intensively excavated between 1830 and 1930 and while the assemblage conforms to that of other site categories, it is impossible to tell, especially considering the variety of materials exclusively recovered, if this site is a true reflection of the bracelets offered ritually in the region.

The ‘Other’ Cave Artefacts Like the rest of the countryside, the cave sites are unique. They produce larger artefact collections than villas and rural sites. They also produce a wide array of artefacts that reflect the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage and still incorporate unique themes. The diversity within the assemblage parallels that of other ritual sites such as Coventina’s Well (see: Allason-Jones and McKay 1985) and while the assemblage appears to include feminine and masculine objects, the sexing of finds remains largely contentious (Allason-Jones 1995; Allason-Jones and McKay 1985: 6-11).

Cave Rings THE INDUSTRIAL ASSEMBLAGE

The ring assemblage on the cave sites was unique in that it contained no non-metal variations and no examples that functioned undisputedly as earrings. The collection of 12 copper alloy rings came from two sites with Victoria Cave producing ten rings and Dog Hole yielding two.

A total of five artefacts were recovered from the industrial sites. The size of this assemblage limits any comparisons. However, the lack of finds compared with the other site categories is enigmatic. The industrial sites, such as the bloomery at Drigg or the kilns at Crambeck were Roman institutions and produced industrial waste, but not personal ornamentation. This may stem from the necessity of workers dressing themselves differently from the common population to facilitate their work. For example, the blacksmiths costume had shorter sleeves to allow free movement of the arms and most working costumes did not utilize brooches (Wild 1985: 382)

The cave rings were of a high quality and included two examples adorned with enamel or glass. The inclusion of intaglios, enamelling and glass were all reflections of wealth. However, no precious metal was left as an offering. The ring assemblage variation suggested that offerings were left by people of all classes. The lack of gold and silver may have stemmed from individuals choosing not to leave objects of a certain value or their removal from the archaeological record either during the Roman period or subsequently.

The industrial sites of Drigg and Crambeck produced two rings and three bracelets. The rings were both late, with a bronze example from Crambeck and a jet/shale variation from Drigg. The industrial bracelet assemblage yielded two glass bangles from Drigg and one jet/shale bracelet from Crambeck. The glass bangles were recovered from late contexts and are further evidence of residual early artefacts from late contexts. The jet/shale bracelet was also late.

Cave Intaglios Two intaglios were found on cave sites. One example from Victoria Cave dated to the late period (Dearne and Lord 1998) while the other intaglio was early and recovered from Attermire Cave (Henig and King 2003: 9-13). The paucity of the assemblage means that little can be ascertained from the intaglio’s chronology.

CONCLUSIONS Although the intaglio from Victoria Cave was undecorated, the intaglio from Attermire Cave was adorned with an image of Minerva; the goddess of healing and the crafts (Dearne and Lord 1998; Waltham 1974). Its recovery parallels a similar example from Harborough Cave, Derbyshire (Fox, W.S. 1909). Both examples were decorated with an image of Minerva, but no additional evidence for associated rituals exists. Thus, while it is possible that Minerva was the patron goddess insufficient data exists to confirm or deny this possibility.

It is clear that the north of England is a paradox. Based upon the material culture, Roman artefacts were being used across all sections of society. However, there is great variation between site types, with the military sites yielding greater concentrations than the rural sites. While the movement of artefacts did occur, the exchange was multivaried with integration into the Roman cultural system differing between subsets of the population. Likewise, even in the larger more cohesive military and urban assemblages, one can see unique cultural strains. The culture was dynamic and region specific. Thus, in order to assess how the north of England reacted to the presence of the Roman military and the evolving culturally identity, I will compare complete assemblages across site boundaries

THE ‘OTHER’ CAVE ARTEFACTS Like the intaglio collection, the artefacts classified as ‘other’ were very limited with only a single torc being

80

CHAPTER THREE: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE to address the two major themes of commonality and discrepant experiences in the subsequent chapters. By looking at the assemblages across the site types, an understanding of artefact chronology and distribution networks can be discerned. Subsequently, complete assemblages can be compared and contrasted to look at the regionalization of the northern assemblage and further understand the relationship between sites. This Chapter has demonstrated that the assemblages had similarities, but also were unique. However, the presence of limited concentrations of artefacts does not underlie the individual’s own perceived identity. While it may suggest cultural change and integration, it does indicate contact. Thus, while the degree of interaction and uptake varied, the north of England shows a cultural genesis, with the region’s material culture being internalized to varying degrees by the entire population.

81

CHAPTER FOUR: THE CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN ROMANOBRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

In the previous chapter, the assemblage for all site types was outlined, which included the more general themes found across the entire northern assemblage, as well as the locally recovered elements. Although the beginning of Chapter three summarized the common themes found throughout, there was no cross-site comparison. This chapter will therefore use the previously discussed data to further demonstrate the unity of the material culture from the north of England.

1970: 202). These variable methods of adoption would have also been indicative of the types of interaction that formed the region’s cultural identity. While the recovery of Romano-British cultural assemblage does not mean that the population was ‘Roman’, it does show their incorporation into the larger Romano-British cultural system. As Anderson argued in Imagined Communities, the construct of identity happens within an individual and therefore the study of it requires an understanding of the person’s conscious and sub-conscious beliefs, neither of which can be gleaned from the study of the archaeological record (Anderson 1983: 3-7).

In looking at the material culture by artefact for the whole region, the overarching themes for the northern RomanoBritish cultural assemblage will be demonstrated. This assemblage testifies to the process of social genesis with locally manufactured artefacts being combined with those from across the Empire, including influences from Gaul, Italy, North Africa, Greece and Britain. As has been demonstrated previously, the distribution of the assemblage was not uniform, with the forts, towns and vici yielding larger artefact collections than the rural sites. These artefact concentrations and the evidence for manufacturing (albeit very limited), including glass beads from Castleford (Guido 1979: 100) and jet blocks from York (RCHM 1962), suggest that these sites were responsible for the centrifugal distribution of artefacts. In the countryside, the recovery of personal ornamentation demonstrates a degree of interaction, however, while all the forts and town excavations recovered large quantities of material culture, the rural assemblages varied wildly. Additionally, the origin of many of the rural artefacts is ambiguous, with some deriving from direct contact and others being acquired through a third party (Brandt 1983: 135-137; Higham 1982b: 117-120; Robertson Site: Number of Artefacts: Number of Sites: Average artefact per site

Although this study only explores personal ornamentation, work on diet, pottery and architecture has shown that cultural evolution was widespread. The northern dietary evidence suggests that inhabitants on rural farmsteads were introduced to a wider array of foodstuffs following the conquest (Cool 2006: 69ff). Likewise, the types and diversity of pottery on all site types increased (Cool 2006: 53-54; Tyers 1996). Changes occurred in architecture as well. There was an increase in the number of characteristically Roman rectilinear and stone structures (i.e. Bursea Grange, Crosshill Farm, Cat Babbleton Farm) after the Roman conquest and in the late period, villas appeared in the Vales of York and Pickering (Taylor, J. 2007: 109-111; Halkon 1999b: 68; Bowden 1996; Cardwell 1989; Higham et al. 1983: 46). Upon reviewing the material in Chapter three, it is abundantly clear that no uniform Roman experience existed in the north, but the cultural assemblage itself showed a high degree of similarity between the urban landscape and the countryside.

Military

Vici

Town

Villa

Rural

Cave

Cemetery

860

592

1125

217

285

249

345

38

12

6

10

158*

8

9

22.6

49.3

187.5

21.7

1.6

31

38.3

Table 4.1. A comparison of the total artefact yield from each site, the number of sites included in the database and the average number of artefacts per site. The town assemblage was the largest numerically and yielded the highest average number of artefacts. *Of the 158 sites only 67 yielded personal ornaments (an average of 4.2 artefacts per site).

82

CHAPTER FOUR: THE CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 4.1. A comparison of the material culture from the north of England. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total artefact assemblage. (n=3673) THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH ARTEFACT ASSEMBLAGE

from Gaul and the south of England, but by the end of the first century AD, new variations (i.e. trumpet, headstud and dragonesque) were locally distributed to the north of England and most likely were manufactured there as well (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 143-169; Collingwood and Richmond 1969: 286-300). The internalization of this assemblage was highlighted in rural contexts, where 22% of all brooches recovered were the trumpet and headstud variations.

The northern Romano-British artefact assemblage included 3673 personal ornaments from 241 published sites. The artefacts were distributed across all the site types. Table 4.1 illustrates the site types by artefact number, number of published sites and average artefact yield per site. Towns accounted for the greatest number of artefacts and the largest average number of artefacts per site. The countryside, both villas and rural sites, produced two of the smallest average artefact yields. While the artefact distribution was uneven, regional patterns of use and loss can be discerned. Additionally, even with the variety of experiences from each site type, the artefact assemblages show a degree of universality in the individual assemblage groupings.

The overall collection of brooches includes cultural elements from across the Roman Empire and the assimilation of local material culture (i.e. the recovery of Colchester Derivative, Hod Hill as well as trumpet and dragonesque examples). Both the wider and locally popular artefacts within the northern assemblage are measures of the dynamism of cultural change and an integration of sources that formed into a unique regional culture. For example, the assemblage from all site groupings included bow, penannular and plate brooches, although in varying proportions (Figure 4.2). Design and decoration originated from Gaul (i.e. Aucissa, Hod Hill) and southern England (i.e. Thistle, Colchester Derivative, and Langton Down) (Bayley and Butcher 2004; Hattatt 1985). In the early period, the brooches and their designs were introduced to the study zone by the military and associated population (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 188).

Brooches and beads were the two largest artefact categories. In total, they represented 60% of the complete northern assemblage. Figure 4.1 shows the breakdown of the complete artefact assemblage by percentage (n=3673). THE BROOCH ASSEMBLAGE The discussion of brooches thus far has demonstrated that the majority of examples recovered in the north of England were part of the regionally distinct assemblage. Although the evidence for manufacturing is minimal (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 26-27; Goddall 1972), the large urban concentrations suggest that artefacts were distributed centrifugally into the rural population. Brooches were particularly popular on rural sites and accounted for just over half of all artefacts found. Indeed, this suggests that a segment of the rural population was integrated into the Roman cultural system and wearing Roman costume. The earliest brooches recovered (i.e. Aucissa, Hod Hill, Colchester and Nauheim Derivatives) originated primarily

There was great diversity within the brooch assemblage itself. In total, 48 individual bow brooch types have been excavated from the north of England, with figure 4.3 portraying the nine most common. Patterns in these variants parallel the general themes seen in the entire brooch collection, with the inclusion of examples from across the Empire, those popular only at the local level and those that developed after the conquest in the north of England. Even with such variation, all site types showed an adherence to a common assemblage. The most abundant bow brooches were: trumpet, headstud and knee

83

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 4.2. A comparison of brooch type from all seven site types. Each brooch category is expressed as a percentage of the total brooch assemblage from each of the seven site types. (n=972) note 92 brooches lack classification information and drawings from the publication reports.

Figure 4.3. A comparison of the nine most common bow brooch types from the north of England. Each brooch category represents the actual number recovered throughout both the early and late periods. (n=410) brooches, with the former two representing 53% of all bow brooches recovered. Knee and crossbow brooches—the most common late brooches—accounted for 54% of the late bow brooch assemblage (A total of 114 bow brooches dated to the late period and 61 knee and crossbow brooches were recovered).

found in the western provinces (i.e. from Scandinavia, Gaul and Britain) (Hattatt 1982: 127). Of the 103 brooches categorized using Fowler’s system, 68 were Fowler ‘A’. Fowler ‘C’, with coiled terminals, was next most common (22). The penannular brooch collection shows that proto-zoomorphic variations were most popular on urban (both military and town) sites with examples being recovered at Ribchester, Castleford and Dragonby. Such was the popularity of penannular brooches that they were manufactured both pre-conquest and their manufacture continued post-conquest (i.e. Fowler type ‘G’) (Fowler 1960).

Penannular brooches, the second most numerous form, were also distributed across all sites and show a high degree of universality in the north of England. They were used throughout the Roman period, with only minimal change to their terminals. They proved to be most common on town and cave sites. Like bow brooches, penannular brooches had Iron Age associations, with examples dating back to the third century BC (Fowler 1960). Additionally, their distribution was limited with the majority being

The same overall pattern was found for plate brooches. Among plate brooches, disc brooches were most common. They were distributed across the northern landscape and 84

CHAPTER FOUR: THE CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE may suggest at least limited Roman adoption, not only of material culture but also the associated beliefs. Similar trends were observed on the German Limes, where altars to Nehalennia—a local goddess—were constructed and inscribed with Latin on either side of the Rhine (Woolf 1998: 20). They, like the recovery of wheel brooches, suggest cultural diversity and the hybridization of beliefs within the Roman provinces.

were especially popular on forts. The decoration of the disc brooches incorporated elements from across the Empire (Hunter 2008; Bayley and Butcher 2004: 174). Plate brooches even proved common on rural sites, including zoomorphic variants, where iconography with continental origins was recovered (such as the zoomorphic brooch styled in the shape of a fish from Norton Parish (Robinson 1978). Across all site types, a total of 11 zoomorphic brooches were recovered and they incorporated British iconography such as birds as well as continental examples (i.e. fish and hare) (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 173175). In addition to illustrating assimilation of Roman material culture across northern England, the diversity and popularity of these brooches across all social strata suggests that they were a medium for the expression of individual tastes.

The popularity of brooches among the living population was, not surprisingly, carried into the votive assemblages, with cave sites yielding the greatest proportion of brooches. This included the two largest plate brooch assemblages from Attermire and Victoria caves. In contrast, the cemetery assemblage was limited to a total of 21 brooches (less than two percent of all brooches from the study zone). This included only one penannular brooch example from an isolated burial at Walkington Wold and one plate brooch from Trentholme, York, all of which were found in far greater quantities on urban and rural sites of similar period (Bartlett and Varley 1972; Wenham 1968b). This disconnect between material culture of the living versus the dead was also found between southern fort and cemetery assemblages (see: Rosten 2007a; 2007b).

The British influence among plate brooches is illustrated among the 25% adorned in the dragonesque style. As with their immediate predecessor, the S-shaped brooch, they were Romano-Celtic hybrids. Although they were Roman objects—brooches—their decoration and origin was northern English (Hattatt 1985: 171; Collingwood, R.G. 1930b: 52-54). However, the recovery of greater quantities of dragonesque brooches than normal plate brooches from military sites supports Hunter’s claim: “rather than expressing any non-Roman or non-military identity, or being a rejection of Rome, its [dragonesque brooches] prevalence in military contexts suggests instead it played a role in forging a new identity—that the army became linked to a wider frontier culture.” (Hunter 2008: 142)

The third and fourth century AD origins of northern villas and published cemeteries explained the similarities in their respective brooch assemblages. Both yielded relatively small brooch assemblages, which combined to represent eight percent of all brooches from the study zone. Yet the villa assemblage differed, by incorporating a large number of early manufacture brooches in late contexts. Early context brooches in late period deposits may reflect the use of early period materials as filling deposits during villa construction or as residual material culture. However, the bulk of the late brooches were recovered with late pottery, suggesting their use at the time of loss and a villa population choosing unique fashions. Alternatively, sustained use of brooches deriving from the early period may indicate lags in fashion radiating from more populous centres to more rural settings.

Although native-derived brooch designs were found across the cultural landscape, they were more abundant on rural sites. The popularity of Romano-Celtic themes in rural sites might be construed as evidence for the rural population resisting Roman culture. Perhaps the rural population simply preferred items carrying themes historically relevant to themselves, such as trumpet brooches adorned with Celtic enamel or wheel variations associated with Celtic deities (Hunter 2008; Bayley and Butcher 2004: 171-172; Hattatt 1985: 151). Indeed, the concentration and distribution of these objects suggests they may have been manufactured on Roman sites, although the manufacturing evidence is largely non-existent (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 26-27, 171). If wearing native themes was construed as anti-Roman, it would seem improbable that their Roman manufacture would have been acceptable.

The villa chronology with early brooches occurring in late period contexts was characteristic of all site types. Although the causal factors remain unclear, it is possible that these brooches have a longer manufacturing lifespan than currently argued or that the uptake of new fashions was slower in England (Allason-Jones 2005b: 130). There is also some bias related to the abandonment and decommissioning of many sites included in the study during the late Roman period. One example is Castleford, which was abandoned at the end of the second century AD and a number of the early brooches were recovered from these destruction deposits (Cool and Philo1998: 3). Such bias is inadequate to explain differences between early and late collections, as overall, at least 40% of brooches recovered from late contexts typologically dated to the early period (Figure 4.4). The large percentages of these early brooches from the late period collections shows they remained in use into the third and fourth centuries AD.

Wheel brooches also support the reciprocal Romannative-Roman cultural influences seen in the plate brooches. Wheel brooches were associated with Celtic deities (Hattatt 1985: 151). However, only two were recovered, all from vici. Their paucity implies that wheel brooches were incorporated into the larger Roman cultural belief system, but only on the local level. Because of their Celtic mythological implications, this small collection of brooches has additional cultural connotations (Hattatt 1985: 151). Their occurrence in more Roman settlements 85

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 4.4. A comparison of the proportion of early manufactured brooches recovered from late contexts from each of the site types. The proportion of identifiable early brooches within each site type is expressed as a percentage of the total number of late period brooches from each site type. (n=225)

Thus, of the 225 brooches found in the late Roman period, 140 were manufactured in this timeframe. Similarly, trumpet brooches—the most common northern brooch— were made until the end of the second century AD and yet a total of 10% (23) came from late contexts. Of the early brooches recovered in late contexts, 26% were trumpet brooches. In spite of the occurrence of early period brooches throughout the late period, a decreased use of brooches is seen on all site types. For example, from the military sites only 60 brooches came from the late period as compared with 156 from early contexts. The vici sites, including Castleford, Malton and Ribchester also yielded a high number of out-of-date brooches. Rural sites paralleled the decline in artefacts with only 21 brooches being recovered from late contexts as compared to 164 early examples.

brooches were recovered in conjunction with Fowler ‘D’ penannular variants as well as the hitherto mentioned early-manufactured brooches. Various components of the collection show broad origins from across the Empire and the assimilation of ‘Celtic’ themes. In particular, trumpet, disc and dragonesque brooches can be viewed as a fusion of decorations from the Empire and the local population (Hunter 2008). The majority of brooches dated from the early period, but many remained in use well into the third century AD. Late period brooches, notably crossbow varieties and especially from forts and towns, were used as status badges of office (Wild 1985: 386). THE BEAD ASSEMBLAGE Beads were an important personal ornament and were the most common artefact in the north of England. They are small, inexpensive, manufactured from many materials, and used continuously. They were used alone and in groups to make other artefacts such as necklaces for personal use (Allason-Jones 2008: 99). Of the beads from northern England, 714 have sufficient data on colour, shape and context necessary to evaluate evolution in the assemblage.

A further exception to this general pattern was found in caves. Caves were sites in which theocentric rituals were held (Dearne and Lord 1998: 144; Waltham 1974: 198). Perhaps it was thought deities and their acolytes were more impressed by current items. In general, continued use of early brooches into the late period appeared to be a common theme of the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage. It is unclear whether the manufacture of the early brooches extended into the third and fourth centuries AD or if the objects were retained for other cultural reasons.

The ubiquity of beads makes them both problematic for interpreting material culture, but also beneficial. For example, their small size means that beads were probably missed by excavators, especially prior to the use of modern methods of sifting substrate. The diverse uses of beads have the potential to support conclusions derived from the brooch collection on the dispersal of culture from both across the Empire and the local population. Thus, the bead assemblage shows continuity across sites. However, exceptions illuminating particular cultural roles in some segments of the northern Romano-British society also were apparent.

Overall, the brooch assemblage supports the main themes of this book. It illustrates the commonality of the assemblage. In the early period, trumpet and headstud brooches were most abundant with Fowler ‘A’, dragonesque and disc brooches contributing to the early regionally distinct cultural assemblage. In the late period, knee and crossbow 86

Chapter Four: The Cultural Evolution of the Northern Romano-British Cultural Assemblage 30 25

Percent

20 15 10 5 0

Glass Bead Colour

Figure 4.5. of A comparison ofcommon theeight glass most common glass Each bead colours. colour Figure 4.5. A comparison theeight most bead colours. colour is Each expressed as is a percentage of the total number of beads.expressed (n=685) as a percentage of the total number of beads. (n=685) Nevertheless, some colours were more popular than others certain locales, showing As withinbrooches, beads were usedfine-scale before theregional Claudian effects within the overall common composition of conquest, and the Iron Age examples continued to beads and other artefacts across site types. For be manufactured after the conquest, to as late as the example, black beads were found on only three sites— third centuryCastleford AD (Guido 9ff). These included Catterick, and 1979: York—with the largest the opaque blue, yellow and white beads as well as the number from the Colonia at York. These beads were translucent glasses (Guido 1979: 9-88). The Roman manufactured in a variety of shapes, with cylindrical conquest introduced new common, colours and styles, variants being the most in spite of such their as small segmented beads of blue and yellow; green paucity elsewhere (Guido 1979: 94-96). Like the blackand blue beads; beads biconical the abundant glasscylindrical beads, turquoise werebeads locallyand popular with most examples being1979: recovered the fort and melon beads (Guido 8-15 from and 91-101). Byvicus the late at Castleford. of locally second century The AD, large-scale manufacturemanufacture of these beads and their popular artefacts reduced proportions the more popularity across the norththe resulted in the of decline of prewidely variations distributed(Guido items. 1979: However, even Melon with thebeads localare Roman 15-39). of certain colours,fashion the distribution of Britain, blue apopularity good example of a Roman imported to and green glass illustrates their greater popularity in which became widely adopted in the province. These northern England. For example, Map 4.1 illustrates the beads were imported into Britain in the Flavian period geographical differences between the blue/green beads and use through Antonine period. They andremained the moreinabundant blackthebeads. Some colours were sourced to Gaul, but according to Guido, shortly after were more common in the populace from different the conquest were imitated and manufactured in England sites. For example, red beads were found only in (Guido They became military,1979: town 100). and cemetery contexts.so popular that they represented 39% of the entire bead assemblage. The bead assemblage, as with brooches, sheds light on cultural theofassemblage composition. The mostdiffusion importantthrough features beads in illustrating trends Beads social from myriad cultural assemblages were found among strata at various sites are colour and the dispersed across thebeads north were of England and most integrated material from which made. The popular into both urban and rural assemblages. colours were turquoise, black, green andThe bluemajority (Figureof 4.5), beads were made of glass (Figure varyingconquest from all of which were popularized after 4.6), the Roman (Guido 1979: 91-101). All sites contained beads of more than one colour. Colour variation was clearly appreciated as demonstrated by an intact necklace recovered from the South Shields cemetery. This example included beads of blue, yellow and green (Snape 1994: 57-58).

Nevertheless, some colours were more popular than others in certain locales, showing fine-scale regional effects within the overall common composition of beads and other artefacts across site types. For example, black beads were found on only three sites—Catterick, Castleford

62% to 97% of the individual site’s complete bead assemblage. Butthe thelargest less common withColonia diverse at and York—with numberbeads, from the Roman origins, were introduced to northern England York. These beads were manufactured in a variety of and then exchanged across the north. For example, shapes, with cylindrical variants being the most common, gold-in-glass beads derive from the Eastern Empire in(Boon spite of their paucity elsewhere (Guido 1979:beads, 94-96). 1977). The recovery of gold-in-glass Like the black glass beads, turquoise beads were even though in limited numbers, from vici, town, locally and popular with most examplesCatterick being recovered from the cemetery sites (Ribchester, and Brougham) fort and vicus Castleford. Theorigin large-scale clearly show at items of Roman passingmanufacture into use ofacross locally popular artefacts reduced the the whole of the frontier region proportions in northern of the more widely distributed items. However, even with England. the local popularity of certain colours, the distribution of Theand composition of illustrates these raretheir beads, as with colour, in blue green glass greater popularity illustrates local tastes. Amber beads frequentlythe northern England. For example, Map were 4.1 illustrates recovered from graves between in the the western Empire; geographical differences blue/green beads particularly the Danube Provinces with fewer examples and the more abundant black beads. Some colours were further east (Gonzalez-Ruibal 2003: 49). However, more common in the populace from different sites. For they were rare in the north of England, and none came example, red beads were found only in military, town and from graves. They were presumably introduced by cemetery contexts. troops from Gaul and were acquired in very small

numbers by minute subsets of the population. Gold-inThe bead assemblage, with beads, brooches, glass beads, as with as amber weresheds verylight rare on cultural diffusion through the assemblage composition. coming only from Brougham, Catterick and Ribchester. Beads myriadarecultural assemblages found Local from preferences also illustrated by jet were and shale dispersed across thecame northfrom of England and integrated into beads, which only 23 sites—the majority of which lie east the Pennines (MapThe 4.2).majority However, the both urban andofrural assemblages. of beads greatest concentrations came4.6), fromvarying Catterick and 62% may to were made of glass (Figure from be possible evidence site’s of jet/shale personal ornament 97% of the individual complete bead assemblage. manufacture. But the less common beads, with diverse Roman origins, were introduced to northern England and then exchanged across the north. For example, gold-in-glass beads derive from the Eastern Empire (Boon 1977). The recovery of gold-in-glass beads, even though in limited numbers, from vici, town, and cemetery sites (Ribchester, Catterick and Brougham) clearly show items of Roman origin passing into use across the whole of the frontier region in northern England.

The composition of these rare beads, as with colour, illustrates local tastes. Amber beads were frequently 102 recovered from graves in the western Empire; particularly

87

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Map 4.1. The distribution of black, green or blue beads.

Figure 4.6. A comparison of bead composition from all site types. Each bead composition category is expressed as a percentage of the total number of beads found from each of the seven site types. (n=1128)

88

Chapter Four: The Cultural Evolution of the Northern Romano-British Cultural Assemblage

Map 4.2. The distribution of jet/shale beads. They are predominantly distributed to the eastern Pennine sites. Bead bracelets and necklaces were worn throughout the chronological variation derives from the intensive Roman period. Thus, were lost in equal excavation of the late towns and early vici. Upon Map beads 4.2. The distribution of jet/shale beads. They are predominantly distributed to the quantities in the early and late periods such as occurred the town and vici assemblages, the data eastern Penninecombining sites. on military sites (Figure 4.7). The military assemblage further suggests beads were worn throughout the can be contrasted with those recovered from town sites, Roman period among these sectors of the non-military which were predominantly late and the early period vici populace. assemblage. However, in both cases, this

Percent

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Late Early

Military

Town

Vicus

Cemetery

Villa

Rural

Cave

Overall

Site Type

Figure 4.7. A comparison of the bead chronologies from each site type. The bead assemblage from each site type is divided proportionally between the early and late periods. (n=727)

104

89

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH artefacts commonly used by women described below, increased numerically from the early to late period on military sites, suggesting an increased presence of women on military sites over time, the beads demonstrate that women and children were present inside forts throughout the Roman occupation, a trend supported by work on the forts in Germany (Allison 2006).

the Danube Provinces with fewer examples further east (Gonzalez-Ruibal 2003: 49). However, they were rare in the north of England, and none came from graves. They were presumably introduced by troops from Gaul and were acquired in very small numbers by minute subsets of the population. Gold-in-glass beads, as with amber beads, were very rare coming only from Brougham, Catterick and Ribchester. Local preferences are also illustrated by jet and shale beads, which only came from 23 sites— the majority of which lie east of the Pennines (Map 4.2). However, the greatest concentrations came from Catterick and may be possible evidence of jet/shale personal ornament manufacture.

The common occurrence of beads in cemeteries supports Puttock’s prescribed ritual functioning (Puttock 2002: 2395). Single beads found in burials were considered signs of solidarity between the living and the deceased, and otherwise aided in the afterlife (Puttock 2002: 95). This trend was most apparent in children and women who died in child birth.

Bead bracelets and necklaces were worn throughout the Roman period. Thus, beads were lost in equal quantities in the early and late periods such as occurred on military sites (Figure 4.7). The military assemblage can be contrasted with those recovered from town sites, which were predominantly late and the early period vici assemblage. However, in both cases, this chronological variation derives from the intensive excavation of the late towns and early vici. Upon combining the town and vici assemblages, the data further suggests beads were worn throughout the Roman period among these sectors of the non-military populace.

It has been postulated that jet beads were most commonly associated with female burials (see: Allason-Jones 2005a: 184; 2005b: 123; 1996: 17; 1995: 29). This idea is not supported by the assemblage from the study zone, where jet/shale beads have been recovered most commonly from town sites, in particular Catterick, but were only found in the form of a complete jet/shale necklace from the site of Hartlepool in funerary contexts. The recovery of beads from cave sites was a rarity, in part due to less extensive excavation, but also suggesting that beads were not highly valued as offerings to the gods.

On the rural sites, even though occupied throughout the Roman period, beads were recovered in approximately equal quantities. This finding is salutary because it indicates that the dissemination of Roman material culture was rapid across the whole frontier region. In contrast, artefacts from villas dated to the late period, when all villas from the study zone were constructed.

Many aspects of the bead collection noted above illustrate centrifugal dispersal of material culture from military sources. A factor facilitating this trend may have been the concentration of manufacturing in forts, vici and towns, and eventually the cessation of native manufacturing. Evidence of manufacture is provided, for example, by malformed black beads, perhaps rejects, such as found at York (Guido 1979: 100). While evidence from Castleford suggests the adoption and manufacture of turquoise glass melon beads post-conquest (Guido 1979: 100). However, with such limited manufacturing evidence, it is possible that beads were being made on demand by itinerant craftsmen. Unfortunately, no evidence exists to prove this possibility.

Although beads were worn throughout the Roman period, their composition differed between periods. There was an increase in variety during the third and fourth centuries AD, with greater concentrations of copper alloy, and jet/ shale beads (Figure 4.8). Glass beads remained important through both the early and late period, although were slightly more common in the first and second century AD. The other beads and copper alloy variants were more common in late assemblage, but they were too rare to venture further conclusions. Jet, first used pre-conquest, was more popular in the late period (Allason-Jones 2005a: 181; 2005b: 123; Croom 2002: 190), with 92% of the jet/shale assemblage from third and fourth century AD deposits.

The bead assemblage included those colours and types popular in the late Iron Age, but these were recovered in small quantities. For example, the recovery of yellow preconquest beads might suggest diffusion of native British ideas into the bead material culture. However, as occurred with “Celtic” brooches, it is more likely that these objects were retained as part of the frontier culture and were acquired as an individual’s taste dictated (Hunter 2008).

While the distribution of beads and other artefacts illustrates some aspects of the diffusion of personal adornment, the condition of those beads provides some insight into the cultural nature of those changes. For example, bead necklaces and bracelets were commonly worn by women and children, which may explain the smaller proportion from military sites (Allason-Jones 2008: 98-99). While Puttock argues that beads were attached to weaponry, no northern examples have been certified (Puttock 2002: 95). On military sites, beads were fairly common. While other

Overall, the bead collection shows these artefacts were an integral part of the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage, itself with roots in the ethnic diversity of the Empire. The rapid appearance of Roman artefacts in the early period over all sites, shows that cultural diffusion was rapid. Beads also illustrate the establishment of unique features, such as incorporation of materials,

90

CHAPTER FOUR: THE CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 4.8. A comparison of the bead composition by period. Each bead composition is divided proportionally between the early and late periods. (n=788)

even if locally, such as jet/shale. However, the northern assemblage does show its cultural dynamism, in particular, in the funerary context. Although jet and amber were commonly perceived as funerary items in Gaul or the South of England, this trend is not observed in northern assemblages, suggesting that while the objects were part of the assemblage, the associated beliefs remained distinct. However, the northern funerary evidence is limited, with most data coming from only two sites—Brougham and York—thus future excavations may alter these conclusions.

recovered) and only a small proportion came from villa, vici and rural sites. In spite of the biases associated with different levels of excavation across these sites, the pattern suggests pin usage was greatest within the population immediately surrounding military centres. Although hairpins were not new to the north of England, the Roman variations first appear in northern England during the early period, but flourished in the late period (Figure 4.9). Inversely to brooches, during the early period there were two main types of hairpins in circulation and by the late period, seven varieties were common (Crummy 1979). Overall, pins with ovoid or spherical heads (Crummy type 3) were most common. The chronology and distribution of pins across the landscape provides a clear example of centrifugal change in material cultural artefacts from Roman origins.

THE PIN ASSEMBLAGE Pins were the third largest category in terms of overall proportions, but also one of the least diversified. They were found across all sites, with the majority of pins being found on military and town sites (67% of all pins

Figure 4.9. A comparison of the period of loss for hairpins from each site grouping. The pin assemblage from each site type is divided proportionally between the early and late periods. (n=473) 91

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Like brooches, pins served both a decorative and a practical function. Their acquisition and use depended upon fashion and wealth. The majority of pins recovered functioned as hairpins, and changes in their use illustrate a degree of post-Roman conquest change, as women styled their hair in a Roman fashion (Cool 2004: 466; Wild 1985: 413). For example, popular hairstyles mimicked those of the Emperor’s wife (Allason-Jones 2008: 100). The early third century AD visit of Julia Domna to Britain resulted in a popularization of Syrian styled hair (Allason-Jones 2005b: 132). In addition, as with the overall material culture, local trends in British hairstyles developed independently (Allason-Jones 2005b: 132). Changes in style also lead to changes in the infrastructure. Hairdressers were required to assist with the styling and images with elaborate hairstyles to be copied were necessary (Johns 1996: 138).

While the construction of these chalets to house families has been refuted, they still demonstrate some internal variation between the early and late periods (Hodgson and Bidwell 2004; Esmone Cleary 2000). Irrespective of the function of chalets, the reduction in troop strength; changes in occupation buildings and military sites; and the increasing presence of women, indicated especially by the pin collection on military sites; all suggest fundamental changes in the military population of the late period. In addition, the pin assemblage shows differences between the Roman establishments and rural sites. In general, pins were not common in rural sites suggesting their limited adoption. There was variation in pin concentrations on rural sites (i.e. Old Winteringham yielded nine) suggesting some, albeit small segments of the rural population had access to and adorned their hair in Roman ways. However, for the most part, there were differences in styling between the urban and rural populations. Other components of the northern Romano-British material culture, such as brooches and beads, indicate that most rural sites had acquired elements of the northern cultural assemblage at least by the late period, and often shortly after the conquest. Therefore, it seems likely that the paucity of pins on rural sites was a response to choice or necessity for rural pursuits. Aspects of the brooch collection discussed above suggest more utilitarian fashions prevail in rural versus military and urban sites. The rural population may also have been slower in adopting foreign fashions (Allason-Jones 2005b: 130), particularly women, who were arguably more hesitant about changes in costume than their male counterparts (Cool 2004: 466; Wild 1985: 413).

The importance of pins for women’s hair gives additional insight into the prevalence of women in various social strata and the changing roles of the sites relating to these. Thus, an abundance of pins were recovered from military sites, which initially were predominantly male locations. It is hardly surprising to find women in military sites or the recovery of women’s artefacts in associated vici. Indeed, the vici yielded the largest proportion of early pins. However, Allason-Jones’s prior work on gender and artefact distribution along Hadrian’s Wall shows that in the turrets, at least, women, if present, were archaeologically invisible (Allason-Jones 1988). Studies on the German forts Oberstimm and Ellingen, suggest women “frequented all areas and were therefore possibly significant players in the fort activities, which involved the supply of necessities to other military establishments on the frontier” (Allison 2006: 17). However, “at Vetera I the distribution pattern seems to conform to the traditional view that woman were resident within the officers’ quarter…” (Allison 2006: 17). It seems probable that similar trends occurred in the north of England. For example, many of the inscriptions suggest that centurions had their families with them (Allason-Jones 2008: 37-38), while Van-Driel Murray acknowledges that women had a variety of roles inside military forts (VanDriel Murray 1998).

Differences between urban and rural sites have also been described in Gaul (Roymans 1996: 14ff; Woolf 1995: 69218, Drinkwater 1983: 66ff). There, analysis introduces a social correlate with pins, economics and wealth. These authors recognise that urban-rural differences undoubtedly reflected the level of interaction among social strata, consistent with rural sites responding last to changes originating on military and nucleated sites, as argued for the northern Romano-British brooch and bead collections above. In addition, Drinkwater, Roymans and Woolf suggest an economic impetus drove differences. In From Sword to the Plough, Roymans argues that the pax Romana ended tribal warfare, and created a frontier population that increasingly experienced a regular supply of food, taxation and commerce, including the rise of markets where exchange for wealth could occur (Roymans 1998: 5859). In England, the greatest recovery of material culture was on the higher quality arable soils denoting wealthier farmers, who may have benefited to a greater extent from the Roman economic impetus (see Chapter six).

Nevertheless, the quantities of female-related artefacts, including pins during the early period remained small. But, in the late period, pins were the single largest artefact grouping from military sites and accounted for 43% of the late assemblage. In addition to the sites within this study, the unpublished site of Binchester showed similar changes in assemblage composition during the third and fourth centuries AD (Jones, R.F.J. pers. Comm.), suggesting that the trend was widespread. The increases in pins at military sites in the late period coincided with changes in the military establishment. There was a reduction in garrisoned troops from approximately 50000 to 33500 men by the later period (James 1984: 163), some of the extramural settlements were abandoned and the internal structure of the barracks in some of the forts, such as at South Shields, suggest a change in function.

Wealth was also advertised in the use of materials, notably precious metals, but also included the rare glass pins. Not surprisingly, pins of these materials were recovered in small quantities. The site of Catterick produced two blue/ green glass pins of a type associated with the northwest 92

CHAPTER FOUR: THE CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Map 4.3. The distribution of jet/shale pins.

100% 90% 80%

WĞƌĐĞŶƚ

70% 60% Other

50%

Jet/Shale

40%

CopperAlloy

30%

Bone

20% 10% 0%

^ŝƚĞdLJƉĞ Figure 4.10. A comparison of pin composition by site type. The pin assemblage from each site type is expressed proportionally by composition category. (n=567)

93

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH provinces, another reminder of the diverse origins of the Roman material culture brought to the frontier (Wilson, P.R. 2002: 242). Other glass pins came from the town of Dragonby and the villa at Beadlam. All glass pins were found in the east of the study zone, suggesting that they may have been recovered from auxiliary troops stationed at Catterick. Among precious metals, a silver pin was recovered at Dalton Parlours. This pin reinforces the role of wealth affecting the use and distribution of material culture. It appears that the areas most integrated into the Roman economic system, such as the fertile villa landscape, yielded the greatest wealth (Hingley 2004; Potter and Johns 2002: 20, 144-149).

was widely distributed (Map 4.3) and never accounted for more than one percent of the assemblage. In contrast to funerary uses, pins from military and town assemblages were over three-quarters bone. Overall, the pin collection reinforces the strong diffusion of Roman-based material culture across the social landscape of the frontier, especially among women. Evidence of reciprocal adoption of pre-Roman tastes in the larger and more urban Roman community also exists, not in the artefacts themselves, but in the deduced differences in hairstyles using those artefacts. The diversity of the collection is relatively small, primarily associated with the materials used in making the pins. The distribution of these materials provides further insight into the social impact of wealth and perhaps special groups such as the potential use of pins in standard military issue.

The third area of social practice suggested by the pin collection comes from sartorial uses, with pins used as dress-fasteners or possibly as part of the military kit issued to soldiers in the early period (Johns 1996: 137). However, the evidence for the latter is negligible, with similarities to other tinned copper alloy component of the military assemblage being cited. The scantiness of copper alloy pins and the similarity in design to other bone hairpins suggest merely a personal choice for material rather than functional dissidence.

THE BRACELET ASSEMBLAGE Bracelets were one of the less common artefacts from northern England, accounting for 11% of the complete assemblage. The collection has similarities with pins, in that it shows a predominant centrifugal Roman influence, an urban-rural divide, major use among women, local British influence, and association with wealth. The latter especially illustrated by the recovery of examples made of more valuable materials.

Jet/shale, also one of the smaller compositional categories, sheds more light on social practice. For example, Puttock notes that jet pins served a ritual significance and were associated with young women who died in child birth or before the woman was able to conceive (Puttock 2002: 83). Accordingly, the largest concentration of jet/shale pins was found in funerary contexts (Figure 4.10). In addition, jet/shale pins were found in the cemeteries outside the fort at York, a known centre for the manufacture of jet items, but none came from excavations inside the fort, canabae or Colonia, thus arguing that jet/shale pins were ritual and not functional. The remainder of the jet/shale collection

Bracelets were worn by members of the population on all site types, as expected given the diffusion patterns of more abundant items. As with other artefacts, they were numerically most common on military sites, although absent in Allason-Jones’s study of turrets (Allason-Jones 1988: 218-220). Proportionally, bracelets were most common on cemetery and villa sites, with vici yielding the smallest grouping (Figure 4.11).

Figure 4.11. A comparison of the bracelet assemblage from each site type. The proportion of bracelets recovered is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts from each site type. (n=419)

94

CHAPTER FOUR: THE CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 4.12. The chronology of bracelet composition. Each bracelet composition category is expressed as the proportion from the early and late periods. (n=386) Note 13 bracelets lack chronological data. The primary materials used in bracelet manufacture— glass and copper alloy—reinforce the physical expression of the mixing of cultures in the north of England. The late period saw a growing preference for bracelets made from copper alloy on all site types, while the early period saw the integration of pre-Roman artefacts—glass bangles— into the Roman cultural assemblage. Figure 4.12 shows the variability in material by period.

explanation is that these are actually recoveries of early items lost or deposited in materials subsequently used for building fill during late period construction. However, while this may be true for some of the other examples, the recovery of glass bangles and early brooches in deposits with late pottery implies continued late use of said objects. Precious metal bracelets, although relatively rare, were also popular in the late period, and as with pins, are characteristic of the wealthy. They were relatively rare in the study zone with only one gold bracelet being recovered from the fort at Ambleside and a second example from Whorlton. Silver bracelets were recovered from Dragonby and Dalton Parlours. Only one precious metal bracelet dated to the early period.

Most bracelets were worn by women, so that their occurrence usually indicates female influences, reminiscent of pins; however, there is limited evidence for men wearing gold bracelets (Allason-Jones 2008: 98-99; 2005b: 118). Jet/shale bracelets also indicate female use, and as with beads, were thought to protect the wearer from miscarriage. Jet/shale bracelets were common funerary items, with 71% being associated with female and child burials (Allason-Jones 2005a: 184; 2005b: 123; 1996: 23). These jet and shale bracelets became increasingly common in the late period (Croom 2002: 290-298; Johns 1996: 120).

Many bracelets were found in cemetery sites attesting to the desire to prepare the dead for the afterlife with objects of personal ornamentation. As discussed prior, jet and shale were the most abundant material. As Roman law limited the amount of gold that could be both worn and buried, gold was justifiably uncommon in burials (Johns 1996: 34-43).

The materials used in the bracelet assemblage also show pre-Roman British influences on the larger cultural landscape. Glass bangles were popular in the Late Iron Age and were adopted and manufactured on Roman sites after the conquest (Price 1988: 363; Kilbride-Jones 1938b). They were most common in the early period indicating that the native-to-Roman diffusion of culture was as rapid as that from the Roman sphere to native world.

The cave assemblage showed connectivity with the urban landscape and yielded a predominant copper alloy assemblage, even though most dated to the early period. The period of use and commonality of glass bangles would have made them an expected component. The lack of glass bangles (two in total) is directly in contrast with the large dragonesque brooch assemblage mentioned hitherto. Thus, the cave assemblage suggests that only certain objects were acceptable as offerings, rather than the objects being a reflection of resistance (see Woolf 1998: 20).

The bracelet collection from villas is something of an anomaly because substantial numbers of glass items were recovered from these sites. Being constructed mainly in the late period, when copper bracelets had become popular, and reflecting a wealthier stratum of society, the occurrence of glass artefacts is not expected. As with other early period artefacts in villas, the most plausible

The bracelet assemblage highlighted a number of important components of the northern cultural assemblage. First, it shows the integration of locally popular items (i.e.

95

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 4.13. A comparison of the ring assemblages from each of the site types. The proportion of rings recovered is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts from each site type. (n=378) glass bangles) into the wider Roman network. Second, the assemblage illustrated the range of experiences, especially between the urban and rural populations. Third, the bracelet assemblage shows a degree of commonality with the early glass bangles being replaced by later copper alloy and jet/shale variations.

Romano-British material culture assemblage of the postconquest dispersal of Roman fashions across the whole frontier region. Furthermore, the large proportion of early period rings from vici, rural and cave sites, illustrates the rapidity of the diffusion of Roman culture. Ring designs varied from complex styles that included intaglios to simple wire bands. Over 60% of rings were manufactured from copper alloy (Figure 4.14), with lesser uses of gold, silver, iron, glass, jet/shale, antler, bone and amber. Designs and materials varied among sites in the same way as other artefacts, illustrating social patterns of wealth. Accordingly, villa sites yielded the highest proportion of precious metal rings. Rings functioned as ritual offerings, either to the deity or for use in the afterlife or simply because of their sentimental value, which may

THE RING ASSEMBLAGE Rings were found across the urban landscape and countryside representing between 5% and 12% of the assemblages at each site (Figure 4.13). Although rings were worn in the Iron Age, they were popularized after the conquest (Johns 1996: 41) and became “one of the most universally adopted Roman fashions” (Potter and Johns 2002: 148), a further verification from the northern

Figure 4.14. A comparison of the composition of the ring assemblage from each of the site types. Each site type is expressed as the proportion of rings made from precious metal, other, jet/shale or copper alloy. (n=378)

96

CHAPTER FOUR: THE CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE a cultural modification, with individuals choosing to not only adopt a Roman artefact but also go through the act of having their ears pierced.

explain their presence in funerary contexts (Allason-Jones 2008: 99). In spite of the importance assigned to votive offerings and funeral gifts, caves yielded no precious metal rings and the cemetery sites yielded only four precious metal rings and ten gold earrings. Jet/shale represented approximately 10% of villa and rural assemblages, but was less common in the funerary contexts, a clear difference from other jet/shale artefacts. Thus, although jet/shale carried important properties, the styling into rings was never as popular as when it was used for bracelets and necklaces.

Although earrings are most commonly associated with women, it was not universal. In the east, ruler’s wore earrings—a trend copied by other eastern men (AllasonJones 1995: 25), and earrings from one such male were found at Brougham (Cool 2004: 391). This single recovery suggests that the populace in the northern England frontier region was diverse. Earrings were recovered proportionally most frequently in funerary assemblages, but again, this derives from the style of excavation and not necessarily a popularity of earrings in the deceased. The majority of earrings date to the late period and support those trends inherent within bracelet and pins, of women being increasingly visible during the late period.

While rings were worn by the entire northern population throughout both the early and late periods (Allason-Jones 2005b: 119), variations existed among sites. For example, as observed in other artefacts, jet/shale was particularly abundant in late contexts with 76% of the assemblage dating to the third and fourth centuries (Allason-Jones 2005b: 123; Allason-Jones 1996: 6-8). The other compositional materials were recovered in approximately equal proportions. The ring assemblage followed the previously discussed chronologies with town, villa and cemeteries yielding late assemblages and vici predominantly early, in accordance with the influential site chronologies. From those with continuous occupation, military sites were late and rural sites early, suggesting that the ring assemblage was very similar to bracelets and bangles, where they formed part of the early assemblage, but were popularized during the third and fourth centuries AD.

Overall, the ring collection largely reinforces conclusions from the other components of the material culture discussed above. The single male earring use provides new information indicating the ethnic diversity in northern England. THE INTAGLIO ASSEMBLAGE Intaglios were the smallest single artefact grouping. They accounted for, three percent of the complete military assemblage, two percent of the vici assemblage and no more than one percent on other sites (Figure 4.15). However, the group is of special interest because intaglios reflect individuals’ wealth and status, and were also prevalent among the military (Henig 1974b: 55; Henig 1970: 249-252). Intaglios were predominantly a male artefact, contrasting with several other groups, such as bracelets and earrings, which provide information on women. The limited distribution of intaglios, further demonstrates the catalytic nature of the Roman army as

The ring assemblage includes earrings, associated primarily with women (Allason-Jones 2008: 99; 1989). Like hairpins, the use of earrings requires additional paraphernalia including needles. They were also particularly unique objects as they were the only personal ornament that required mutilation to wear and the continued use to prevent the hole from closing (Johns 1996: 127). As they were not a common Iron Age artefact, they represent

Figure 4.15. A comparison of the intaglio yield from each site type. The proportion of intaglios recovered is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts from each site type. (n=56) 97

Personal Ornamentation as an Indicator of Cultural Diversity in the Roman North

40 35

Percent

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Decoration

Figure A comparison of intaglio decoration. data are number Figure 4.16. 4.16. A comparison of intaglio decoration. All data areAll presented aspresented the numberasofthe each intaglioof each intaglio iconography expressed percentage of the complete(n=56) intaglio assemblage. (n=56) iconography expressed as a percentage of as theacomplete intaglio assemblage. nuclei for the distribution of the artefact assemblage, here with a more limited dispersion into the urban and then into the countryside.

the associated beliefs. These included an understanding of Achilles and Ulysses significance and choosing to wear adornment decorated with said images. Thus, their recovery provides further evidence for acculturation and suggests that cultural change occurred within the belief system not just costume.

By definition, the variation among intaglios is seen in the decoration (Figure 4.16). Images of heroes and deities were prevalent on military sites, not surprisingly, Mars the god of war being the most abundant (Henig 1974b: 61-62). Minerva, representing war and wisdom was also popular among the military, as well as on town, vici and cave sites, perhaps representing her wisdom traits. The example from Attermire cave, suggests that perhaps she was the patron goddess, a trend paralleled in a number of caves in Italy, France and Derbyshire (Facaros and Pauls 2007: 489), and two major temples in the south of England (Bath and Harlow). Although the evidence remains meagre, it is plausible that the northern cave assemblage was dedicated to her as well. The non-military sites include themes from both military sites and unique variations. For example, an intaglio adorned with a warship was recovered from the vicus at Castleford. Additionally, while Mars was recovered on military sites, Minerva was the most popular image from non-military urban sites. The cemeteries only yielded two intaglios, one from Brougham adorned with Ceres and a second undecorated example from York (Cool 2004: 219-220; RCHM 1962). Even though Henig states that intaglios adorned with Cupid were most common in funerary contexts, within the study zone only one example of Cupid was recovered and this was found inside the legionary fortress at York (Henig 1974b: 65). Intaglios were rare on rural sites, and of three recovered, two were images of heroes (Achilles and Ulysses). Even with such small quantities, their recovery demonstrated not only the acquisition of Roman material culture but also

Intaglios were worn in both early and late periods, although fewest were found in the first century AD. The greatest distribution occurred in the late third century AD. Overall, intaglios were rare artefacts worn by the wealthy or Roman soldiers. It seems that intaglios were popular in the military community but only cycled into other groupings on rare occasions. THE ‘OTHER’ ARTEFACTS Chains, necklaces, pendants, and torcs were relatively uncommon in the north. All are classified as forms of personal ornamentation and were recovered from both the early and the late periods. Their paucity might suggest that these “other” items failed to survive in the archaeological record because of their delicacy (i.e. fine chains and bead necklaces) or that they were indeed rare during the Roman period. In practice, the low value and susceptibility to cultural and non-cultural formative properties resulted in a relatively small artefact collection representing 1% of all site types. Pendants were the most abundant among the ‘other’ personal items. Like intaglios, they were most common 114 on military and funerary sites and few were recovered from the non-military community (Figure 4.17). These artefacts add to the evidence of cultural evolution. Pendants incorporated themes from across the Empire and were manufactured on locally sourced material. For example, antler pendants were found in Roman Britain and Gaul and were connected to Cernunos (Greep 1994); 98

CHAPTER FOUR: THE CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 4.17. A comparison of the pendant assemblage from each of the site types. The proportion of pendants recovered is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts from each site type. (n=37)

Map 4.4. The distribution of chains.

99

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH a pendant styled with the head of Medusa demonstrates the incorporation of Roman beliefs; iron bucket pendants recovered from Brougham were linked with the Danubian and trans-Danubian region (Cool 2004: 262). These iron bucket pendants are among the most unique elements of the northern assemblage. They were associated with the eastern Empire and their recovery with the cremation of horses was unparalleled in Romano-British contexts (Cool 2004: 384-464). The gold-in-glass beads with similar origins argue for a substantial eastern Roman population at Brougham, either troops themselves or civilian military followers (Cool 2004: 464-465). In addition to iron bucket pendants and antler, ornaments were made from jet/shale and occasionally gold. The latter was found only in a military context at York. Jet/shale pendants were presumably worn because of their perceived supernatural powers described above; in particular, those styled with the head of Medusa (Allason-Jones 2005b: 187; Croom 2004: 290). Similarly, the recovery of pendants (predominantly antler variations) decorated to protect the wearer show the conglomeration of Roman themes and local craftsmanship. The pendant assemblage portrays a militarized artefact collection. Antler, although prevalent in the north of England, was part of a provincial assemblage and the phallus and head of Medusa were common throughout the entire Empire (Greep 1994). Lastly, the iron bucket pendants reflect the introduction of foreign troops to Britain and their limited recovery suggests that for the most part, they too have adopted the regional assemblage. The northern evidence, in particular from cemeteries, provides ambiguous gender associations with examples recovered from both male and female burials (Cool 2004: 382; RCHM 1962). Chains were recovered across all site types except for caves, again predominantly from military sites along the southern half of the study zone (Map 4.4). They were recovered from both periods with a slightly more frequent recovery in the first and second centuries AD. Some chains were used to co-join trumpet brooches, an early period Roman fashion. However, the predominantly late date, even after the manufacture of trumpet brooches had ceased, suggests that chains were still being worn into the third century AD (Hattatt 1985: 100). Others were used as necklaces, with examples in the northern assemblage being made of precious metal or with finer links than the linking chains (Allason-Jones 2008: 99; Johns 1996: 30). More substantial chains were universally recovered from the late period and as such, may have been necklaces. Necklaces are usually thought to correlate with women, but there is evidence of them being given to soldiers, perhaps the more substantial chains, to mark prowess in the field (Stout 1994: 81). Necklaces were found on military, town, cemetery and villa sites. Military and town sites produced examples manufactured from precious metal and bone necklaces.

Bead necklaces were most abundant in funerary contexts. As noted above, some beads may have derived from disarticulated necklaces, such that necklaces and bracelets may have been more common than the collection of intact items suggests. Bead necklaces, like beads, were popular with women and children (Puttock 2002: 23-24). With the exception of a necklace of 15 hexagonal beads from Dalton Parlours, all were found in funerary contexts. The other examples came from burials at Hartlepool and Low Borrowbridge. Their paucity counters Johns’s (1996: 121) argument that necklaces were common attire for women. However, the nature of the bead-necklaces makes it difficult to assess the claim. Other necklaces were made of gold, copper alloy and jet/shale. The latter two examples came from funerary contexts at York and included a gorgon pendant, a theme discussed previously (RCHM 1962: 69). Torcs were the rarest artefacts in the north of England, and may indicate pre-Roman influences on Roman decorations. Originally, it was considered that torcs were remnants of the pre-conquest Iron Age culture, but recently it has been argued that like dragonesque brooches and glass bangles, they formed part of the frontier culture (Hunter 2008: 133-136; Johns 1996: 27-29). In addition, the prevalence of torcs with traditional native connotations might indicate resistance to Roman material culture within the rural British population. However, some torcs, such as the example from Skerne, were found with Roman coins, which would seem inconsistent with the retention of torcs being a sign of resistance (Macgregor, M. 1976: 206). Rather, the occurrence of torcs with Roman coins suggests that, as with other material cultural artefacts, torcs formed a part of the northern Romano-British assemblage characterized by the inclusion of pre-Roman elements (Hunter 2008; Macgregor, M. 1976: 207). Nevertheless, these items still indicate British influences on the material culture. The recovery of torcs mainly from rural sites, in Roman contexts, suggests that they were still valued among the largely British elements of the rural population. It is of interest, therefore, to find that some torcs during the Roman period were initially offered to soldiers for acts of bravery or to evoke good luck (AllasonJones 2005b: 116). THE IMPLICATIONS ASSEMBLAGE

OF

THE

COMPLETE

This Chapter demonstrates the common nature of the assemblage, by reviewing material culture across site boundaries from the north of England. While the assemblage shows a high degree of commonality, the experience of the population in the north was not universal, with culturally distinct components being introduced by the local inhabitants of each site. However, based upon the data, there was a clear backbone of material produced from military sites and worn by the entire population with Roman interaction. This included: green, blue or

100

CHAPTER FOUR: THE CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE turquoise glass beads, early glass bangles and late copper alloy bracelets, trumpet and headstud brooches, copper alloy rings, and bone hairpins—in particular those with spherical and ovoid heads. This common assemblage was the foundation for the artefact collections on all site types. Based upon the analysis of personal ornamentation across site boundaries, two main themes can be discerned. The assemblage shared a number of traits and was widely distributed, but also fragmented. For example, while the majority of each assemblage was the same, there were unique elements depending upon the site’s apparent wealth, degree of interaction with Roman centres, and geographical positioning. This range of experiences was most prevalent in the region’s two extremes; military and rural sites. The former included the widest array of artefacts and appear to have been centres for manufacture. Additionally, they incorporated artefacts not popularized in other regions such as pendants and intaglios. However, the pins and bracelets of the late period elucidate deeprooted changes in the Roman urban landscape. The military assemblage also shows evolution, as large quantities of the northern influenced material culture were recovered from these sites, showing the dynamism inherent within. The range of experiences on the military sites can be directly contrasted with the countryside. While 57% of the rural sites showed Roman interaction and adopted some material culture, only 39% of the sites yielded personal ornamentation. Of the collection recovered, the majority was comprised of locally produced brooches, but also included the Roman manufactured, traditionally native objects, like glass bangles and dragonesque brooches. This range of experiences argues for a selective form of cultural change.

south of the Humber. While the construction of villas and towns in the late period shows that the region was pacified, the continued use of forts meant that the region operated as both a frontier and its associated hinterland. The countryside likewise illustrates this dichotomy with villas being constructed in similar locations to those sites with no Roman material culture.

Other important trends were also visible from the material culture. First, there was a centrifugal exchange of personal ornaments, which occurred shortly after the conquest. Second, the adoption of Roman material culture was not continuous, with the types of objects popular in the late period, being recovered less frequently in rural settings, suggesting that the indigenous population was selecting the more utilitarian aspects of personal ornaments (i.e. brooches). Third, the gender implications show an increased visibility of women in the late period. Fourth, as Puttock and Allason-Jones argue, the jet/shale from northern assemblages was predominantly a feminine artefact recovered from female graves (Allason-Jones 2005b; Puttock 2002). Although not all objects carried the same ritual function, bracelets, pendants and pins conformed to these expectations. Lastly, the recovery of artefacts with native British origins as well as those from across the rest of the Empire further illustrates the complex, dynamic nature of culture in the north. As the nature of Roman identity changed with each provincial expansion, so too did the form of Roman culture that prevailed. Unlike the south of England, the north remained occupied by the military throughout, and did not benefit from the same civilizing processes as was apparent 101

CHAPTER FIVE: ‘DISCREPANT IDENTITY’ IN PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION

The previous chapter discussed patterns in the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage in terms of common themes in the artefact assemblage. It recognized influences associated with population components, including women and children, in various socio-economic strata underlying the site types from military complexes to rural agrarian locales. In this chapter, the differences inherent within the assemblages from these site types will be considered. The military forts are closely allied with an urban community of the nucleated vici, which formed in the umbra of safety around military complexes. Likewise, towns developed in the late period as the region became pacified. At this same time, villas, reflecting wealth and status through a Roman lens, emerged interleaved with the more agricultural and pastoral rural population. Although town assemblages are larger, the forts show the greatest geographical and chronological variety with examples recovered across the entire region dating from both the early and late periods. The military sites also maintained efficient channels for communication and orders, military personnel, material and all other accoutrements of war. Additionally, the road network allowed for the movement of individuals and material culture and was the conduit for the spread of material culture across the Empire. Therefore, the military cultural assemblage is the basis for comparison with the other site types. THE MILITARY ASSEMBLAGE To reiterate, the military population was ethnically diverse, but culturally Roman. The military population wore Roman costume, utilized pottery made locally or imported from across the Empire and was paid for their services to the Empire (Croom 2004; Wild 1985; Tyers 1996; Millett 1990: 48-58; Reece 1984: 143). Military sites also show some of the greatest diversity within their assemblages, as artefacts from the troops origins were recovered from northern England (i.e. a zoomorphic brooch adorned with a fish from Ravenglass) (Potter 1979: 68). Like the other sites in the study zone, the majority of artefacts recovered were part of the regionally distinct cultural assemblage. The popularity and subsequent distribution of artefacts shows that the population was connected to the Roman economic system and trends observed inside forts were paralleled outside, with major factors associated with

differences among the assemblage caused by age, gender, and local variants. Although there were site by site variations within the military assemblage, overall there were similar proportions of beads, bracelets, pins, and rings from most sites. In the early period, the military assemblage included a large brooch collection, a relatively small bracelet assemblage, with the majority of examples made of glass, and very few pins. Late assemblages showed an increase in the number of pins, copper alloy and jet/shale bracelets. URBAN SITES—COMBINING VICUS AND TOWN ASSEMBLAGES The military and vici populations had a significant degree of overlap with the civilian population entering the forts and the soldiers going into the vicus to purchase goods and for leisure activities (James 2001b; Allason-Jones 1988: 220 and 2001; Sommer 1984: 30). In addition, vici functioned by housing veterans, relations of the soldiers, slaves, craftsmen, and by meeting many of the military demands of metal-working, stonemasons and prostitutes (Sommer 2006; 1984: 30-36). Vici also operated as marketplaces and according to Sommer, their positioning along major thoroughfares was intended for the supply of the military and not the rural population (Sommer 2006: 118). Vici were still under the control of the local government and maintained a symbiotic relationship with the military (Mattingly 2007: 170-171; Sommer 2006: 131; 1984: 27-29). Unlike vici, towns were separate entities. While many had military origins, they “were semi-autonomous units of local government, assigned specific territory and often given fiscal and judicial responsibility for larger areas of the countryside” (Mattingly 2007: 260). Towns themselves had different status including those founded for legionary veterans—Colonia and those towns that formed as capitals for the indigenous tribes recognized by Rome—civitates (Allason-Jones 2008: 49-51; Mattingly 2007: 262; Jones, M.J. 2004: 166). The study zone included civitates capitals at Aldborough and Brough-on-Humber (Bennett 1984: 3638; Wacher 1969: 24). As most of the towns developed out of military and vici groupings, the exact origin of many towns is unclear, by the early third century AD all northern ‘towns’ were in existence.

102

CHAPTER FIVE: ‘DISCREPANT IDENTITY’ IN PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION

Figure 5.1. A comparison showing the material culture assemblage from vici and towns. The proportion of artefacts of each type is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found at each of the two site types. (n=1717) Both vici and towns were distinct from forts as they included the civilian population and provided essential services to the military (Sommer 1984: 30-31). At the same time, both site types were connected with newly constructed roads and illustrate similar cultural change as visible on the forts. Although the relationship with the military varied between the two sites, the artefact assemblage from forts, vici and towns was similar (Figure 5.1). In both instances beads and brooches were the most common artefact. This derived from large bead collections from Castleford and York as well as a large brooch assemblage from the early vici and the early period contexts from Dragonby (see Figure 5.2). For example, the majority of the beads (58%) from vici were excavated from Castleford. Of those, 40% came from phase three, when many of the buildings were reconstructed in stone between AD 140 and 180 (Cool and Philo 1998: 3). Additionally, one-third of all beads were found in just one context, at site 1(74), perhaps reflecting local manufacture. Similarly, 55% of the town brooch assemblage came from Dragonby. In this town, brooches were distributed throughout both periods in approximately equal numbers, but the intensity of excavation and the relatively small early brooch assemblage from other sites, resulted in the bias from Dragonby. Furthermore, Dragonby was a unique site amongst towns as its showed little architectural evolution with roundhouses remaining as the primary domestic structure into the third century AD (May 1996: 69-247). In addition, Dragonby incorporated greater than average concentrations of artefacts from across the entire Empire, such as Gaulish and Hod Hill brooches. This was probably due to its location along the southern extent of the study zone, where the town was uniquely placed to engage with the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage, as well as the southern regional assemblage. Therefore, it appears that the early urban assemblage was affected by special circumstances, which made the sites of Dragonby

and Castleford outliers relative to the overall urban sites. However, the combined collections from the remaining sites indicate close similarities across all artefact groups from vici and towns. The variation between sites was largest in the early period (Figure 5.2). As noted above, the large early vici bead assemblage derived from Castleford and the town brooch assemblage also was influenced from a single site— Dragonby. While it is clear that there were variations, the removal of the outlying sites still yields similar proportional artefact assemblages. The material culture recovered included a diverse array of brooches such as the northern headstud and trumpet varieties through to the southern Hod Hill variants. The large early brooch assemblage mirrors that of the military assemblage (see Figure 3.25). In the late period, there was an increase in the number of town sites and accordingly, an increase in the number of artefacts. Associated with the campaigns into Scotland under Antoninus Pius, a number of vici were abandoned and not reoccupied with any substance. The late period vici solely consisted of material from Castleford, Doncaster, Greta Bridge, Malton, Old Penrith, and Ribchester. In the late period, vici and town sites demonstrated a high degree of commonality. They also supported the trends discussed previously, with an increase in the number of pins and bracelets and a decrease in the number of brooches (Figure 5.3). Although the early period assemblages were similar, bar the two outlying sites, the late assemblage showed even less diversity. Crossbow (Figure 5.4) and knee brooches (22% of late brooch assemblage); penannular (17%) and plate brooches (22%) accounted for the bulk of the late material with only a few residually early examples being recovered. Interestingly, the late manufactured bow

103

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 5.2. The early period town and vici assemblage. Vici yield a greater number of artefacts and sites during the first and second century AD and the assemblage incorporates a large bead collection from Castleford. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found at each of the two site types during the early period. (n=610)

Figure 5.3. A comparison of the late non-military urban assemblages. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found during the late period at each of two site types. (n=542)

Figure 5.4. Crossbow brooch. L70mm

104

CHAPTER FIVE: ‘DISCREPANT IDENTITY’ IN PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION brooches, which signified military or administrative roles, were more common in civilian assemblages than inside forts. The remainder of the artefact assemblage parallels the trends observed on military sites, with copper alloy and jet/shale bracelets being most popular. Additionally, the number of hairpins lost during the third and fourth centuries AD trebles from both contexts. By reviewing the material from towns and vici it has been possible to demonstrate similarities within assemblages. Furthermore, although outlier sites exist in the early period (Dragonby and Castleford) the overall assemblages show a high degree of similarity in the proportions of objects recovered. Additionally, by the late period, the assemblages reflect almost identical trends with similar composition of site type assemblages. As such, it is possible to combine vici and towns into a single site type— nucleated settlements. MILITARY STIES URBAN SITES

VERSUS

NON-MILITARY

Having argued that the artefact assemblages from vici and town sites can be combined into a single urban category to explore differences among sites, it is possible to compare and contrast the urban assemblage with the military sites. The assemblages themselves show a high degree of overlap from both the early and late periods. Furthermore, artefactually, it is apparent that the division between military and civilian spheres was minimal. Although there were variations in the population, the boundaries between the military and civilian populations were very fluid. In the early period, with the exception of the outlying sites noted above, the military, town and vici assemblages were all similar (Figure 5.5). The military sites yielded a greater

number of both intaglios and rings as well as a wider array of ‘other’ artefacts—in particular pendants. The military and urban collections also showed the adoption of Celticthemed artefacts, especially glass bangles. Similarly, the brooch assemblage included trumpet, headstud, penannular, wheel and dragonesque variants. In the third and fourth centuries AD there was a unilateral increase in feminine artefacts, with the proportion of pins, bracelets and rings (which were worn by men and women) all increasing (Figure 5.6). Additionally, in part because of the decline in early brooch variability, the late period assemblage, with blue and green glass beads, bracelets of copper alloy and jet/shale and a plethora of bone pins shows a high degree of commonality. Although there was variability between site types, the military and non-military urban sites show a high degree of overlap for both the early and late period. Clearly there were differences in the function of forts and non-military urban sites, but the artefact distribution parallels AllasonJones’s 1988 findings. Both her prior work and this study, demonstrate that in terms of personal ornamentation there is no clear distinction between military and civilian assemblages (Allason-Jones 1988). The fluidity of the boundaries between military and civilian also means that it is impossible to distinguish whether the diversity in the cultural assemblage also indicates changes in the function of forts in the late period. While the alterations to the barracks were not to house families (see: Hodgson and Bidwell 2004), there were fundamental differences between the early and late assemblages and in all cases, women were more visible. However, the similarity between assemblages from both periods, argues that women were not moving into forts

Figure 5.5. A comparison of the artefact assemblages from forts, towns and vici in the early period. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found at each of the three site types during the early period. (n=1006)

105

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 5.6. The late assemblage from military sites, towns and vici. Each artefact category is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found at the three site types during the late period. In all three groupings there is an increased visibility of women. (n=891)

from vici and town sites, but the variation in assemblage is a reflection of changes in their costume. Thus, the similarity in assemblage from both the early period forts and urban sites as well as the similarities between late sites means that the evidence from personal ornamentation does not support any change in population from the site types. The similarities further render any diagnosis of the causal factors for the increased visibility of women in the late period impossible. THE ROMANO-BRITISH COUNTRYSIDE—VILLA SITES Beyond the urbanized forts, vici and towns, wealthy members of the Roman northern countryside built villas during the late period. Although the ownership of the individual sites remains contentious, retired legionaries, businessmen and the elite from Brigantes and Parisi seem most likely (Allason-Jones 2008: 7577; Branigan 1980: 20). A continuous occupation of some sites, such as Langton, from pre-Roman times through the Roman conquest, suggests that villas were built by native elite. However, the break in occupation at Dalton Parlours, the recovery of a bronze cup from Rudston, which had similarities to the Rudge Cup from the villa at Rudge, and variable assemblages argue for the construction of villas being associated with newcomers to the countryside (Allason-Jones 2008: 53; Mattingly 2007: 454; Wrathmell and Nicholson 1991: 260). Thus, it is almost certain that no uniform ownership existed for the villas, with individuals with sufficient wealth constructing them as the region became pacified (Mattingly 2007: 420; Kenyon 1991: 55). Villa sites epitomize the Roman cultural influence on Britain. They are Roman styled structures positioned in

a largely otherwise unchanged landscape. As Mattingly argues: “settlers or wealthy residence in the civil centres at York could certainly have aspired to own villas. Thus, although some of the villas no doubt belonged to the urbanized elite of the Brigantes and Parisi, they were by no means the only candidates as villa builders” (Mattingly 2007: 420). For example, native elites took over many local administrative duties under Roman rule and consequently became increasingly involved and dependent upon the Roman bureaucracy (Woolf 1995: 9-10; Haselgrove 1984: 44). Accordingly, there were associated changes in their Roman dress and ornamentation (Roach and Eicher 1979). Such wealth developed over time, as did stability, so that villas were constructed in the late period (Kenyon 1991: 51; Millett 1990: 94; Frere 1987: 258). Nevertheless, the villa assemblage includes many early manufactured artefacts. Of the 217 artefacts from villa sites, 25 or 12% were recovered from early contexts—primarily the pre-villa deposits at Dalton Parlours and Winterton villa. The majority of the early artefacts were glass bangles (8) and brooches (13), both of which correspond to the early regional assemblage. As will be discussed in the subsequent chapter, there were differences in the assemblages and the degree of congeniality between the sites east and west of the Pennines. Even though there was suitable arable land west of the Pennines, such as the Eden Valley, all villas were located in the eastern half of the country. As such, the assemblage can be directly compared with sites within this geographical zone. Figure 5.7, expresses the proportions of ornaments from military, urban (both vici and towns) and villa sites. In the east, during the third and fourth centuries AD, the material culture recovered appears to adopt elements from

106

CHAPTER FIVE: ‘DISCREPANT IDENTITY’ IN PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION

Figure 5.7. A comparison of the late period military, non-military and villa assemblages from sites east of the Pennines. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found at each of the three site types during the late period. (n=688)

both military and non-military sources. The variation in beads and bracelets may testify to women adorning themselves with solid metal arm decorations rather than the bead variations, which were found across towns and forts—possibly because of perceived wealth in the solid bangles compared with the lower cost bead items. While the villa assemblage was consistent with the larger cultural system, there are still important differences. As noted earlier, the early assemblage included many glass bangles (14 of 43) and 29 of the 64 brooches recovered were early (i.e. trumpet, headstud, Nauheim derivative, Colchester derivative). When compared with other sites east of the Pennines, early artefacts were recovered from late contexts across all site boundaries, but not in such large quantities. For example, four glass bangles were recovered from non-military sites. Likewise, from all late military sites only four (of 31) early manufactured brooches were found in late contexts. On the non-military sites the quantity was larger, with a third of all brooches from the late deposits having been manufactured in the early Roman period. Thus, while the villa assemblage had a different population, the assemblage only shows slightly greater retention of early objects than on the other sites within the region. In the north, four villas—Beadlam, Dalton Parlours, Rudston and Winterton villa—yielded sufficiently large assemblages to be directly compared. The earliest evidence suggests that Beadlam was a walled enclosure that was later reconstructed as a Roman villa (Neal 1996). Dalton Parlours was located within five kilometres of Newton Kyme and had Iron Age origins with a range of roundhouses (Wrathmell and Nicholson 1991). Following the Iron Age, the site remained dormant until AD 260 when the villa was constructed (Wrathmell and Nicholson

1991). Rudston was a centre in Neolithic times and remained occupied continuously through the Roman period. The construction of the villa sharply contrasts with the earlier buildings suggesting a possible change in ownership (Stead 1980; Woodward 1934). The site of Winterton was first constructed in the second century AD and consisted of two circular buildings (Stead 1976). These buildings of unknown use were destroyed at the end of the century and new rectilinear buildings were constructed. Further rebuilding occurred in the middle second century AD. Winterton was both one of the most southerly villas and the earliest site within the study zone. Although the full artefact assemblage shows change, glass bangles, brooches and pins show the greatest variation. Glass bangles were distributed across all site types in the early period, but disappeared by the third century AD when the villas were being constructed. Likewise, the number and variety of brooches declined from the late second century AD (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 179-185; Hattatt 1985). Pins were popularized in the late period, with new styles and greater quantities in circulation during the third century AD (Crummy 1979). Figure 5.8 shows the percentage of pins, early brooches and glass bangles recovered in relation to each site’s full assemblage. It is clear from this comparison that even within similar sites, from the same geographical region, variations occurred. While Rudston and Dalton Parlours both yielded significant proportions of early artefacts in their assemblage, Beadlam and Winterton paralleled late military and urban assemblages. Although the evidence is scant at best, the variable assemblages from the four sites may suggest different ownership. In the case of Rudston, the early assemblage and the continuous occupation may demonstrate the local owner’s choice to redesign their

107

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 5.8. A comparison of the glass bangles, early brooches and pins from the four largest villa sites. All data are presented as the proportion of each artefact category against each site’s complete assemblage. The variation in assemblages may demonstrate differences in ownership. (n=81) home into a villa. This local farmstead, which transitioned to a villa most likely stemmed from its proximity to Malton and York and the associated economic benefits (see Mattingly 2007: 420). Dalton Parlours also yielded a number of glass bangles. The majority of these were from pre-villa deposits with only one coming from the villa itself. However, unlike other late sites, very few pins were recovered. The site was reoccupied and the villa constructed at the same time as the remilitarization of Newton Kyme (early third century AD). By virtue of the gap in occupation and the assemblage itself, including the black glass intaglio with ties to the south of England, the villa at Dalton Parlours appears to have been constructed by new owners. However, the small pin assemblage shows more similarity to rural sites than military and non-military settlements. Beadlam was continuously occupied, but positioned near Aldborough, Malton, and Catterick, meaning that it had potential for exposure to a wide array of material culture. The assemblage parallels that of Catterick with a large pin assemblage and only a small quantity of brooches and glass bangles having been recovered. Additionally, the recovery of a bronze cup with unknown writing may have been evidence of a military persona constructing the villa (Mattingly 2007: 454).

In terms of cultural change, the construction of villas by Britons and the movement of the urban Roman population into the countryside reflect the wholesale changes apparent in the north. In both cases, the construction of villas shows the region’s evolution from frontier to hinterland and the adoption of the regional identity by those outside of the urban centres. The villa landscape shows that even within a regional cultural assemblage, individual factors directly impacted the composition of each site’s artefact assemblage. For example, on those sites east of the Pennines, early brooches have a longevity which sees them appearing well into the third century AD. However, this was not occurring universally as individual circumstances, such as ownership, connectivity to local sites (and its own cultural grouping) affected the types and quantities of artefact accrued. The villa assemblages also show variable wealth; with some sites producing large gold assemblages and others greater bead assemblages. Although the villas were positioned in the countryside, their ownership was not a question of ‘Roman’ or ‘native’, but rather, a reflection of wealth. The owners were dependent upon the forts and towns, east of the Pennines, to sell their agricultural surplus and by virtue of their integration into the economic system were Roman constructs. THE RURAL SITES

Lastly, Winterton yielded the largest quantity of both early brooches and pins. However, the period of its construction (in the late second century AD) meant that it was acquiring the early brooches at the time of manufacture and these objects may thus easily have appeared in late assemblages as they were eventually disposed of. Similarly to Dragonby, its nearest town site, the assemblage shows the abundance of early brooches being abandoned and hairpins becoming increasingly common in the late period.

Rural sites were most distant culturally from the Roman military epicentres and although most sites show Roman interaction, they are all limited by very small artefact assemblages, which Mattingly has prescribed to being a retention of pre-Roman ideals (Mattingly 2007: 422). Thus, the degree of Roman impact on the rural sites varied depending upon the site’s location, the period of use, and distance from Roman centres. Resistance to change,

108

CHAPTER FIVE: ‘DISCREPANT IDENTITY’ IN PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION

Figure 5.9. A comparison of the late assemblage from the eastern Pennines sites. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found at each of the four site types during the late period. (n=749) access to the assemblage and the formation process itself may have been equally culpable for variation in the concentrations of material culture recovered. Rural sites consisted predominantly of single roundhouses and as such, would have had a smaller population, who would, in turn, have possessed fewer artefacts, ergo losing fewer. Pottery was the most common artefact in the countryside and came from 66% of sites. This stemmed both from pottery’s utilitarian function but also its greater abundance during use. Thus, it has a greater chance of surviving. Furthermore, the pottery recovered was of Roman manufacture and thus moved from the manufacturing centres such as at Crambeck or from urban centres after importation. The acculturation processes in the northern countryside operated similarly to Curle’s ‘Caledonian Drift.’ He argued that objects slowly moved from Roman centres into the countryside (Curle 1932). The paucity of the countryside compared with the urban sites has been viewed as a dichotomy between Roman and native (see Hingley 2004; Millett 1990; Higham 1986; Piggott 1958). However, this is not the case. While immediately following the conquest resistance may have accounted for some of the variation between sites, within a few generations, the population, both urban and rural, would have become integrated into the northern cultural system and the concept of ‘Roman’ and ‘native’ rendered non-existent. Accordingly, by the late period, large differences might be expected between the wealthy villa sites and often poorer rural sites. Although proportionally the assemblage yields a high degree of similarity in the late period (Figure 5.9), the late rural assemblage is characterized by decline in the number of artefacts recovered. Even though there are variations in the assemblages, including the large brooch assemblage from the rural sites and the smaller bracelet assemblages from nucleated settlements, the trends discerned are similar. This includes an increase in the number of pins and an overall decline in

the number of brooches in the late period. However, while the assemblages parallel one another proportionally, the decline in the number of artefacts--in fact only 61 rural finds dated to the eastern Pennine sites in the late period (21% of the complete rural collection)—shows the variability in wealth from the rural sites. The trend occurred in sites both east and west of the Pennines, but was greatest in the west (89% reduction), where the soils were lower quality and did not facilitate surplus farming (Allason-Jones 2008: 73-89; Lambert et al. 1996: 92; Gates 1982; Wallerstein 1974: 36-106). It therefore appears that the acquisition of late material occurred selectively by those who possessed sufficient wealth. While parts of the arable countryside included the construction of villas, many of the rural sites were not continuing the acquisition of the associated material culture. Consequently, much of the rural population was not making the shift to copper alloy bracelets or using hairpins to the same degree as the urban population in the late period. Thus, it seems that the female population was less inclined to adopt non-essential Roman artefacts. Alternatively, it is possible that cultural and non-cultural depositional factors are resulting in the non-recovery of the rural cultural assemblage, with the lack of any finds, including environmental remains, from a number of sites possibly being evidence for different disposal techniques. If this was the case, it might explain why 43% of the northern rural assemblage yielded no artefacts at all. Most of the rural finds dated to the early period (75% of the complete assemblage) and it appears that the bulk of the cultural assemblage derived from the urban landscape. Accordingly, the assemblage shows a high degree of overlap (Figure 5.10). Even though most of the assemblage included objects typical of the northern regional assemblage, there is a correlation between the rural population and the ‘Celtic’ components of the regional assemblage including glass bangles, dragonesque and penannular brooches.

109

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 5.10. A comparison of the early assemblages from rural sites, nucleated settlements and military sites. The distribution and similarities within the early period suggest a centrifugal distribution of artefacts. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found at each of the three site types during the early period. (n=1194)

Figure 5.11. Glass bangle fragment. Type 3a. L70mm; W8mm; T13mm

Of the rural assemblage, 84% of the artefacts recovered were part of the local regionally distinct assemblage. As per usual, these were largely glass bangles (Figure 5.11), trumpet, headstud (Figure 5.12), penannular, and dragonesque brooches. Only two early hairpins were found in excavations on rural sites. The remaining 16% was comprised of artefacts both exclusively isolated to the rural sites and those with origins from across the rest of the Empire, including Colchester Derivative and Aucissa brooches. The rural assemblage demonstrates that the personal ornamentation worn during the first and second centuries AD was identical to that being worn across all

Figure 5.12. Headstud brooch. Image from Cool and Philo 1988: 41

site types. Furthermore, just as occurred in Gaul with Roman pottery, the rural population was acquiring the cultural assemblage at the time of manufacture (Walter 2005). RITUAL SITES—CEMETERIES AND CAVES Funerary sites provide additional information on socioeconomic themes in part because they provide clear data on the way artefacts were worn and by whom (Philpott 1991). The northern burial evidence includes military and civilian segments of the population, as indicated by the presence

110

CHAPTER FIVE: ‘DISCREPANT IDENTITY’ IN PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION

Figure 5.13. A comparison of military, non-military and cemetery assemblages from York. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found at each of the three site types. The assemblage shows pronounced differences between the three population groupings and supports Rosten’s (2007b) doctoral work by showing that there were differences between funerary and living assemblages. (n=628) of both male and female remains (Jones, R.F.J. 1984b). Rosten argues that in the south of England there were differences between artefacts recovered from funerary sites and non-funerary assemblages (Rosten 2007a; 2007b). Although the northern funerary evidence is limited, with only two major excavations, the assemblage at York makes a direct comparison of artefacts from military, civilian and funerary contexts (Figure 5.13). The funerary and military assemblages from York included an abundance of pins and a limited number of brooches, a common characteristic of the late Roman period. Jet/shale bracelets and pendants were also common from funerary assemblages, but were not found in such numbers from the civilian collection. At York, beads were an important artefact for the living, but were far less commonly used to adorn the deceased. However, bracelets, rings and pins were important elements of the funerary assemblage. It is particularly interesting that the majority of these finds were associated with women, even though men are known to have worn rings as well. The same trend was true at Brougham, where the majority of beads were recovered from female and child graves (see Chapter three). Although most of the data from funerary sites derived from only two sites, Brougham and York, an additional eight cemeteries or burials have been excavated. All of these sites, with the exception of Lazonby and Norton, yielded early material. However, the early funerary evidence, albeit limited in number, differs from that of all other site types. None of the characteristic glass bangles or trumpet and headstud brooches were recovered, as the deceased were buried with copper alloy rings and bracelets. Additionally, a fully intact bead necklace was found at Hartlepool. These individual examples are rare,

but the composition, colouring and style are similar to other beads recovered from across the north of England. With the exception of the bead necklace from Hartlepool, the funerary assemblage from both rural and urban sites differed from much of the common regional assemblage used by the living. Across the north of England, very few burials have been excavated and located in the countryside. While the different traditions demonstrate variable cultural experiences, one must also question how was the native population disposing of their dead? Were they taking them to the local cemetery and thus Brougham and York are actually the combined population of the fort, civilian settlements and the rural population? Most likely not, but the lack of funerary evidence demonstrates cultural variability between the urban sites and countryside. While the excavations on military and non-military sites reflected the common usage of personal ornamentation, the funerary contexts represented individuals through a ritual lens. The artefacts recovered were meant to be indicators of an individual’s wealth and status but also illustrated the objects most important to the relevant population. As such, it is interesting to note that funerary contexts included the largest proportion of gold and silver artefacts (five percent of the funerary assemblage). Additionally, the only ivory artefact from the study zone was found in a late period burial at York (RCHM 1962: 81). Most of the gold was shaped into earrings and found at Brougham. In addition to earrings, three necklaces and a pendant were recovered. Most of the material came from female burials, with the exception of the pendant and one earring. Jet/shale artefacts were also predominantly found in female burials.

111

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH The visibility of women in the funerary assemblage during the third and fourth centuries AD parallels the findings from the military sites, suggesting that more women were adorning themselves with Roman costume in the late period and that fewer men were wearing jewellery beyond finger-rings. Even within the limited dataset from the funerary contexts, it is clear that there were differences in the objects used by the living and those placed into funerary contexts. CAVES Like cemeteries, caves were a unique site type. They were not permanently inhabited, yet the assemblage is one of the richest from the north. Additionally, while the artefact assemblage for sites above 300 meters is particularly limited (see Chapter six), the caves included much of the regionally distinct assemblage, as well as concentrations of the ‘Celtic’ influenced dragonesque brooches. Caves showed a degree of connectivity with the military sites, but also reflected traits associated with the rural population. As such, while caves certainly appear to have operated as ritual sites, a number of questions remain. For example, who was making the deposits? To whom were the offering intended? While the evidence for the latter is largely non-existent, the geographical location and the assemblage itself suggest that both urban and rural populations could have made offerings. Additionally, the Roman military had a history of adopting local deities as part of their controlling the region (Henig 1984: 236). In the cases of Victoria and Attermire caves near Settle, a number of sites were situated in close proximity to one another including: Elslack, Ribchester, the villa site of Kirk Sink and a temporary camp at Malham. The rural

population also would have had access. Thus, it would have been feasible for both urban and rural populations to make offerings. Artefactually, the cave assemblage shows connectivity with both the rural and urban populations. When compared with the military and non-military assemblages, the cave sites yielded a greater number of metal artefacts; however, this may have been caused by non-cultural formative properties and not a reflection of choice. The assemblage included brooches and copper alloy bracelets (see Figure 5.14). Proportionally, the latter was greater than even the early military and non-military urban sites. From the cave sites, only three glass bangles were recovered—all from Victoria Cave. Even though variation existed between the caves, military and nucleated settlements, the types of artefacts recovered show an adherence to the regional assemblage, which most likely was deriving from military sites. When one compares caves and rural sites it is immediately apparent that the objects, which circulated from Roman centres through the countryside, were also those deemed most appropriate as offerings (Figure 5.15). Proportionally, the composition of the cave assemblage shows a degree of connectivity with the rural assemblages. However there were variations. For example, the cave assemblage included very few glass bangles in the early period and during the late period, no early manufactured brooches were recovered. However, as occurred on the rural sites, there was a decrease in the artefact assemblage with only 22% of the cave assemblage dating to the late period. The comparison of the artefact assemblages from caves, rural and urban sites produces little conclusive data on who was making offerings at the cave sites. None of the

Figure 5.14. A comparison of the artefact assemblages from military, non-military and cave sites. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found at each of the three site types. (n=2581)

112

CHAPTER FIVE: ‘DISCREPANT IDENTITY’ IN PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION

Figure 5.15. A comparison of the cave sites and the rural sites. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found at each of the three site types. (n=536)

material recovered pre-dated the conquest and the types of objects appear to be Roman manufacture. However, the popularity of dragonesque brooches suggests that the population may have had Celtic origins. Thus, while those who made the initial offerings may have been either ‘Romans’ or ‘natives’, by the end of the first century AD the ritual deposition of artefacts in the cave assemblage was accepted into the regional cultural practices. The cultural assemblage also fails to demonstratively prove to which deity the offerings were made. While the similarity to other caves and an intaglio adorned with Minerva suggest that she may have been the patron goddess, the evidence is insufficient to make any firm conclusions. INDUSTRIAL SITES The personal ornamentation found on the industrial sites provides little to no evidence of material culture or exchange. The sites that produce these artefacts (Drigg and Crambeck) indicate that people wore ornamentation while working on the Roman industries. However, the artefacts themselves, two glass bangles, one jet/shale bracelet, one jet/shale ring and a bronze ring, provide very little information about the sex of their original owners or anything about Roman costume.

The north of England was part of the Roman Empire, but also retained much of its pre-Roman tribal fragmentation (Higham 1986: 149). The army was part of the north’s cultural fabric and created an interdependent symbiotic relationship with the local population. The army depended upon the agriculture from the countryside and urban centres for metalworking, stonemasonry and any number of other resources. The soldiers further interacted with the civilian population by trading material culture, hiring prostitutes, getting married, etc (Sommer 1984: 34-39). All the groups were interdependent and while the relationship between Roman and native; rich and poor; male and female; military and civilian; urban and rural; all varied, each worked to create the cultural dynamics that were essential in making the northern frontier and hinterland synonymous. By assessing each of the site types against the military and non-military nucleated settlements, it is abundantly clear that there were microscopic differences. These variations derived from the local adoption of objects as well as the origin of the population itself. As such, the northern assemblage demonstrates the diverse array of experiences that were incorporated into the Roman Empire. Additionally, within this diversity is a united cultural assemblage that was distributed across urban and rural sites.

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING THE ADOPTION OF THE CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE This chapter introduces discrepant identity within the north of England. Although the assemblage shows a degree of commonality, the intensity of adoption varied. As discussed previously, there was no single factor for the variable experience.

113

CHAPTER SIX: EAST VERSUS WEST: THE IMPACT OF GEOGRAPHY ON THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

As discussed in the previous chapters, the assemblage from each site type was affected by both chronological and socio-economic factors. However, the analysis of the overall assemblage in terms of the principal socioeconomic site-based components, neglects geography, which is a secondary factor affecting the northern assemblage. There are two sets of geographical factors. The first geographic factor relates to the frontier status of northern England, such that the military operations delineated its southerly and northern boundaries. The southern border of the study area is somewhat arbitrarily defined on the basis of the supposed territory of the Brigantes and Parisi tribes (as defined by Mattingly 2007: Figure 3; Hartley and Fitts 1988: 1-6; Raistrick 1965: 5). Chapter three showed that the military provided important conduits for the cultural change of conquered areas and hence the introduction of Empire-based Roman material culture. Therefore, geographic concentrations of the military are likely to affect the distribution of artefacts within the material culture of the whole zone. In addition, a second geographic concentration relating to the military is expected at York, the only legionary fortress within the study area. The second group of geographic factors relate to the topography of the landscape determined by the Pennines. The Pennines ran roughly north-south, which divides the region into an eastern and a western area. Differences in the east and west occurred because of the high-quality arable soils found east of the Pennines, such as in the Vales of Pickering and York (Ramm 1988; 1980; Higham 1980; Fox, C. 1938). Soils to the west, are of a lower quality and thus primarily facilitated hill-farming and subsistence farming (Piggott 1958). Even though lowland zones existed in the west, such as the Eden Valley, fundamental artefactual differences occurred between the zones (Breeze 1988). These included the richer lands from the east, which generated more wealth and accordingly yielded a larger collection of rural sites. Additionally, in the late period, villas were constructed (Taylor, J. 2007; Gates 1982: 25; Haselgrove 1982: 25). A similar geographic pattern is found in the artefact assemblage. The east (arable)/west (pastoral) divide may be overly simplistic (Millett 1990: 10ff), but does serve to highlight the implication of geography in variable experiences. Furthermore, similar trends have been observed in Gaul.

The Gaulish evidence shows a similar divide within both the military and rural populations. Physically, the populations lived in close proximity, but the nature of the interaction was limited with the majority of artefacts deriving from direct exchange (Brandt 1983: 136; Slofstra 1983). The Gaulish data does suggest that Roman emulation was occurring with the widespread adoption of utilitarian items and changes in burial practices for the population in the lowland arable zone (Walter 2005; Roymans 1996: 20ff). Likewise, Woolf observed that the ubiquity of Roman material culture in Gaul was evidence for the internalisation by all members of the provincial society (Woolf as cited by Roth 2002: 37). In the north of England a common assemblage is internalized by populations on both sides of the Pennines, but there are differences between the two geographical regions. The altitude of the Pennines also proved a barrier, so that differences are found between the lowlands and highland sites above 300 metres. The higher altitude yielded fewer sites and less diverse artefact collections. The geographical variations in the northern RomanoBritish cultural assemblage are explored for each of the site types. Although there is a degree of overlap stemming from the common cultural assemblage, the east-west divide demonstrates a geographical unity between military and rural sites and a direct relationship between the geographical region and related socio-economic factors and the region’s cultural assemblage. MILITARY SITES The eastern Pennine military sites yielded the largest assemblage with 383 artefacts having been recovered as compared with 283 from western sites and 192 from the legionary fortress at York. The assemblage from York included smaller percentages of beads and brooches than the lowlands east and west of the Pennines (Figure 6.1). Interestingly, even though crossbow brooches carried a ‘signified’ of Roman military or administrative duties, only three were recovered—all from western Pennine forts (Wild 1985: 386). Although less popular on western sites, the recovery of pins from all site groupings indicates that women were usual components of the population of forts (see Chapters three and five).

114

CHAPTER SIX: EAST VERSUS WEST: THE IMPACT OF GEOGRAPHY ON THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 6.1. The composition of the military assemblage for the early and late Roman periods combined to show differences for three geographic areas. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found in each of the three regions. (n=857)

Figure 6.2. The military assemblage from the early period for the three geographic areas. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found in each of the three regions during the early period. The assemblage from York is misleading as only 25 objects dated to this period. (n=396) The early assemblage from all sites included a number of artefacts worn by both men and women (Allason-Jones 2008: 98-99; 2005b; 1995). The eastern sites included the greatest proportion of pins and beads, while the western sites yielded larger brooch and ring collections (Figure 6.2). Only 25 objects dated to the early period from York and it produced the largest proportion of intaglios and a substantial bead and brooch assemblage. The late assemblage from York included an increase in the number of artefacts in circulation and the artefact assemblage showed similar changes when compared with sites both east and west of the Pennines (Figure 6.3). There was a universal increase in the number of pins and copper alloy bracelets, both of which were proportionally most

abundant from York. The reduction in brooch variability in the late period is duly observed as well. There were also east-west differences in the collections from forts. West of the Pennines, 283 artefacts were recovered from 18 forts and 383 artefacts came from 15 forts to the east. Differences again varied based upon artefact category and period. The eastern military sites yielded a larger number of intaglios and hairpins, both of which parallel findings from the southern hinterland (see Chapter seven). It therefore seems that, based upon the military assemblage, the eastern sites were adopting a wider array of artefacts and changes in fashion were most discernable.

115

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 6.3. The military assemblage from the late period for the three geographic areas. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found in each of the four regions during the late period (n=354) In the early period, the proportion of brooches and bracelets are similar among all groupings, with somewhat larger proportions of these on western sites (Figure 6.2). The western sites were sources of larger proportions of rings, while intaglios and ‘other’ artefacts were recovered in slightly larger proportions in the east. Pins were also more common in the east, showing similarities to the similar arable region in the south of England (Chapter seven). These patterns were largely reversed in the late period and differences tended to be more extreme (Figure 6.3). The western assemblage yielded a higher proportion of brooches and rings, and appeared to reflect greater continuity with the early period assemblage. Thus, it seems that the more economically advantaged region produced a more up-to-date cultural assemblage. The sites both east and west of the Pennines saw a decline in the late period. In fact, only 33% of the western assemblage dated to the late period as compared with 35% of the eastern assemblage. This reduction in artefacts implies that there were both declines in the population and also changes in the costume, with the increase in feminine artefacts not balancing the decline in wearing of brooches on most military sites. Even within these reduced assemblages, the material from western Pennines forts differed significantly. None of the western forts produced more than three single pins and while similar changes occurred across the region, including the reconstruction and reorganization of forts, the assemblage did not parallel the wholesale change which occurred at York and to a lesser extent across military sites in the eastern Pennine zone. Thus, it seems that socio-economic factors are underpinning the cultural variability in the north. In spite of differences in the geographical zones, the material culture shows a degree of commonality (Chapter four). In the early period, the sites yielded predominantly

locally distributed brooches and the traditionally native glass bangles. The changes in the late period saw somewhat wider distribution of bracelets (increasing from 9% to 12% of the complete respective geographical assemblage), hairpins and an overall decline in the wearing of brooches. In addition, local geographical trends are discernable including the distribution of jet/shale. The forts east of the Pennines showed an affinity towards jet and shale— the former of which was collected from the east coast (Allason-Jones 1996). THE URBAN ASSEMBLAGE As discussed in Chapter five, the similarity in non-military assemblages has justified the combining of vici and towns into a single nucleated, urban site type. Like the military sites, the artefact concentrations suggest centrifugal distribution from both military and non-military urban sites. However, geographical trends were also observable in the non-military urban populations (Figure 6.4). Urban sites in the east and west of the Pennines demonstrated similar proportional assemblages. However, York, because of the large bead assemblage, which accounted for 86% of York’s artefact assemblage, appears distinct (Figure 6.4). The urban artefact assemblages appear very similar on either side of the Pennines. This is surprising as sites located east of the Pennines produced large assemblages, including Castleford, Catterick and Dragonby, while the sites west of the Pennines were more numerous but less prolific. One would expect the influence of these individual sites to alter the overall profile of the respective geographic zone. As they do not, one can conclude that factors of wealth, status, ethnicity and gender did not provide wholesale differences between the individual sites.

116

CHAPTER SIX: EAST VERSUS WEST: THE IMPACT OF GEOGRAPHY ON THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 6.4. The distribution of artefacts in various categories among three geographic areas for nucleated settlements, combining vici and towns. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found in each of the three regions. (n=1730)

Figure 6.5. A comparison of the military and non-military sites located west of the Pennines from the late assemblage. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found on either the military or non-military urban sites west of the Pennines. The only major difference exists within the bead and brooch category with the former being found more regularly in civilian contexts. The late brooches were associated with military roles and may explain their recovery. (n=135) During the early period, the geographical variation showed a wide variety of individual assemblages. For example, the sites of Dragonby and Wilderspool included a larger percentage of brooches that were popular in the south of England (i.e. Polden Hill and Hod Hill brooches). The only northern examples of the Thelby Mine brooch were found at Aldborough. The acquisition of hairpins was largely confined to eastern sites—a trend that paralleled the military assemblages and southern hinterland (Chapter seven). However, while the local population dictated the inclusion of unique traits, the majority of material was part of the regional artefact assemblage, which was consistent across military and civilian sites.

The late period assemblages showed a similar degree of unity between military and non-military assemblages, with larger variation existing west of the Pennines (Figure 6.5). This variation was confined to the proportion of beads and brooches recovered with the remaining artefacts showing a high degree of unity. Geographically, the western sites were more isolated and lacked the quality arable soils from eastern sites. Furthermore, unlike the south and east none of the western sites transitioned into towns. The changes apparent at York and on eastern sites, with a reduction in brooches and an increase in hairpins only occur minimally in

117

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 6.6. The eastern military and non-military sites in the late period show a degree of overlap. Both yield abundant quantities of beads and pins, while the number of brooches was greater from the military contexts. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found on either the military or non-military urban sites east of the Pennines. (n=591) the western assemblage and to a lesser extent on the nucleated settlements. The western, late, non-military brooch assemblage was predominantly made up of early manufactured trumpet and headstud brooches. Even within the small geographical zone, the recovery of hairpins was inconsistent. The examples from the non-military sites came from Ribchester and Old Penrith, while the military examples were found at Watercrook, Lancaster, Ilkley, and Elslack. The evidence from the west of the Pennines argues for a different experience than for those living east of the Pennines, where a greater number of artefacts were recovered (Figure 6.6). The eastern sites produced a large corpus of beads. Additionally, the number of brooches, most of which were manufactured in the late period, declined. The uniform nature between forts, vici, civitates and towns east of the Pennines suggest that all sites were benefiting from similar socio-economic factors. Additionally, even though the eastern forts were still military in nature, the overlap in assemblage raises questions of how the various “urban” settlements differed in function. Although the evidence itself is limited, it is possible that forts in the late period were operating much the same way as towns. The regional comparison also indicates that in the sites east of the Pennines, jet and shale were more popular than anywhere else in the region. In all the other site types (including military sites) jet and shale never exceed five percent of the overall assemblage. However, east of the Pennines, 14% of the urban assemblage was made of jet/ shale. Variations within the eastern and western assemblages resulted from socio-economic factors and cultural variability within the population. For example, west of

the Pennines, the assemblage included a larger number of artefacts with native connotations (i.e. glass bangles and dragonesque brooches). The eastern assemblage was more diverse, and incorporated artefacts from across the Empire. The urban landscape shows that there were varying layers of cultural distribution. The material adheres to a unique northern Romano-British assemblage, which differs from the south and presumably from Gaul and the rest of the Empire. Included within this assemblage were locally visible inclusions from across the entire Empire, most likely introduced by troops as they moved into Britain. Even within the regional assemblage, localized trends including geographical position, gender, and wealth helped create subsets of culture. CEMETERIES In the north of England, the majority of the funerary evidence comes from outside major forts and towns, making the cemeteries important elements of the urban landscape. These sites incorporated military and civilian segments of the population. However, the majority of the data comes from just two locations—York and Brougham—while small funerary assemblages have been excavated from Walkington Wold and Low Borrowbridge. Both Brougham and York were primarily used in the late Roman period. Trentholme Cemetery, York originated c. AD 140 as a cremation burial (Wenham 1968b: 4-26) and Brougham was in use from c. AD 200 until c. AD 310 (Cool 2004: 385). The cemetery at York lay east of the Pennines, while Brougham was located in the Eden Valley west of the Pennines. Although both sites were located in different geographical regions, their assemblages differed not only from one another but also from sites within their respective geographical zone (Figure 6.7). Thus, in addition to geographical trends, other socio-economic factors were

118

CHAPTER SIX: EAST VERSUS WEST: THE IMPACT OF GEOGRAPHY ON THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE

Figure 6.7. A comparison of the assemblages from Brougham and York. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found at either Brougham or York. (n=312) prevalent. For example, while all the artefactual evidence suggests that the population was Roman some of the burial practices from Brougham (including the cremation of horses and decoration with iron bucket pendants) argue for non-British Roman burial practices (Cool 2004: 464-466). Thus, at least part of the burial practices and associated culture from Brougham reflected individuals who were not culturally northern Romano-British. Brougham produced a very large bead assemblage while bracelets and pins were more common at York. The beads from Brougham all came from female and child burials and “provide useful independent evidence that glass bead necklaces may well have been a personal ornament that only females wore” (Cool 2004: 389). Beads were an integral part of the assemblage and were recovered in no less than 7% of burials. Furthermore, a large number of the beads from Brougham were recovered in isolation, supporting Puttock’s argument that they served a ritual function (Puttock 2002: 94). However, the bead assemblage from York suggests that beads (and their possible ritual function) were not universally important. Brougham also incorporates material from the eastern Empire into its assemblage. This included the iron bucket pendants and gold-in-glass beads. While the majority of the artefacts were part of the regional cultural assemblage, the iron bucket pendants, gold-in-glass beads, and horse cremation all show variation in funerary traditions. Again, this population was Roman, but their cultural beliefs varied and accordingly the material culture recovered also differed. The assemblage from York was different of that from Brougham, but included much of the regionally expected assemblage including copper alloy and jet/shale bracelets. At York, pins were also an integral part of the late assemblage and represented a third of all artefacts recovered.

THE COUNTRYSIDE The artefact assemblages and the associated experiences of the rural population varied wildly. This ranged from the population living above 300 meters, who acquired minimal material culture to those living on the arable soils east of the Pennines, who showed greater connectivity with Roman material culture and in select cases constructed villas. On a more personal scale, for many Britons life remained unchanged. For others there was “an increased use of Roman goods and the adoption of Roman style of living by people who continued to farm their land in the old way” (Matthews 1999: 27). The east-west divide has further affected the types and quantities of material culture recovered. A larger number of artefacts were recovered in the arable soils east of the Pennines, in particular in East Yorkshire and the villa zone. For example, 108 sites east of the Pennines yielded 245 artefacts, which equates to an average of 2.3 per site. This can be contrasted with the sites west of the Pennines, where 72 sites produced 41 artefacts or an average of .56 per site. Furthermore, only a third of the rural sites in the west yielded personal ornaments, while half of the eastern sites produced personal ornamentation. Altitude also influenced the rural assemblage, with the sites above 300 meters having a far smaller yield than the sites below. Even though the material remains differ from opposite sides of the Pennines, a number of shared trends still existed (Figure 6.8). First, in the late period, there was a decline in artefacts. East of the Pennines there was a 72% reduction in finds and in the west, an 89% drop (In fact only four objects were recovered from western Pennine sites in the late period). Secondly, the proportions of artefacts recovered from both regions were similar with brooches from the regional assemblage proving most popular However, western rural sites in the early period yielded no pins, rings or intaglios, but a greater number of torcs.

119

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 6.8. A comparison of the rural artefact assemblages from sites both west and east of the Pennines during the early period. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found on rural sites either west or east of the Pennines. The individual artefacts are presented proportionally against the relevant complete assemblage. (n=188)

Figure 6.9. A comparison of the military, non-military, and rural sites west of the Pennines during the early period. Each artefact grouping is expressed as a percentage of the total number of artefacts found on each of the site types west of the Pennines. (n=267)

Figure 6.10. A comparison of the early period assemblages from military, non-military and rural sites located east of the Pennines. Like the western assemblage, there appears to be a high degree of overlap suggesting the immediate post-conquest exchange. (n=895) 120

CHAPTER SIX: EAST VERSUS WEST: THE IMPACT OF GEOGRAPHY ON THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE The western artefact assemblages from rural, non-military and military sites, west of the Pennines, illustrated some degree of continuity with a large brooch assemblage and only a few pins (Figure 6.9). Additionally, as figure 6.9 illustrates, the cultural assemblage was being internalized at the time of manufacture with similar proportion and types of objects from all three site types. The overlap between site types also suggests that the material culture from urban and rural sites were intertwined. Although a few unique artefacts were found from the countryside, such as torcs or glass pendants, the assemblage was almost exclusively part of the northern regional assemblage. The eastern assemblage was larger and therefore is more reliable. Like the western sites, the assemblages showed similarities, with a larger rural brooch assemblage and military sites yielding the largest proportion of beads (Figure 6.10). On both sides of the Pennines, the rural population was adopting the regional assemblage. However, like the military and non-military sites, the localized popularity of certain artefacts can again be discerned. The population heralded their ethnic origins by continuing to wear glass bangles and adopted those objects which had some Celtic associations. However as noted prior, the popularity of these objects is not evidence of resistance, but rather the localized adoption of a single strain of the regional assemblage. Although the rural assemblage included similar changes to those discernable on urban sites during the late period, such as the increase in pins and copper alloy bracelets, the quantities in circulation dropped. In fact from the entire rural landscape only 65 personal ornaments were recovered in late contexts (4 from the west and 61 from

the east). While this could be viewed as an abandonment of the regional assemblage, late coins and locally made pottery such as Crambeck Ware are still recovered. Thus, it seems that the rural population was choosing not to adorn themselves or adopt the late cultural assemblage. The causal factors for such variation are most likely economic, with much of the rural population obtaining utilitarian objects rather than the solely decorative late Romano-British jewellery. As occurred during the early period, the late assemblage illustrates the conduits of exchange with artefacts moving from the urban landscape to the rural population. These artefacts may have come from direct trade, exchange through intermediary individuals, or loss and recovery. However, the assemblage demonstrates that the full spectrum of personal adornments were being recovered (Figure 6.11). Additionally, unlike other site types, the rural late brooch assemblage only incorporated seven early manufactured examples, suggesting that the population had abandoned their early costume and the lack of late material culture stems from issues of wealth, status and accessibility rather than the sites’ poor stratigraphy or resistance to the cultural assemblage in the late Roman period. The late assemblage, in particular, demonstrates the range of experiences for the northern population. There were those who moved into towns and vici, while a number of rural inhabitants continued life in a largely uninterrupted way. However, for much of the population, the archaeological evidence shows individuals were adopting pottery over other types of material culture. For example, Fingland was occupied throughout the Roman period and yet produced no personal ornaments and only a small quantity of pottery (Richardson, G.G.S. 1977: 56-57).

Figure 6.11. The comparative artefact assemblages from military, non-military, villas and rural sites from east of the Pennines in the late period. While the rural sites do show an increase in the number of pins, there was a large decline in the number of objects from the late rural sites in the eastern zone. Each of the artefact groupings is expressed as the percentage of the total number of artefacts from forts, non-military urban sites, villas and rural sites east of the Pennines. (n=749) 121

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH The rural Roman experience would have varied widely and resulted from multiple factors. These include: resistance to the Roman culture, which has been strongly argued and reflects that, for many people, the adoption of Roman material culture would have been a matter of choice (Hingley 1997: 95); land tenure, the retention of preRoman costume and objects, as well as violent uprisings such as Boudicca, would have contributed to the limited uptake of Roman culture and material culture (Kurchin 1995). Alternatively, the population size and excavation style may have resulted in a false paucity of finds. For example, the location of sites in modern ploughing zones could have caused a loss of the artefactual evidence, while leaving some architectural remains intact (Darvill and Fulton 1998). For those sites found unscathed, poor excavation techniques may have missed what remained of a smaller artefact assemblage or waste deposits were not located. The lack of beads, environmental remains and other small objects supports this argument, suggesting that the excavators failed to take adequate care in their excavation. It is also possible that the hitherto mentioned socio-economic factors are more visible on rural sites because of the smaller assemblages and populations. Thus, the intensity of occupation on these sites would be less when compared with larger more populace urban settlements. As such, one would certainly expect a more variable cultural assemblage. A final alternative is that the rural population was disposing of their material culture in a different manner. For example, during Jones’s excavation at Newstead, he found that the rural sites produced no artefacts—not even environmental remains (Jones, R.F.J. pers. Comm.). It is most likely that the causal factors for the paucity inherent within the rural assemblage derived from all of these factors, with some of the population choosing to resist the Roman cultural changes, while others adopted Roman material culture, but buried it differently or acquired such small quantities that it was not recovered.

In the highland zone, where the economic impetus was greatly decreased, the inhabitants retained much of their pre-conquest livelihood and identity (Mattingly 2007: 453-484; Roymans 1996, Piggott 1958; Fox, C. 1938).

CULTURAL VARIATION BETWEEN HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND SITES

Only nine artefacts were recovered from the rural sites above 300 metres: two beads, six bracelets, one pin and one ring. The assemblage was predominantly early, with the pin from Swinton being the only late artefact. Two bracelets were recovered from Whorlton—one made of shale the other of gold (Hayes 1988b). The recovery of these objects suggests a high degree of localization in these high-altitude rural sites. Other sites yielded pottery and no personal ornaments, for example Farndale and Hexhamshire Low Quarter. Thus, it seems that the sites, although marginally removed from the agrarian zone were the least integrated into the Roman system.

The rural experience can be divided into three zones of interaction in the same way as the theoretical model of Lattimore (Groenman Van Waateringe 1983: 147). In the central zone, the population inhabited towns and were integral in the dispersal of Roman material culture. Outside these areas, a ‘transitional zone’ existed, which included the arable land, villas and cave sites. The final zone was the ‘outer zone’, which consisted of highland rural sites and the outlying frontier of Scotland. This zone saw the fringe adoption of the regionally distinct cultural assemblage, but was largely separated from the Roman centre. The varying integration into the Roman system would have been part a conscious choice of the inhabitants, but also stemmed from the economic variability of the landscape (see: Roymans 1996; Hingley 1997: 95; Wallerstein 1974). Similar trends are visible in Gaul, as noted in Sword to the Plough, where those who had the greatest to gain by “becoming Roman” did so, with the economic change being the catalyst for an associated shift in culture and identity (Roymans 1996).

Thus, as part of the variable native experience, one must also compare the highland and lowland zone. Fox, in The Personality of Britain: the influence of inhabitation in prehistoric and early historic times studies the variation of these two zones and claims that the lowland was essential for the development of culture (Fox, C. 1938: 27). Fox further expands his argument: “In the Lowland of Britain new cultures of continental origin tend to be imposed on the earlier or aboriginal culture. In the highland, on the other hand, these tend to be absorbed by the older culture (Fox, C. 1938: 34).” Personal ornamentation supports this claim with almost none of the Roman material culture found on other sites being recovered from highland locales. Furthermore, while forts were constructed to maintain control of the highland zone, all were physically located below 300 meters. For example, the fort at Ilkley was located in the Wharfedale Valley at an altitude of approximately 80 meters. Ambleside, in Cumbria, is located in the mountainous Lake District, but as occurred at Ilkley, the fort occupies a position of approximately 50 meters. Thus, while these forts may have operated to control the highland zone, their location would have allowed subsistence agriculture to feed the troops (see Davies 2002). All urban settlements were located below 300 meters, but 22 of the 158 excavated rural sites were located in the highland zone. Such sites are thus quite rare, with most sites being found in the higher quality arable soils in the eastern half of the country. The most prominent zones were the foothills of the Pennines and Dales below the 300 metre contour.

The artefactual assemblages from rural sites are integral in understanding the dynamic nature of the northern cultural assemblage. Even though there is a lack of manufacturing evidence, the distribution and concentrations of artefacts suggests movement from the urban landscape to the countryside. Within this assemblage, one can see isolated evidence of artefacts from across the Empire as well as locally adopted material culture. The artefact assemblage does not mean that the entire population was Roman, but

122

CHAPTER SIX: EAST VERSUS WEST: THE IMPACT OF GEOGRAPHY ON THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE the majority of the population, both urban and rural, were acquiring the regional assemblage. As Cool observed in the analysis of two different agricultural sites; Claydon Pike and Parlington Hollins, “the inhabitants of both these sites aspired towards things Roman as is demonstrated by the tiled roofs, but this did not result in the same way of doing things. Regional differences of habits continue to play a very important role and the mere availability of new types of goods and consumables in an area does not mean that all communities will adopt them” Cool 2006: 206). The same was true for personal ornamentation, which was adopted in varying concentrations depending on myriad socio-economical factors. THE CAVES Caves were primarily found above 300 meters. Geographically they were positioned in the highland zone and were accessible by both rural and urban populations. However, it remains unclear who was visiting these sites (Chapter five). The caves were positioned within a reasonable distance of York and Ilkley. The bulk of the cave artefacts came from the prolonged duration of excavations (between 1830 and 1930) at Victoria Cave. However, the proportion of artefacts recovered, as seen in figure 6.12, was similar and paralleled other sites, by yielding the northern RomanoBritish culture. The offerings left were part of the regional assemblage with very few objects having origins outside the northern cultural zone. Additionally, the recovery of hairpins, bracelets as well as brooches and rings argue that offerings were made by both women and men. The cave assemblage included glass bangles from Victoria Cave, dragonesque brooches from Kelco, Attermire, Dowkerbottom and Victoria Cave as well as a number of late bone pins from Victoria Cave and knee and crossbow brooches from Victoria Cave and Attermire Cave. The cave assemblage

demonstrates that offerings were being left by a wide range of individuals and the assemblage conformed to the regionally distinct cultural assemblage. WHAT EFFECT DOES GEOGRAPHY HAVE ON THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH ASSEMBLAGE? Co-joined with the geography and altitude were economic factors. Although no military sites were located in the highland zone they were meant to control major lines of communication. While evidence from Wales has shown that it was possible to grow sufficient grains to meet the demands of the military (Davies 2002), the western zones were not producing excess grains and it seems that economic growth was more limited. While all sites were part of the Roman Empire, a greater degree of unity in assemblages—in particular during the late period was visible in the east. In the west, while the assemblage recovered was primarily that of the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage, the types of objects within that grouping varied more significantly. The assemblage also failed to demonstrate the feminized elements apparent in the east, with smaller pin and bracelet assemblages. Thus it seems, after the late troop reduction and changes in taxation, the more prosperous eastern regions showed greater integration into the evolving fashions. Even within similar site types, there were differences. This distribution was not based upon the dichotomy of Roman and native, but rather issues of status, wealth, location, employment, religion, origin, gender, and age— all of which contributed to identity according to Mattingly (2004: 10). Although not all factors were directly visible in the artefact assemblage, many of them contributed to the formation and variability of the regional assemblage. For example, women became increasingly visible in the late period, with pins being found on urban sites, while the rural assemblage suggests that the feminine population

Figure 6.12. The cave region assemblage. All data are presented as the proportion of individual objects against the complete regional assemblages. (n=249)

123

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH was slower to adopt the new personal ornaments or that the female decorative items did not justify the necessary expenditure. It seems that in the rural assemblages most of the material culture adopted was functional in nature (i.e. pottery and brooches). Likewise, status and wealth were addressed with the sites in the more valuable soils yielding more artefacts. Origin also played an important part, with small examples of the diversity of the region still present including: Celtic, Eastern, Gaulish and southern British influences. The artefact assemblage was an expression of the dynamic nature of Roman culture. The population adopted new elements and created a regional identity that was internalized by the whole population. While the way the population viewed themselves remains unclear, the acquisition/retention of artefacts from across the Empire, those popular in the region, or those associated with local beliefs all impacted and evolved the region’s identity and material culture (Anderson 1983).

124

CHAPTER SEVEN: A REGIONALLY DISTINCT ASSEMBLAGE?

The northern Romano-British culture expanded upon the cultural identity derived from the south of England, which in turn, was based upon a Gaulish variation (i.e. Freeman 1997). As demonstrated by the northern assemblage, material culture from the immediate predecessor was visible, but the assemblage was further altered by both the local population and cultural traits introduced by the army. This chapter is a case study comparing the northern cultural assemblage with its immediate predecessor—the south. It is expected that there will be a significant degree of overlap due to the physical proximity of the regions and the introduction of cultural traits to the north, directly from the south. Additionally, both regions were part of the Roman Empire and accordingly, the types of objects recovered should reflect this. However, the northern assemblage includes a number of objects not commonly distributed in other provinces and thus, variations are expected to exist. Likewise, varying historical development and socioeconomic trends will also result in the assemblages from the north and south differing. This comparison includes all published northern sites, which were then compared with similar southern sites. The same methodology used to construct the rural assemblage from northern sites was employed for the collection of data from southern rural sites around Verulamium. St. Albans and Herefordshire Archaeological Journal and the national journals were used to provide the requisite data. The artefact assemblage was compared using proportions of each artefact group versus the entire assemblage from a specific site grouping. The southern military type was represented by two forts, Cirencester and Brancaster. Cirencester was first occupied circa AD 45 and rebuilt five years later before being abandoned in AD 75 (Wacher et al. 1982). Brancaster’s origin is unclear, with evidence from outside the eastern gateway dating to the late second century AD, but a possible timber origin as early as the first century AD (Hinchliffe and Green 1985; St Joseph 1936). The fort was expanded in the third century AD and remained in use until the fourth century AD (Hinchliffe and Green 1985). Unlike the north of England, where most of the non-military nucleated settlements were vici, the south of Britain had a number of towns. Verulamium was founded in the first century AD as a Belgic oppidum and after the invasion of AD 43 became a municipum (Frere 1972: iii). The short-

lived military settlement was replaced by the town in AD 49 (Frere 1972: iii) and the city remained prosperous until the late fourth century AD (Frere 1972: iii-iv). The site of Colchester was a legionary fortress. However, it is also commonly referred to as “the first Roman city” with origins dating to AD 49 (Hull 1958: xxv). The fort was destroyed in AD 61 as part of the Boudiccan destruction and was afterwards replaced by London as the capital. Alcester was a major fort in Warwickshire and like Verulamium and Colchester quickly adopted Roman culture and material culture (Booth, P et al. 1996; Cracknell et al. 1996; 1994; Mahany et al. 1994). Villas were more abundant and appeared earlier in date in the south of England (Black 1987; Johnston 1979). For the purposes of this comparative study, the sites concentrated around St. Albans and Hemel Hempstead were utilized. The southern rural assemblage included 18 sites from Puckeridge and Milton Keynes. While the countryside would have been more densely occupied, the extensive modern ploughing has obscured many rural sites (Trow 2003). To compare cemeteries, Chichester, The Eastern Cemetery at London and St. Stephens, Verulamium were compared with Brougham and York. The Eastern Cemetery was utilized in the first and second century AD, most likely coinciding with the redevelopment of the town (Barber 2000). St. Stephens initially dated to the first century AD and burials continued until the late third century AD (Davey 1935). Lastly, Chichester was used between AD 70 and the 3rd century AD (Down and Rule 1971). The temple at Harlow was used as a comparison to the cave sites in the absence of other similar sites in the south. The Harlow temple site yielded a large ritual collection analogous to the cave sites of the north. As discussed in the introduction, the prolonged period of pre-conquest contact, the arable soils and a more united tribal system resulted in a quicker and greater Roman influence in the south (see: Sergent 2002; Haselgrove 1984). The Roman administrators were able to use the preexisting bureaucracy, which led to a comparatively quick subjugation, between AD 43 and AD 51 (Mattingly 2007: 68ff). This, in turn, led to a faster civilizing process, as evidenced by the early and rapid construction of towns and

125

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Site:

Military

Nucleated

Villa

Rural

Funerary

Ritual

North Number of sites

22.6

95.4

21.7

1.6

38.3

30.6

38

18

10

158

9

8

South Number of sites

27

114

73

8

27

148*

2

7

6

18

4

1

Table 7.1. The average artefact yield per site grouping from the north and south as well as the number of sites included within the study. *only one southern ritual site was used and the site was chosen because of its high quality yield. villas (both perceived to be evidence of pacified Roman expansion). Similar trends did occur in the north of England, but not until the third century AD. The civilizing processes in the south of England were further projected into the artefact assemblage, with greater quantities of material culture found in the civilian sector than any other site type from the south. For example, table 7.1, shows the average yield per site from both the north and south of England. THE MILITARY SITES Fifty-three artefacts were recovered from southern military contexts. The military quickly moved into the northern counties as the Empire expanded. Consequently, it is only feasible to compare the early period assemblages, as the southern material is largely limited to the first and second centuries AD. Overall, the style of costume and types of personal ornamentation recovered from military contexts were similar. Nevertheless, artefact composition within the categories differed (Figure 7.1). Turquoise/blue/

green/black beads; glass bangles; trumpet, headstud, dragonesque and penannular brooches were common in the northern assemblage. The southern assemblage was predominantly composed of Aucissa, Hod Hill and Colchester derivative brooches, green/blue annular beads and a number of bone hairpins were found at Brancaster. From those objects typical in the north, only one glass bangle, one trumpet brooch and three penannular brooches were recovered from southern forts. The different styles of brooches among north and south assemblages show that both the north and south were regionally distinct while also forming part of the larger Empire. Additionally, while copper alloy bracelets and pins were found in both regions, they represented a larger proportion of artefacts from the south. This suggests that southern women were more accustomed to wearing Roman costume and were styling themselves in Roman fashions. The recovery of these objects from forts, again demonstrates the fluid nature of assemblages in both regions and the difficulty of separating civilian and military assemblages (Chapter five; Allason-Jones 2001; 1988).

Figure 7.1. Early military site assemblages by percentage. The northern and southern sites show a high degree of overlap with brooches being the most abundant. However, the type of brooches and the composition of bracelets reflect variations within regional assemblages. Each artefact grouping is expressed as the percentage of the total number of early artefacts from all sites either in the north of south of England. (n=437) 126

CHAPTER SEVEN: A REGIONALLY DISTINCT ASSEMBLAGE?

Figure 7.2. The early nucleated settlements from the north (both vici and towns) and the south. Like the military sites, brooches were most abundant and pins were rarer. The assemblages again showed variation within similar proportions of objects. Each artefact grouping is expressed as the percentage of the total number of artefacts from southern nucleated, northern towns or northern vici. (n=1047)

The comparison of early military assemblages from both regions demonstrates the universality of the material culture and the way in which it varied regionally. The wearing of brooches was common throughout England and illustrated the adoption of elements of Roman material culture and identity. However, the variation within these brooches, with those in the south having continental origins and those from the north showing Celtic influences, illustrates the formed regional assemblages. NUCLEATED SETTLEMENTS The nucleated settlements yielded the largest assemblages from both the north and south. However, there were differences between the regions. The north included a number of vici with only a few towns, while the southern materials included seven nucleated settlements including the civitas capital for the Cantiaci tribe at Canterbury, as well as the sites of Verulamium, Camuldonium, Ware, Cirencester and vici at Braughing and Alcester. The southern nucleated settlements yielded larger average assemblages (table 7.1). Thus, it seems plausible that the socio-economic factors mentioned previously not only allowed for the quick civilizing but also produced larger civilian assemblages. The general trends observed in the north, with brooches being common in the early period and pins most abundant in the late period, also occurred in southern nucleated settlements. During the early period, brooches were most abundant in both regions and pins did not account for more than ten percent of the nucleated assemblages (Figure 7.2). In the early period, the northern and southern assemblages yielded similar proportions of all artefacts, with southern sites yielding a greater percentage of brooches and a lower number of beads. However, like the military assemblages,

there were variations within the style of actual objects (i.e. headstud versus Hod Hill). Brooches were most common on all three site types and the three most abundant varieties in the south—Hod Hill (14%), Langton Down (10%) and Nauheim derivatives (7%)—only accounted for eight percent of the early northern brooches. In the early period on southern sites, no glass bangles were found and copper alloy accounted for 63% of all bracelets. In the north, glass bangles represented 66% of the assemblage and copper alloy only11%. Thus, while the proportion of bracelets recovered was similar, the variations within composition demonstrate differing regional assemblages. The greater number of bracelets recovered may also have been evidence of a wealthier population in the south. Figure 7.2 shows that the greatest proportional variation existed within the bead assemblage. In the north, beads were recovered in greater quantities in both the early and late periods. However, turquoise melon beads from the vicus at Castleford accounted for a large proportion of the northern assemblage. Like the abundance of copper alloy bracelets, the variable recovery of beads may be an expression of differential wealth, with Roman women in the south choosing necklaces and bracelets of metal not beads. In the late period, over half the southern assemblage was comprised of pins, while on northern towns and vici, pins accounted for less than a quarter (Figure 7.3). Just like the early period popularity of copper alloy bracelets, the pin collection argues for women being more accustomed to Roman styling in the south. However, the increase in pins from both regions suggests that in Roman Britain they were worn by wealthier women. As demonstrated in Chapter six, the recovery of pins appears to correlate with sites in the eastern Pennine zone, which included the arable, more profitable soil. The pin assemblage, 127

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 7.3. Late nucleated assemblages from the north and south of England. The southern assemblage incorporates a larger proportion of feminine pins. The size and composition of the assemblages suggests a wealthier southern population. Data are presented as the number of individual artefacts versus the complete regional assemblages. (n=1029)

like the hitherto mentioned brooches, shows variation in style, with type 1 and 2 being most common in the south, while spherical and ovoid headed pins (type 3) were most abundant in the north (Crummy 1979: 160). The proportion of bracelets remained constant in both regions. Jet/shale bracelets became increasingly popular in both the north and south during the late period. While the Yorkshire coast was one source of jet (Allason-Jones 1996), the presence of jet and shale from southern sites suggests intra-region trade as well as local acquisition of materials, in particular jet. However, of the 17 jet/shale bracelets recovered from the south, all but three came from excavations at Verulamium, most likely reflecting localized popularity or manufacture. The number of brooches recovered from late contexts represented 14% of the northern combined assemblage and 17% of the southern assemblage. While some brooches were manufactured in the late period, both regions included a degree of artefact retention. In the south, 44 of the 80 brooches from late contexts were, according to the typologies, manufactured in the early period. This was comparable to the northern material, where 36% of brooches from the late period were manufactured in the early period (Chapter four). One difference between the north and south was the larger feminine artefact assemblage from the south in both the early and late periods. Additionally, copper alloy bracelets appeared earlier in southern nucleated assemblages. These changes reflect the overarching trends, with the south appearing wealthier and more culturally Roman, most likely because of socio-economic factors.

VILLA SITES The villa landscape, in the south of England, developed shortly after the conquest most likely faceted by the long period of pre-conquest contact, which accelerated the region’s integration into the Roman economic system (Black 1987; Haselgrove 1984). As Drinkwater notes: “however much scholars argue the details, the villa, and even more, its architectural growth and elaboration, are, just as much as those of the town, sure indications of the increase in wealth and growing desire for material comfort which were part and parcel of the Romanisation” (Drinkwater 1983: 158). The northern population too constructed villas, showing an “increase in wealth” but because of the initial instability of the region and continued military presence, their construction did not occur until the late period (Fenton-Thomas 2003; Kenyon 1991: 55). There were no early northern villas and thus no easy comparison exists before the third century AD. While it is possible to compare the assemblage from the southern villas against northern nucleated settlements and rural sites, the function of the sites renders such comparisons meaningless. In the early period, the villa sites in the south yielded a large number of brooches, as expected, but pins represented 19% of the assemblage, a significantly larger proportion than any other northern sites. Intaglios were also more common in the south and included different iconography than from the north. For example, six intaglios from Gorhambury included two dolphins swimming associated with Neptune, a Bonus Eventus and two animals standing (Neal 1990: 162). The northern varieties were more militaristic in nature.

128

CHAPTER SEVEN: A REGIONALLY DISTINCT ASSEMBLAGE?

Figure 7.4. Villa assemblages from the north and south of England. The southern material follows the trends observed for both military and nucleated settlements with larger decorative assemblages including pins and bracelets and smaller numbers of beads. Data are presented as the number of artefacts versus the complete regional villa assemblage. (n=413)

In the late period, the villas from both regions can be directly compared as seen in figure 7.4. The southern sites yielded greater concentrations of bracelets, pins and rings insinuating that women were more willing to express themselves and their wealth in a Roman manner. In the north, beads and brooches were recovered in greater numbers. The northern preference for beads reflects the continued wearing of lower cost bracelets and necklaces, while their southern counterparts adopted solid metal variations. The brooches recovered from the north also suggest an overall slower rate of change, with a number of early manufactured brooches being located in late contexts. The differences between the villa assemblages reflect variable experiences between the two regions. While villas were constructed in the north, the assemblage lacks the wealth and diversity of the southern sites. Thus, while the northern artefact assemblage does show changes in the personal adornments of both men and women, the southern material suggests a more uniform cultural change with the entire population: men, women and children, adopting Roman material culture. RURAL SITES More than 80% of the British population lived in the countryside (Mattingly 2007: 453). As demonstrated throughout this research, the northern rural sites yielded small artefact assemblages and the pre-Roman architecture remained common on the majority of sites. The south of England, as occurred in each of the other site groupings, showed a more civilized, Roman population. The prosperity of the southern population was also

discernable from larger average assemblages (see table 7.1). Additionally, whereas only 37% of northern sites produced personal ornamentation 36% yielded pottery, all the southern rural sites produced personal ornamentation and either pottery or coins. Although differences existed in the levels of acquisition, the proportional artefact assemblages show a degree of similarity in the early period. Brooches were most abundant on all sites. The northern sites yielded a larger proportion of bracelets, and pins were more common in the south (Figure 7.5). Just as observed in Chapter five, the centrifugal nature of the assemblage was also apparent in the south, with the types of brooches paralleling those from urban sites. For example, in the south, Colchester and Nauheim derivative brooches were most common on rural sites. Additionally, the inhabitants of the southern rural sites were not wearing glass bangles, with all recovered bracelets being made of bronze. By the late Roman period the differences between the regional assemblages was highlighted. First, the number of artefacts from the south increased, while the northern assemblage declined Second, the southern assemblage illustrates a more material culturally Roman population, with rings, bracelets and pins being the most common. Additionally, brooches, which saw a large decline in their late manufacturing, all but disappear from southern rural assemblages (Figure 7.6). While the assemblage does vary between the north and south, the populations from both regions were internalizing their respective regionally distinct cultural assemblages. In the north, a decline in personal ornaments was observable

129

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 7.5. The early rural assemblages incorporated similar proportions of artefacts. However, the southern sites produced larger average assemblages and the types and composition of objects differed. Data are presented as the number of individual artefacts versus the complete regional, rural assemblages. (n=232)

Figure 7.6. The late rural assemblages demonstrate significant variability. The southern sites include larger bracelet, pin and ring collections, while brooches continued to form an integral part of the northern collection. The universal increase in pins shows that changes occurred in both regions and that these changes were passed to the countryside, albeit in differing intensities. Data are presented as the number of individual artefacts versus the complete regional, rural assemblages. (n=112)

during the late period. This change coincides with a shift to decorative elements of the costume, like copper alloy bracelets and pins and the abandonment of the functional brooches. The increase in the number of artefacts recovered in the south argues for the continued economic expansion for the entire population. The rural inhabitants not only

had access to the solely decorative items but also chose to adorn themselves comparably to the urban population. In the north, the experience appears more fragmented with only individual sites showing significant material cultural change.

130

CHAPTER SEVEN: A REGIONALLY DISTINCT ASSEMBLAGE? RITUAL SITES: TEMPLE

CAVES

VERSUS

HARLOW

In the north of England caves were the only ritual sites excavated and as no similar cave sites exist in the south, the Romano-British temple at Harlow was used as a comparable site. The temple was first constructed in the late first century AD, reconstructed around AD 200 and remained in use until the latter part of the fourth century AD (France and Gobel 1985)—a similar timeframe to the northern cave sites. Overall, the assemblages were similar, both yielding a high proportion of brooches (Harlow 63% and caves 51%). However, Harlow, similarly to other southern sites, produced a greater number of pins and rings but fewer beads. The similarity between ritual assemblages was most pronounced in the early period, where the assemblages from both Harlow and caves included similar concentrations of artefacts (Figure 7.7). Harlow yielded a greater number of pins and rings as expected based upon the urban assemblage and its brooches formed part of the southern regional assemblage. In both ritual locations (Yorkshire and Harlow) metal was the most common material. In the late period the assemblages differed. As visible in figure 7.8, the excavations at Harlow unearthed a number of brooches, while the Yorkshire caves showed a preference for pins. However, due to the nature of the cave excavations in Yorkshire, the late contexts are particularly small. Colchester derivative brooches were the most common type from Harlow in both the early and late period, even though they were only manufactured until AD 150 (Hattatt 1982: 37). The majority of the late brooches came from period V—an occupational phase and period VIII—post-temple (France and Gobel 1985: 23-70).

Interestingly, while the other site types from the south all reflected the greater accruement of wealth, a more civilized population, and a greater adherence to the manufacturing chronology of artefacts, Harlow does not. Does this mean that the population was offering Minerva out of date items? Were the brooches simply recovered from secondary deposits? Whatever the cause, the ritual assemblage from the south differs not only from the north but also the other southern site types. DEATH IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH Funerary contexts are integral to understanding how an individual expressed him or herself personally as well as illustrating an individual’s cultural identity. In the north, two cemeteries have been extensively excavated (Brougham and York) and for the purpose of comparison, the data from four southern sites (London’s Eastern Cemetery; St. Stephen’s, Verulamium; Braughing; and Chichester) has been collated. The majority of finds from the southern cemeteries come from the inhumations dating to the third and fourth centuries AD. This timeframe parallels the northern burials. From the early period, in the south, brooches were most common. Additionally, the presence of a bead anklet in a male burial suggests that at least in select cases, men too were adorning themselves with bead objects (Barber and Bowsher 2000). In the late period, the northern sites produced more beads and brooches (Figure 7.9). The former were predominantly single beads from deposits, which Puttock argued were ritual in nature (Puttock 2002: 94). The southern assemblage yielded larger bracelet and pin collections—a trend observable from all southern sites. Even though the northern bracelet assemblage was smaller, both regions produced similar compositional divisions.

Figure 7.7. The early assemblage from ritual sites demonstrates that similarly to the other site types, brooches were most common in both regions and that the southern sites included a larger proportion of early pins. Data are presented as the number of individual objects versus the complete ritual assemblages. (n=183) 131

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 7.8. The late ritual assemblages show significant variation. The continued recovery of early brooches from Harlow differs from all other ritual sites and the southern material. Data are presented as the number of individual artefacts versus the complete ritual assemblages. (n=101) Most of the objects were made of copper alloy and in both regions approximately 40% manufactured in jet/shale. For those burials that could be sexed, it was observable that all but one southern bracelet came from feminine burials. The exception was a single shale bracelet from the Eastern Cemetery at London (Barber and Bowsher 2000) and although an isolated example, it demonstrates the difficulties in sexing small finds (see: Allason-Jones 2005b, 2001, 1995; Van Driel-Murray 1995)

being recovered in male burials. Their recovery illustrates the degree of commonality between the regions, as knee and crossbow brooches were important signifiers of office throughout the provinces (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 2023; Wild 1985: 38; Hattatt 1982: 40). Even though the north and south had differing regional assemblages, these late brooches are a reminder that both populations formed part of a common Roman culture and as such, an inevitable degree of overlap can be expected.

The late brooch assemblage from both sites was remarkably similar, with a number of crossbow and knee brooches

While there were similarities between the assemblages, the small pin collection differs from both regional

Figure 7.9. The late cemetery assemblage from the north and south. The northern assemblage includes only the data from Brougham and York, while the southern data included evidence from St. Stephens, London, Chichester, and Braughing. The assemblage clearly differed with larger bead collections from the north and a larger bracelet assemblage from the south. The funerary sites did not demonstrate the large increase in pins visible from other sites. Data are presented proportionally as the number of individual objects versus their complete respective assemblages. (n=413)

132

CHAPTER SEVEN: A REGIONALLY DISTINCT ASSEMBLAGE? assemblages. Even though pins were more popular in the southern funerary assemblage, their level of recovery differs from the proportion found on urban sites and in the countryside. Thus, it is clear that a distinction in the cultural assemblage used in living and funerary contexts existed. Differences between the regions clearly existed, but the regional variation appears most acute in funerary contexts. IS THERE A NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE? This comparison is only meant to be a case study. However, it does demonstrate many of the points discussed throughout this research. The cultural assemblage in the north of England was regionally distinct, while remaining part of the larger Roman economic and cultural system. This was most apparent in the proportion of objects. For example, the proportions of brooches recovered were similar in both the north and south during the early period, even though the type of brooch differed. Thus, there was both a common and discrepant experience between the regions. The artefact assemblage does show fundamental differences in the acculturation processes of the north. In the south, the rapid construction of villas and towns, the adoption of personal ornamentation in significant numbers from rural and urban contexts and the expansion of said assemblage in the late period argues for a more pacified, wealthier ‘Roman’ population. While the north does show similar chronological changes as the region was civilized, these changes were less universal, with the greatest change discernable in the urban populations in the arable soils east of the Pennines. Thus, it appears that the continued militaristic tradition in the north, coupled with wealth, gender, geographical position and opportunitistic trends meant that change was less widely experienced than in the pacified, southern hinterland. However, only upon further analysis can these trends and causal factors be verified.

133

CHATPER EIGHT: THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

This book has collated personal ornamentation from all published sites in the north of England to demonstrate cultural dynamics and variation between site types. Although the data allows for the analysis of myriad themes, by utilizing a macroscopic approach, the formation of a unique cultural assemblage has been observed. This research expanded upon pre-existing northern RomanoBritish studies as well as providing a firm foundation for future work not only on northern England, but also on provincial culture as a whole. This chapter will first summarize the findings concerning variation in the site assemblages (Chapter five), the influence of temporal (Chapter four) and geographical factors (Chapter six), and how these factors combine to reflect the themes of a common regionally distinct assemblage and the discrepant experiences of individuals. Subsequently, the implications of this research on future work including object function, manufacturing evidence, gender, and artefact analysis and further regional studies will be discussed. By virtue of the scale of the data set, there are themes that have been overlooked or addressed in a cursory manner, yet the research reflects not only the cultural formation process but also variation in the regional assemblage over time. Additionally, even with the varying quality and intensity of excavations, this research demonstrates that the assemblage from the north does allow for comparative studies (i.e. Chapter seven) and that the cultural assemblage shows cultural change within the region. The north of England, as a frontier region, went through a number of phases. At the time of conquest the divide between ‘Roman’ and ‘native’ appears to have been greatest (Mattingly 2007: 90-92, 166-168; Webster, G. 1969: 48-90). For example, Cassius Dio states in regard to Germany: “The Romans were holding portions of it—not entire regions, but merely such districts as happened to have been subdued, so that no record has been made of the fact—and soldiers of theirs were wintering there and cities were being founded. The barbarians were adapting themselves to Roman ways, were becoming accustomed to hold markets, and were meeting in peaceful assemblage. They had not, however, forgotten their ancestral habits, their native manners, their old life of independence, or the power derived from arms. Hence, so long as they were unlearning

these customs gradually and by the way, as one might say, under careful watching, they were not disturbed by the change in their manner of life, and were becoming different without knowing it.” (Cassius Dio book LVI chapter 18, 39-41). While written with a specific agenda, Cassius Dio demonstrates an understanding of the temporal significance in cultural change and although he was writing in regard to Germany, the processes of cultural change appear similar. The prolonged exposure and process of “unlearning” would have been characteristic for both ‘Romans’ and ‘indigenous people’. The implications of change would have altered the population from ‘Roman’ and ‘native’ to a much more diverse social hierarchy that included military soldiers, craftsmen, merchants, wives, children, prostitutes, and peasants. Resistance has been cited as the reason for the lack of change in the countryside (see Mattingly 2007: 522-527; Hingley 1997; Kurchin 1995; Higham 1983; Whittaker 1995), but the duration of occupation would have altered the perceptions of what was ‘Roman’ and ‘native’ and thus factors such as access to the Roman landscape, geography and social status all appear to have had a greater impact upon the distribution of the assemblage. THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH ASSEMBLAGE Finds of personal ornamentation from the north of England were distributed across all site types. Although the adoption of the assemblage was not universal, the artefacts recovered from forts, towns, vici, villas, rural sites, caves, and cemeteries were all part of a regionally distinct assemblage. The artefact assemblage consisted of three main groups: objects from across the Empire, the artefacts that formed the regional assemblage and local concentrations of objects. First, artefacts were introduced from across the Empire, mainly along military conduits. Proportionally, these distinct objects only accounted for a small percentage of the entire assemblage, but their recovery represented the expanded trade networks of the north. These objects included gold-in-glass beads, iron bucket pendants, certain zoomorphic and intaglio themes (i.e. lions), Colchester derivative, Naucissa derivative brooches, Hod Hill, and Krafenfibel varieties, as well as pottery, animal and plant remains (Cool 2004; Tyers 1996; Reece 1991: 33; Fulford 1984: 132). Although elements of

134

CHAPTER EIGHT:THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS this ethnically diverse array of objects were recovered from all site groupings, they were primarily found on military and associated civilian sites. One such example is the recovery of gold-in-glass beads and iron bucket pendants from Brougham (Cool 2004: 464-466). The objects support evidence from an altarstone engraved with DEO MARTI…… IANVARIVS N EQ STRATONICIANORVM V M (To the God Mars […] Januarius of the Company of Cavalrymen from Stratonice deservedly fulfilled vow (RIB 780; altarstone) by suggesting the presence of individuals who were ethnically eastern. A second example is the site of Dragonby, where the personal ornamentation differed from most other sites by including a number of Gaulish and southern British varieties. In both cases, these artefacts accounted for less than ten percent of each site’s complete assemblage. In addition to these unique elements of the cultural assemblage, the soldiers and their origins contributed ideas and beliefs to the pre-existing culture, which impacted the formation of the northern RomanoBritish cultural grouping. The second component of the northern cultural assemblage was those objects primarily distributed in the north of

England. These objects were found only selectively in other regions and represented the majority of artefacts in the region of study (Chapter three). Their concentration and distribution suggests that they were manufactured in the north, even though the evidence for such activities remains largely non-existent. The regionally distinct assemblage included the early headstud and trumpet brooches, penannular (primarily Fowler type A) and dragonesque brooches, glass beads, copper alloy and iron finger rings as well as glass bangles (Figures 8.18.6). Although these were Roman forms, the decoration and distribution incorporated elements of the indigenous population as well. During the late period, the assemblage transitioned to include knee and crossbow brooches, bone pins—primarily those with spherical or ovoid heads—jet/ shale and copper alloy bracelets, as well as the continued wearing of bead necklaces and bracelets and rings made of copper and iron (Figures 8.7-8.11). These objects were found on all site types and formed the basis for a cultural assemblage that differed from that of the south, as illustrated in Chapter seven and reflects the combination of various Roman cultural strains with local northern influences.

Figure 8.1. Glass bangle fragment. Type 3a. L70mm; W8mm; T13mm o and Cool 1998: 185

Figure 8.2. Trumpet brooch. L54mm.

Figure 8.3. Headstud brooch. Image from Cool and Philo 1988: 41

Figure 8.4. Dragonesque brooch. Image from Dearne and Lord 1998: 58

135

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

Figure 8.5. Melon bead. L15mm D14mm. Image from Cool and Philo 1998: 185

Figure 8.7. Jet bracelet. L22cm; W9cm; T2.2cm. Image from Macgregor, A. 1976: 6

Figure 8.6. Fowler type ‘A’ penannular brooches. Image from Fowler 1960: fig. 1, pg. 151

Figure 8.8. Crossbow brooch. L70mm

Figure 8.9. Copper alloy bracelet. D48mm; W3mm; T3mm

Figure 8.10. Pin Type 3. Image from Wilson, P.R. 2002: 187

Figure 8.11. Knee brooch. Image from Cool and Philo 1998: 50

136

CHAPTER EIGHT:THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS Lastly, the assemblage demonstrated localized trends. These most likely derived from local manufacturing and thus distribution. Although many of these locally popular objects formed part of the larger regional assemblage, they were recovered in above normal concentrations. Examples include the large collection of turquoise melon beads from Castleford and the distribution of jet/shale along the eastern half of the study zone—near one of the major sources of jet on the Yorkshire coast (Allason-Jones 1996). Additionally, a third of all dragonesque brooches were excavated from cave sites. As has been demonstrated in Chapters three and seven, the artefact assemblages from all sites, both in the north and south included similar proportions of objects. This trend, therefore, illustrates the connectivity of northern Roman Britain into the Empire as a whole. However, the variation in the specific types of objects, the quantities recovered and the quality of the material all stemmed from questions of choice, in addition to gender, ethnicity, social status and contact. Thus, the distribution across all site types and the inclusion of indigenous traits in the military assemblage and Roman artefacts from rural contexts, illustrates the formation of a region-wide culture. For those sites, with no discernable post-conquest change, it appears that they were not avoiding wearing personal ornamentation to retain their ‘nativeness’, but rather, they were adorning themselves with what was available in accordance with their economic standing. Conceivably, small subsets of the population were styling objects as an act of resistance, but the recovery of similar objects from all site types implies the formation of a Romano-British culture with its distinct material culture. Semiotically, the artefacts from the north of England would have demonstrated both integration into the Roman Empire and a regional cultural identity. For example, the north-

Brooches

Beads Pins Bracelets

Rings Intaglios

south case study indicated that proportionally, brooches accounted for similar percentages of the assemblages in the early period. Thus, the wearing of a brooch reflected part of a common Roman identity, but the type of brooch would have varied based upon the provincial origin of the wearer. Even though the assemblage between site types shows a degree of commonality, there were site by site variations in terms of the type and concentration of objects recovered (Chapter three). Although the conclusions inherent within this work are based upon broad traits, there are unique sites within the region that do not conform. These sites serve as a reminder of the ever-changing population and in-turn cultural assemblage. Table 8.1 illustrates the primary types of northern RomanoBritish assemblage. These objects were found regularly across all site groupings and both periods. CHRONOLOGY While the data from personal ornamentation in the north of England argues for a common cultural identity, temporal changes were one of the factors resulting in a variable experience. In the early period, there is greater homogeneity in the rural sites. In contrast, the urban landscape was more united during the late period. The early artefact assemblage included the full range of artefacts with beads, bracelets, brooches, earrings, intaglios, necklaces, pendants, pins and rings being recovered, but was characterized by an abundance of brooches, glass bangles, beads, rings, and a small scattering of copper alloy and bone pins. Although brooches were an integral part of assemblages across Britain and Gaul, the northern material varied from that of the south (Chapter seven).

x Headstud x Trumpet x Knee x Crossbow x Penannular A x Zoomorphic Plate x Dragonesque x Turquoise, blue, green and black beads x Melon, annular, biconical and cylindrical beads x Ovoid hairpins x Bone x Glass bangles x Copper alloy x Jet/shale x Copper alloy rings x Minerva, Mars, and hunting scenes

Table 8.1. The major components of the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage.

137

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH

(DUO\

+HDGVWXGEURRFK 7UXPSHWEURRFK 'UDJRQHVTXHEURRFK =RRPRUSKLFEURRFKHV *ODVVEDQJOHV  

7KURXJKRXW

%OXHJUHHQ WXUTXRLVH EHDGV 3HQDQQXODU EURRFKHV &RSSHUDOOR\ DQG,URQULQJV (DUULQJV ,QWDJOLRV ‘2WKHU’REMHFWV

/DWH

.QHHEURRFKHV &URVVERZEURRFKHV +DLUSLQV -HW&RSSHUDOOR\ EUDFHOHWV

Figure 8.12. A Venn diagram illustrating the period of recovery for the major components of the northern Romano-British cultural assemblage It is during the early period that the greatest ‘native, Celtic’ influence is visible. Dragonesque brooches were being manufactured in Yorkshire and Humberside, glass bangles had Iron Age origins but were recovered from military sites, and some trumpet brooches were decorated with Celtic designs (Hunter 2008; Bayley and Butcher 2004: 160-174; Johns 1996: 121-123, 160; Price 1988; Hattatt 1985: 105-112). Furthermore, by the end of the first century AD, the full range of early personal ornamentation had been disseminated through the urban landscape and countryside. As Walter found in regards to pottery distribution in Germany, the exchange of artefacts happens concurrently with manufacture (Walter 2005: 375). In the north of England, personal ornaments were being acquired while ‘in fashion’ and not cycled to the rural population as they become outdated. Thus, the changes in the northern cultural assemblage happened shortly after the conquest, even though other civilizing processes were not visible until the late period. The late period saw significant changes in the region as a whole. The number of garrisoned troops was reduced, Septimius Severus renewed treaties with Scottish tribes, some of the forts were reconstructed and there is evidence of reorganization inside the forts (Mattingly 2007: 128ff; Hodgson and Bidwell 2004; Southern 2004; Millett 1990; Frere 1987: 154ff; James 1984: 120-210). Changes in the taxation policy meant that the military was more dependent upon the local population to provide sufficient food items, as commodities were not being imported from

the rest of the Empire (Millett 1990: 205; Fulford 1984; Breeze 1981: 154). Additionally, a pacified hinterland can be discerned with towns and villas both being founded. Personal ornamentation also altered in the third and fourth centuries AD. The wearing of brooches declined with only knee, crossbow, disc, and penannular variations being manufactured (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 179-186; Hattatt 1985). Likewise, glass bangles were replaced with copper alloy and jet/shale examples. Rings and beads were recovered in approximately equal numbers, while the recovery of pins increased dramatically (Figure 8.12). Although these changes were discernable across the region as a whole, only 20% of the rural assemblage was late in date. This decline directly contrasted evidence from the urban landscape, where there was an overall increase of personal ornaments recovered in late contexts (this varied geographically). The causal factors for these discrepancies remain ambiguous, but the decrease in the utilitarian brooches and an increase in the non-functional feminine artefacts suggest that the decorative objects were of less importance to the rural population. This idea is supported by the recovery of late Roman pottery from sites, which illustrates the rural populations continued use of utilitarian material culture. Wild (1985: 413) suggests that women continued wearing their traditional clothes until the second century AD and thus, it is possible that many rural women did not have sufficient wealth to justify expenditure on the non-essential objects.

138

CHAPTER EIGHT:THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS GEOGRAPHY Like chronology, the geographical location of a site impacted its integration into the cultural assemblage and was one factor that contributed to the formation of varying identities within the study zone. As discussed in Chapter six, the data were divided into three zones: West of the Pennines with forts, vici, rural and cemetery sites; east of the Pennines, which included all site groupings; and York, the legionary fortress. All four zones yielded similar types of objects, but differences existed based upon the individual type of object, the concentration of artefacts and temporal variation. The early assemblage from all three zones showed the highest degree of similarity. Brooches were most common, glass bangles represented the majority of bracelets, and pins were only recovered in small quantities. This is not to say that all artefact assemblages were equal, as there were localized trends, including the larger than average bead assemblage from Castleford and the localized recovery of southern British and Gaulish material from Dragonby. Furthermore, the larger assemblages from urban sites and the similarity in site assemblages demonstrated a centrifugal distribution of artefacts. Additionally, unlike the south of England, which had prolonged pre-conquest contact, the material culture recovered from the north appears to have been introduced to the region postconquest and cultural change appears to derive directly from contact with the Roman cultural system. Thus, while proportionally the north of England shows a degree of homogeneity in the early period, there are significant regional variations in the late period. However, there are some overarching themes that remained true across the entire region. First, the number of brooches in circulation diminished with penannular, knee, crossbow and glass-centred plate brooches, according to the most up-to-date typology (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 179186), being the only examples still manufactured in the late period. Additionally, there was a small rise in the proportion of bracelets recovered, with glass bangles being replaced by copper alloy and jet/shale varieties. Lastly, pins increased unilaterally from all sites and regions during the third and fourth centuries AD. These universal changes in the assemblage illustrate the shared experiences across geographical boundaries. As was argued in Chapter six, there were differences between the geographic zones, in particular during the third and fourth centuries AD. The greatest changes were discernable in the eastern zone. In this zone, there was an increase in the average number of artefacts per site and feminine finds became increasingly common. However, even with these changes the separation of military and civilian remains impossible (Chapter five). In the western Pennine zone there was a reduction in artefact numbers from all site groupings. For example, only 33% of personal ornaments on military sites were from late

contexts. Similarly, from nucleated sites only 23% dated to the late period and 11% of the rural assemblage. These similar reductions demonstrate connectivity between military, civilian and rural populations. Thus, it appears that in the west, there was less demand for the purely decorative personal ornaments such as pins and copper alloy bracelets. The unilateral decline in all site groupings suggests that in the west, women were choosing (either because they lacked interest, could not afford, or other unknown factors) not to adopt these late Roman fashions in the same quantities as in other geographical zones. It is plausible that this variation in assemblage derived from the poorer quality soils in the west, which in turn yielded less wealth. While the western soils facilitated agriculture, like the Welsh highland zone, they provided subsistence farming but not cash crops (Manning 1975). By the late period, the economic disadvantages of the region limited civilian growth, as supported by the lack of towns and villas, as well as the minimal changes in the rural architecture (see Taylor, J. 2007; Nevell (ed.) 1999c; Haselgrove 1982; Higham 1982b). The similarities in the proportions of artefacts recovered from all sites suggest that there was connectivity between military, civilian and the rural population, but that the economic conditions did not necessarily facilitate the large-scale changes apparent in the town and villa landscape further east. The eastern zone included the more arable soils and thus the greatest potential economic growth. Towns, such as Aldborough and Catterick existed by the late second century AD and the construction of villas began in the early third century AD. Like the western zone, the distribution of the artefact assemblage attests to sustained contact and exchange between urban and rural populations. However, even with such contact, the assemblages of each site type still varied, which most likely stemmed from wealth and the site’s position in the landscape. As occurred in the west, there was a decline in the number of artefacts recovered from rural sites, with only 28% coming from late contexts. This can be contrasted with the military sites, where the decline was to 35% of the complete assemblage. However, on the eastern nucleated sites late assemblage accounted for 48% of the complete assemblage. On the rural sites, in the late period, there was a reduction in the number of sites yielding artefacts and the overall concentration of objects found. However, for the sites with artefacts, there was an increase in the average number of objects recovered in the late period (from 2 in the early period to 4.5 in the late period). This selective increase in personal ornamentation may demonstrate the variable experience present within site types. Based upon geography, certain sectors of the rural population had greater access to both personal ornamentation and wealth, which is duly reflected in the various assemblages.

139

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH There are clear differences between geographical zones. For example, the overall assemblage from forts, vici, towns, villas, rural sites, caves and cemeteries proportionally had the least variety during the late period, but the east-west divisions were greater, suggesting that by the late period, the integration into the Roman cultural system was in no small part rooted in economic divides. Like the east-west divide, the highland-lowland debate was based on the variable adoption of the northern RomanoBritish cultural assemblage. The highland sites were more isolated from the nucleated centres and only incorporated small elements of the local cultural assemblage. Of the 22 sites excavated in the highland rural zone, nine yielded personal ornaments. Interestingly, the assemblage from these sites included gold, shale, and a single pin. The presence of Roman personal ornamentation from 22 of the highland sites demonstrates that the entire region was part of the northern Romano-British cultural zone and that the variation in adoption derived from socio-economic conditions, not necessarily physical distance from Roman centres. MILITARY AND CIVILIAN Personal ornamentation also provides insight into the degree of overlap between military and non-military nucleated settlements. In Allason-Jones’s prior work, she observed that the boundaries between military and civilian populations were fluid and discriminating between the two artefactual assemblages was nearly impossible (AllasonJones 1988). Initially, I believed that during the early period the assemblage from forts and non-military urban sites would show the greatest differences, while in the late period, when the fort assemblages included a larger number of feminine artefacts, a higher degree of overlap would be visible. However, this was not the case. Throughout the Roman period, both early and late, forts, towns and vici yielded similar artefact assemblages. There were variations on an individual level, including the large bead collection from Castleford and the early brooch collection from Dragonby, but the overall proportions of artefacts were similar for all three site types. While there were changes in the sites, with the abandonment of some vici during the Antonine period and stone reconstruction in the late period, the artefact assemblage parallels AllasonJones’s findings: it is impossible to separate military and civilian assemblages (Allason-Jones 1988). Furthermore, changes in personal ornamentation do not substantiate increased evidence for the presence of families inside forts, as the changes in the assemblage were apparent across all urban sites and clearly, women would have been living inside vici and towns before the second century AD. Additionally, the personal ornamentation from the early period was similar on all urban site types and included feminine artefacts, such as bracelets and beads. Thus, it seems that women were present throughout the Roman period both inside forts and non-military nucleated settlements and that during the late Roman period, there

was solely an increase in feminine personal ornaments across the entire urban landscape. GENDER As discussed above, the large concentration of pins from military sites does not absolutely prove an increased number of women inside forts. However, during the late Roman period, changes in Roman styling were most pronounced for women. There was an increase in the number of bracelet and pins, while beads, which Cool and Allason-Jones argue were feminine objects, were recovered in equal numbers (Allason-Jones 2005b: 117123; 1995; Cool 2004: 386-389). The changes in the assemblage occurred to varying degrees in both urban and rural contexts. The distribution of pins, primarily from urban sites and with larger concentrations in the eastern Pennines, suggests that women with greater wealth were styling their hair in Roman fashions. Although this book is centred upon the distribution of personal ornamentation, the only clear artefact-gender associations come from the cemetery sites. The material from Brougham and York supports the pre-existing work (Allason-Jones 1995) by demonstrating that most artefacts were worn by both genders including earrings and bracelets. However, in most cases beads, bracelets, chains, earrings, and pins formed part of the female assemblage. Thus, while there are exceptions, it is possible to assume that by the late period the northern Romano-British personal adornment was predominantly feminine. ETHNICITY The formation of a regionally distinct cultural assemblage does not replace all ethnically inspired artefacts from the region. However, as Eckhardt observed in regard to nail-cleaners, “it is more difficult to link artefacts from settlement contexts to ethnicity” (Eckhardt 2006: 94). The recovery of unique artefact assemblages from across the Empire (and ‘native’ Celtic imagery) demonstrates the diversity within the region and the variety of ethnic origins that impacted the northern Romano-British population. Although the unique ethnic objects did not represent the majority of finds, their recovery is significant. They illustrate cultural expansion in the north of England, with objects and individuals from across the Empire integrating with local populations. This diversity would have directly impacted the formation of cultural identity and the types of objects recovered. While the evidence for ethnicity was recovered only on local levels, its impact on identity cannot be gauged. For example, even though the population at Brougham was based in the north of England and most of the assemblage recovered parallels the findings from other sites, the incorporation of objects and burial practices from the east would have directly impacted both the immediate population’s identity and those who interacted with them. The population of Brougham was still Roman, but their

140

CHAPTER EIGHT:THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS origins were tied to a different regional identity. This combination of cultural identities is similar to Woolf’s example of altar construction on either side of the Rhine. He states: “The altars were set up by local traders working the channel crossing and were inscribed in Latin, with the usual epigraphic conventions of the period, but to a local goddess, Nehalennia. The form of cult suggests Romanization, the name of the goddess implies resistance, but the reason that the altars were set up was not to signal a particular view of the legitimacy of Roman rule, established in the area some three centuries earlier, but to thank the goddess for her protection during dangerous sea voyages between Germany and Britain” (Woolf 1998: 20). In Britain, the recovery of dragonesque brooches from caves reflects similar ideas. The objects were Roman, the decoration Celtic and the recovery from caves with the full range of Roman objects suggests the blending of ethnic identity. Were these objects retained as mementos to the past? Were they heirlooms? Or were they part of the local artefact assemblage with ties to the indigenous population? In all cases, the material forms part of the larger northern Romano-British cultural assemblage, but serves as a reminder of the ethnic diversity that was incorporated into this identity. As discussed in Chapter two, ethnicity was related to birth, meaning that in the north of England a pluralism existed, with those ethnically Gaulish or southern English, but culturally northern Romano-British. Within a generation (or two), sectors of the population would evolve to be ethnically and culturally northern Romano-British. Although this region remained highly militarized and was subject to the continued arrival of troops from across the Empire, cultural change occurred as retired soldiers moved into towns, children were born and raised in the region, and it was during this period that the widest array of material culture was dispersed. COMMONALITY AND DISCREPANT IDENTITY The factors discussed above all aided in the construction of discrepant identities. Within the north of England, the region and period that an individual lived as well as economic status, the type of site and ethnic origins all affected the way one experienced post-Claudian conquest life. For some, in particular those in the highland zone, life was largely unchanged. For the native elite or urbanized indigenous population, integration into the Roman system had large ramifications. The entire region was influenced by Roman culture with a common cultural assemblage being found across all site types. Yet the process of change still differed from the south. Forty-three percent of the countryside yielded no Roman material culture and only 37% produced Roman personal ornamentation. Does

this variation reflect resistance or was it a factor of their positioning and social condition? While resistance may have accounted for a small proportion of the barren sites, the duration of occupation and evidence for pacification suggest that the change within the landscape was not a matter of choice, but of circumstance. By virtue of the various populations inherent within the Roman Empire, no common ‘Roman’ experience existed. Individuals and their own life courses helped construct their identity which, as Mattingly stated, would vary based upon status, wealth, location, living under civil or martial law, imperial government connection, employment, religion, origin, language and literacy, gender and age (Mattingly 2004: 10-14). As Cool noted in regard to eating in Roman Britain, even two individuals living on rural settlements a mile apart would have formed a different identity (Cool 2006: 207). Thus, discrepant identities existed not only between soldiers and civilians or merchants and farmers but also between soldiers and soldiers and farmers and farmers. While there were numerous factors that created discrepant identity in the north, there was a common experience as well. In the north, between populations, there was a shared cultural assemblage that embraced and evolved with cultural diversity. There was a symbiotic relationship between the various populations, with each growing dependent upon the other for food items, protection, material culture or livelihood. Although the countryside showed minimal change in terms of architecture, the presence of Roman pottery and personal ornaments from the majority of excavated sites argue for incorporation (even in the most minimalistic sense). This common experience extends outside of the region with the artefact assemblage reflecting incorporation into the larger Roman cultural system. Even though the style of artefacts may have varied, the costume and many of the overarching themes visible in northern England (i.e. intaglios decorated with Achilles, Mars, Minerva; the wearing of brooches, using hairpins to hold one’s hair in place) were part of the larger system. Thus, the north of England itself was both part of the Roman Empire as a whole but also distinct. The internalization of these traits was the focal point of the unique northern Romano-British cultural assemblage and identity. FUTURE WORK This book provided an overview of the distribution of northern Romano-British personal ornamentation. While this current research studied the distribution and its implications on a broad scale, it has also provided a firm foundation for future research. This includes addressing problems within artefactual studies, the function of objects, evidence of manufacturing and other comparative regional studies.

141

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH ASSEMBLAGE PROBLEMS I used the pre-existing typologies for this study. However, many of the objects remain understudied or the work has become outdated. Furthermore, the proportion of early manufactured objects recovered from late contexts appears suspect and thus, it is possible that some of the dating for these objects is too conservative. For example, the bead assemblage was diligently studied by Guido, but her study is now 30 years old and the greatly increased quantity of artefacts will undoubtedly impact her conclusions. Likewise, discussions of bracelets and bangles have been limited. Price’s 1988 study on glass bangles greatly expanded and challenged prior work by Kilbride-Jones (1938b) and Stevenson (1956), but it too is dated. There is no large-scale catalogue and typology for copper alloy bracelets, with Cool’s unpublished thesis (1983) being utilized in a number of studies. No jet/shale bracelet typology exists, with most comparative work coming from Allason-Jones and Miket 1984 and AllasonJones 1994: 29-35. Brooches have been extensively studied, but the most recent work by Bayley and Butcher (2004) focuses on the collection from Richborough. As this book has demonstrated, there are significant regional variations and a detailed study of brooch chronologies in the north of England is imperative. The primary pin study was centred upon Colchester and Crummy states in the introduction of this work: “any dating system set up solely on the basis of the evidence from one town could expect to be negated by varying regional fashions” (Crummy 1979: 162). More recently Cool classified metal pins from southern Britain in 1991, which is of limited use in northern contexts. Finger-rings are also understudied with the majority of work focusing on precious metal varieties (Johns 1996) or those with intaglios (Henig 1974b). Even though there is variation in the quality of excavations in the north, including reliability of contextual data, there are sufficient modern excavations to construct profiles of personal ornamentation by century. By developing an understanding of what a typical first century assemblage looks like in the north of England, it will be possible to further strengthen not only the pre-existing typological dating but also the chronology of sites in the north. FUNCTION Personal ornamentation formed an integral part of the Roman costume. While most of the objects functioned in a purely decorative manner, there is the possibility of alternative uses. For example, the division of glass bangles into quarters has been put forth as a form of currency (Price 1988: 354; Willems 1983: 110-112). Furthermore, even within this study, the decline in artefacts between the early and late period reflects the reduction in functional brooches and an increase in purely ornamental objects. By conducting studies upon distribution of ornamental and

functional objects, it may be possible to demonstrate the economic impact on the region. For this book, the differences between geographical zones were studied and the variation in assemblages may be indicative of varying economic conditions. But by further analyzing the distribution of higher status and decorative objects these conclusions may be solidified. Additionally, comparing the decorative and functional assemblages would provide an interesting perspective on material culture distribution. TECHNOLOGY AND MANUFACTURE The distribution of artefacts was the focus of this study, but the question of where manufacturing occurred remains paramount. Northern evidence for manufacture is limited to pottery and isolated evidence from both urban and rural contexts. The former was visible in the location of kilns and the fabric composition. In the north of England, in particular the late period, there were a number of kilns in use, (i.e. Crambeck and Hazelwood) (Wilson 1989; Brassington and Webster 1988; Swann 1984). Additionally, there is evidence for the manufacture of both leatherworking and textiles from Castleford and Guido argues that the abundance of melon beads stemmed from their local manufacture (Cool and Philo 1998, 358; Guido 1979). York yielded evidence of jet manufacture (RCHM 1962: 143). The evidence for the manufacture of brooches, pins, and copper alloy rings is also very limited. The villa at Langton yielded brooch casts (Goddal 1972), while dragonesque brooches were manufactured in Yorkshire and the Humberside (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 26-27, 171). The remaining evidence comes from unfinished objects or large collections of similar personal ornaments from one site, both of which suggest local manufacture. This lack of knowledge on manufacturing has scope for future work. Similar to Cool’s unpublished doctoral thesis (1983), it may be possible to map artefact distribution, which in turn may elicit further conclusions on the location of manufacturing centres. Even with the limited northern evidence, the concentration of artefacts from the urban sites suggests that objects were distributed centrifugally and that the forts, vici and towns were the primary manufacturing centres. While the evidence for manufacturing is poor, the recovery of objects from across the north of England demonstrates that there were changes in the infrastructure and technologies. For example, in regard to glass manufacture, Pliny the Elder stated: “from the lumps it [glass] is melted again in the workshops and coloured, and part is shaped by lowing, part by torno teritur (turned on a lathe), and part argenti modo caelatur (engraved)” (Pliny as cited by Stern, 1995: 29). The lathe was also used for the manufacture of bone hairpins. Like the objects themselves, the use of these technologies reflects cultural change in the region and just as the assemblage demonstrates the blending of Roman and native traditions, so too does the technology, with the incorporation of enamel or other glassy materials

142

CHAPTER EIGHT:THE NORTHERN ROMANO-BRITISH CULTURAL ASSEMBLAGE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS into Roman styled objects. The use of enamelling was a specialty of Celtic artists from the first century BC and this blending of technologies mimics the distribution and style of personal ornamentation (Bayley and Butcher 2004: 40146; Jope 2000: 175). REGIONAL STUDIES Even though the quality of data was varied with poorly represented rural assemblages and large diverse military collections, the northern cultural assemblage expresses the dynamic nature of culture. Furthermore, while the processes of social genesis are similar across the entire Empire, the artefact assemblage from northern England appears to differ from the south as based upon the case study presented in Chapter seven. There were similarities in terms of proportions and overarching themes and the logical expansion would be to first improve the southern dataset to see if there is a continuation of the mentioned trends. Subsequently, it would be interesting to compare and contrast the northern material with other frontier zones, such as the Rhineland and North Africa. Likewise, the material culture distribution from Wales, the nearest conquered frontier, would elucidate questions of urban/rural exchange. Wales and the Pennines also operated in a similar manner, with forts controlling the highland zone. By extending these comparisons, I believe that the factors identified in the north—chronology and geography—will remain paramount in the other regions.

This book has incorporated a large, varied corpus of material to look at mechanisms for cultural change in the north of England. As discussed above, the book has not attempted to focus on the microscopic elements of cultural change or personal ornamentation, as the quality of much of the material does not make this feasible. However, the assemblage does clearly reflect the dynamic nature of culture. The northern assemblage adopted local themes as well as those from across the wider Empire, which blended to from a unique regionally distinct assemblage, which was, in turn, adopted by the entire population to varying degrees. This adoption varied based upon issues of gender, ethnicity, status, chronology, geography and self-perception. This work has also shown that even with assemblages of varying quality, it is possible to obtain useable results. In addition to providing evidence for cultural change, the data collected raises a number of questions and provides a firm foundation for future research. This database can be used to further understand how the northern cultural assemblage compares with other regions including Scotland, Wales and other Roman frontier regions. This research argues that while the assemblages will be unique to each region, similar causal factors, as demonstrated here, will alter the assemblage’s composition. Just as occurred in the north of England, the material culture will demonstrate the construct of a unique culture that is part Roman, part northern English, part southern English, and part Gaulish.

Further excavations, specifically in the highland zone would also greatly impact the data from the countryside. Although these sites yield small assemblages, further excavations would expand our knowledge of the Roman impact on these more remote sectors. While the data from excavations in the highland region is currently poor, the assemblages from the excavated sites and PAS suggest that more evidence of adoption of the cultural assemblage may be discernable. SUMMARY In the introduction, an image of the same male wearing two different costumes was displayed (Figure 1.1). This image, with the same man in very different costumes, reflects the major component of this research. It is clear that personal ornamentation varied and that there are myriad factors that affected its use and therefore recovery. Between AD 43 and AD 410 there would have been many identifiers for ethnic and cultural variability, including the way a costume was being worn, how an individual’s hair was styled, the quality of the personal ornaments and garments. All of these factors would have influenced the interaction. Even at the time of this initial reaction, it is a certainty that no two individuals’ experiences would have been the same. But, the objects recovered across the north of England suggest that the population was part of the larger Roman system, even if there were variations.

143

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES

MILITARY SITES Aldby SE7352 The evidence for Aldby is limited, including small excavations and the exposure of a small fort. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.

Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 14, 433-465. LEECH, R. H. & SCOTT, D. (1993) The Roman Fort and vicus at Ambleside: Archaeological Research in 1982. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 93, 51-74. MANN, S. & DUNWELL, A. (1995) An interim note on the further discoveries on the Roman vicus at Ambleside, 1992-1993. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 95, 79-84.

Ambleside NY372034 Ambleside was the location of an auxiliary fort. It was first built in the mid-second century AD and was replaced by a second fort in the Trajanic or Hadrianic period. The second fort remained in use until the mid-fourth century AD. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1994) Roman Britain in 1993. Britannia, 25, 245-291 and 293-314. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1915) The Exploration of the Roman Fort at Ambleside: Report on the second years work (1914). Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 15, 1-62. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1916) The Exploration of the Roman Fort at Ambleside: Report on the third year’s work (1915). Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 16, 57-91. DRURY, D. & DUNWELL, A. (2004) Excavations and watching briefs at Borrons Road Ambleside, 190093. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, Third Series: 5, 71-104. FRERE, S. S. (1990) Roman Britain in 1989. Britannia, 21, 303-378. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. HAVERFIELD, F. & COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1914) Report on the Exploration of the Roman Fort at Ambleside, 1903. Transactions of the Cumberland and

Bainbridge SD9390 This small auxiliary fort was first built under Agricola and was strengthened in the Flavian-Trajanic period. A stone fort was built after a period of abandonment coinciding with the construction of Hadrian’s Wall. Further rebuilding occurred in the late third century, which has been linked with Septimius Severus. A third extension was added under Constantine. FRERE, S. (1987) Britannia: A history of Roman Britain, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. HARTLEY, B. R. (1960) The Roman Fort at Bainbridge: Excavations 1957-59. Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literacy Society, 9 (iii), 107-131. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. Barrock Fell NY4648 A fourth century stone fortlet. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1931b) A Roman fortlet on Barrock Fell near Low Hesket. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 31, 111-118. Blennerhasset NY1942 Excavations revealed the largest known Cumbrian fort.

144

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES EVANS, J. & SCULL, S. (1990) Fieldwork on the Roman site at Blennerhasset, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 90, 127-138. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332. Binchester NZ2333 The fort at Binchester was occupied throughout the Roman period and has been extensively excavated. However, it remains unpublished. FERRIS, I. & JONES, R. F. J. (1991) Binchester-A Northern Roman Fort and Vicus. IN JONES, R. F. J. (Ed.) Britain in the Roman period: recent trends. Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publication. Jones, R.F.J. Personal Communication Brough-on-Humber SE938267 The site of Brough-on-Humber was first occupied in the Flavian period when a temporary camp was built. A permanent fort was built between 70-85 AD. It was abandoned shortly afterwards until 125 AD, when the fort was rebuilt and occupied until the end of the 2nd century AD. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1993) Roman Britain in 1992. Britannia, 24, 267, 269-322. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1995) Roman Britain in 1994. Britannia, 26, 342-370. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. CORDER, P. (1939) Excavations at Brough, E. Yorkshire, 1934. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 28, 1-35. CORDER, P. & ROMANS, T. (1939a) Excavations at Brough, E. Yorkshire, 1935. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 28, 43-84. CORDER, P. & ROMANS, T. (1939b) Excavations at Brough, E. Yorkshire, 1936. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 28, 85-152. COWPER, H. S. (1903) Romano-British Fibulae and other objects from Brough. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 3, 70-72. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485.

GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. HEELIS, A. J. (1911) A find of Roman Coins near Brougham Castle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 11, 209-211. WACHER, J. (1960) Petuaria: New Evidence for the Roman town and its earlier fort. Antiquaries Journal, 40, 58-64. WACHER, J. (1969) Excavations at Brough-on-Humber, Leeds, Reports on the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London No. XXV. ZANT, J. M. (2001) An excavation at Brougham Castle. Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, Third Series: I, 31-37. Brough-Under-Stainmore NY7914 The fort was first occupied in the Flavian period and remained in use until the third century AD. BIRLEY, E. (1959a) The Roman Fort at Brough-underStainmore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 58, 31-56. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1927a) Maiden Castle in Stainmore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 27, 170-177. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1931a) Objects from Brough under Stainmore in the Craven Museum. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 31, 81-86. DRURY, D. (1998) Stainmore, Cumbria: Archaeological investigation on the A56 Stainmore to Banks Gate road improvement scheme. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 98, 119-132. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1956) An Enamelled Fibula from Brough-under-Stainmore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 55, 54-58. JONES, M. J. (1977) Archaeological work at Brough under Stainmore 1971-72: I. The Roman Discoveries. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 77, 17-48. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337.

145

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Burrow-in-Lonsdale SD615758 The first fort was occupied in the Flavian period with occupation continuing until the late third/fourth century AD. BIRLEY, E. (1946) The Roman Site at Burrow in Lonsdale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 46, 126-156. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1955a) Excavations at Burrow in Lonsdale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 54, 93-97. NORTH, O. H. & HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1948) Trial trenching at Burrow in Lonsdale, 1947. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 48, 23-41. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, J., HASSALL, M. W. C., BOWMAN, A. K. & THOMAS, J. D. (1974) Roman Britain in 1973. Britannia, 5, 397-460. Burrow Walls NY004300 This was a small fortlet built in the second century AD. The size was reduced in the fourth century AD. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1956) The Roman Fort at Burrow Walls near Workington. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 55, 30-45. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1966) The problem of Burrow Walls. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 66, 37-41. Caermote NY201368 The site of Caermote had two forts. The larger fort dated to the early first century. The second fort was reduced in size and occupied in the early-Hadrianic Antonine period. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1958) Some fieldwork at Caermote. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 57, 18-26. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1961b) The Roman Forts near Caermote. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 60, 20-23. Castleford SE427256 Castleford was established under Cerialis between AD 71-74 and remained in use until AD 95. It remained uninhabited until the middle third century when the fort was reoccupied and the perimeter wall and ditch system were repaired.

ABRAMSON, P. (1998) The Search for Roman Castleford. Current Archaeology. COOL, H. E. M. & PHILO, C. (Eds.) (1998) Roman Castleford Excavations 1974-85. Volume I: the small finds, Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service. CROCKETT, A. & FITZPATRICK, A. P. (1998) Archaeological mitigation in the Flavian fort annexe and later Roman settlement at Bradley Street, Castleford, West Yorkshire, 1991-1993. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 70, 35-66. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. Castleshaw SD996096 Castleshaw was built circa AD 79 and covered approximately three acres. It was abandoned shortly thereafter. The second fort was much smaller and formed in AD 105. It remained in use until the construction of Hadrian’s Wall, when the troops were relocated. BRUTON, F. A. (1908) Excavations of the Roman Forts at Castleshaw. First interim report, Manchester, Manchester University Press. BRUTON, F. A. (1911) The Roman forts at Castleshaw. Second interim report, Manchester, Manchester University Press. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1997) Roman Britain in 1996. Britannia, 24, 395-453 and 455-472. FRERE, S. S. (1989) Roman Britain in 1988. Britannia, 20, 257-345. MCNEIL, R., START, D. & WALKER, J. (1989) Castleshaw. Current Archaeology. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. REDHEAD, N. (1999) Edge of the Empire: extra-mural settlement in a marginal context: Roman Castleshaw. IN NEVELL, M. (Ed.) Living on the edge of Empire: models, methodology and marginality. Manchester, Council for British Archaeology North West. YORKSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGCAL SOCIETY. ROMAN ANTIQUITIES SECTION. (1909) Excavation of the Roman Forts at Castleshaw (West Riding). Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, XX, 100-103.

146

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES Catterick SE227991 A fort was first constructed in the first century AD and later reoccupied between AD 160 and AD 200. In the late period the settlement became a town and remained in use until the late fourth century AD. CADE, J. (1792) Further observations of Cataractonium and parts adjacent. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 10, 54-66. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1984) Roman Britain in 1983. Britannia, 15, 265-356. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1955b) A Roman and Saxon Site at Catterick. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 38, 241246. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1957) Cataractonium, Fort and Town. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 224-265. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. (2002) Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology. Cawthorn Camps SE783899 The Cawthorn Camps consist of four large enclosures that were first occupied circa AD 71. The site was only occupied in the first and second century AD. BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (2000) Roman Britain in 1999. Britannia, 31, 371-431, 433-449. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. RICHMOND, I. A. (1926a) The Roman Camps at Cawthorn, near Pickering. Interim Reports, First interim summary, 1924. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 28, 332-339. RICHMOND, I. A. (1926b) The Roman Camps at Cawthorn, Near Pickering. Second interim summary, 1925. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 28, 421-426. RICHMOND, I. A. (1932) The Four Roman Camps at Cawthorn, in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The Archaeological Journal, 89, 17-78. SIMPSON, F. G. (1926) The Roman Camps at Cawthorn, near Pickering, Preliminary Report 1923. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 28, 25-33.

WILSON, P. R. (2002) Cawthorn Camps-70 years after Richmond. IN FREEMAN, P., BENNETT, J., FIEMA, Z. T. & HOFFMAN, B. (Eds.) Limes XVIII: Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies in Amman Jordon. Oxford, BAR International series. Chester-le-Street NZ276514 The fort was first occupied around AD 175 after the abandonment of the Antonine Wall. The first fort was a timber structure that was later replaced by a stone fort in the second half of the third century AD. There was a second rebuild in the late third century AD, which included the demolition of many of the barracks. The site remained in use throughout the fourth century AD. BISHOP, M. C. (1993) Excavations in the Roman Fort at Chester-le-Street (Concangis), Church Chare 19901991. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series, 21, 29-86. BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (2000) Roman Britain in 1999. Britannia, 31, 371-431, 433-449. BURNHAM, B. C., HUNTER, F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2003) Roman Britain in 2002. Britannia, 34, 292-359, 361382. EVANS, J., JONES, R. F. J. & TURNBULL, P. (1991) Excavations at Chester-le-Street, Co. Durham, 197879. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 7, 5-49. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1984) Roman Britain in 1983. Britannia, 15, 265-356. GILLAM, J. P. & TAIT, J. (1968) The Roman Fort at Chester-le-Street. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series 46, 75-96. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. KEWLEY, J. (1974) A Roman stone-mason’s workshop at Chester-le-Street and Lanchester. Antiquaries Journal, 54, 53-65. RAINBIRD, J. S. (1971) Recent excavations at Chester-leStreet. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 49, 101-108. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. Crackenthorpe NY6523 This was a marching camp built in Hadrianic period for the sixth legion.

147

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH FERGUSON, R. (1891) The Roman camp on Kreiginthorpe (Crackenthorpe) common near Kirkbythore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 11, 312-314. RICHMOND, I. A. & GILLAM, J. P. (1951) The Temple of Mithras at Carrawburgh. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 29, 1-92. Doncaster SE574034 The fort at Doncaster was first built in the Flavian period and destroyed when Hadrian’s Wall was constructed. In the middle second century the fort was rebuilt. In the third century the fort was rebuilt in stone. BUCKLAND, P. C. (1986) Roman South Yorkshire: a source book, Sheffield, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield. BUCKLAND, P. C. & MAGILTON, J. R. (1986) The Archaeology of Doncaster: the Roman civil settlement, Oxford, BAR British Series. BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (2000) Roman Britain in 1999. Britannia, 31, 371-431, 433-449. CREGEEN, S. M. (1956) The Roman Excavations at Cantley Housing Estate, Doncaster, Part III. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 32-48. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. HASSALL, M. W. C., WILSON, D. M., WRIGHT, R. P. & REA, J. (1972) Roman Britain in 1971. Britannia, 3, 298-352. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. Dowbridge SD4432 This fort began as three temporary camps in the late first century AD. In the late first century or early second century a signal station was constructed and replaced the camps. A larger stone fort was built in the second century AD that remained in use until the middle of the second century AD. HOWARD-DAVIS, C. & BUXTON, K. (2000) Roman Forts in the Fylde: excavations at Dowbridge, Kirkham, Lancaster University, Centre for North West Regional Studies.

Ebchester NZ104554 There were two main occupational phases at Ebchester. The first was a timber fort in the mid-Flavian to the Trajanic. It was abandoned until the mid-Hadrianic when the fort was reconstructed in stone and remained in use until the late fourth century AD. HASSALL, M. W. C., WILSON, D. M., WRIGHT, R. P. & REA, J. (1972) Roman Britain in 1971. Britannia, 3, 298-352. MAXFIELD, V. A. & REED, A. H. (1975) Excavation at Ebchester Roman fort 1972-3. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 3, 43-105. REED, A., HARPER, R. & DODDS, W. (1964) Excavations at Ebchester in 1962-3. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 42, 173-186. Elslack SD924494 Elslack was first constructed under the governship of Cerialis. It was later replaced under the reign of Septimius Severus around AD 210. MAY, T. (1911) The Roman Forts at Elslack. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 21, 113-168. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Filey TA127816 Filey was a coastal fortlet and dated to the late Roman period. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. OTTAWAY, P. (2001) Excavations on the site of the Roman signal station at Carr Naze, Filey 1993-94. The Archaeological Journal, 157, 79-199. Goldsborough NZ319552 Goldsborough was a coastal fortlet and dates to the late Roman period. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.

148

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Hardknott NY219015 Hardknott was first occupied under the governship of Agricola and was later replaced by a smaller fort around AD 120. The site went out of use in the second century AD. BART, H. E. (1893) Hardknott Castle: Part 2: Notes of perations in the Roman Camp at Hardknott. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 12, 212-228. BIDWELL, P., SNAPE, M. & CROOM, A. (1999) Hardknott Roman Fort, Cumbria, Dorchester, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. CALVERLY, W. S. (1895) The Roman fort on Hardknott known as Hardknott Castle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 13, 449-452. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1963) The granaries at Hardknott Castle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 63, 148-152. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1921) Hardknott castle and the tenth Antonine itinerary. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Second Series, 71, 1-16. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1928a) Hardknott Castle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 28, 314-352. FERGUSON, R. (1893c) The Roman Fort at Hardknott known as Hardknott Castle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 12, 375-438.

of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. HORNSBY, W. & STANTON, R. (1912) The Roman Fort at Huntcliff, near Saltburn. Journal of Roman Studies, 2, 215-232. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. Ilkley SE115479 The site of Ilkley was first occupied under Agricola and remained in use until AD 196-197 when it was abandoned and some of the buildings were razed. It was re-garrisoned in the late second century and remained in use until the late fourth century AD. There were multiple rebuilds between the second and fourth century AD. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F. & ESMONDE CLEARY, A.S. (1999) Roman Britain in 1998. Britannia, 30, 319-386. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1997) Roman Britain in 1996. Britannia, 24, 395-453 and 455-472. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. HARTLEY, B. R. (1966) The Roman Fort at Ilkley: Excavations 1962. Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literacy Society, 12 (ii), 23-72. HARTLEY, B. R. (1987) Roman Ilkley, Ilkley, Olicana Museum and Historical Society. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WOODWARD, A. M. (1926) The Roman Fort at Ilkley. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 28, 137-320.

Hayton SE825455

Johnson’s Plain NY844149

A Flavian fort was located at Hayton, which was abandoned around AD 80-81.

Johnson’s Plain produced no datable material; although, based upon similar structures, it dates to the Flavian period and would have been a watch tower/signal post.

JOHNSON, S. (1978) Excavations at Hayton Roman Fort, 1973. Britannia, 9, 57-114. Huntcliff NZ6721 Huntcliff was a late coastal fortlet. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee

GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. WOOLISCROFT, D. J. & SWAIN, S. A. M. (1991) The Roman “signal” Tower at Johnson’s Plain, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland

149

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 91, 19-30. Kirkby Thore NY636258 Kirkby Thore was a site with two forts. The first dates to the Flavian period. The site fell out of use in before the reign of Severus.

WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. Lease Rigg NZ8104

CHARLESWORTH, D. (1964) Recent Work at Kirkby Thore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 64, 63-75. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. GIBBONS, P. (1989) Excavations and Observations at Kirkby Thore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 89, 93-130. SMYTH, W. H. (1846) On some Roman vestigia recently found at Kirkby Thore, in Westmorlands. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 31, 279288. Lancaster SD4762 Lancaster was first occupied as a military fort in AD 75 and remained in use until the early second century AD. In AD 125 the site became entirely civilian and remained non-military until AD 160. The site was later reoccupied as a late coastal for in the mid fourth century AD. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2001) Roman Britain in 2000. Britannia, 32, 311-385 and 387-400. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1988) Roman Britain in 1987. Britannia, 19, 415-508. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. HASSALL, M. W. C., WILSON, D. M., WRIGHT, R. P. & REA, J. (1972) Roman Britain in 1971. Britannia, 3, 298-352. JONES, G. B. D., SHOTTER, D. & ARTHUR, D. C. (1988) Roman Lancaster: rescue archaeology in an historic city, 1970-75, Manchester, Department of Manchester: Brigantia Monograph. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, J., HASSALL, M. W. C., BOWMAN, A. K. & THOMAS, J. D. (1974) Roman Britain in 1973. Britannia, 5, 397-460. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315.

The fort dates to the late first century AD and was a single ditch and turf rampart. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. SPRATT, D. A. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. (1993) Prehistoric and Roman archaeology of North-East Yorkshire, London, Council for British Archaeology. Low Borrow Bridge NY6001 The fort was first occupied in the Hadrianic period and was rebuilt in the Severan period. The fort remained in use throughout the Roman occupation. BIRLEY, E. (1947b) The Roman fort at Low Borrow Bridge. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 47, 1-19. FERGUSON, R. (1886) The Roman Camp at Low Borrow Bridge. Report of the committee appointed Aug. 22, 1883; laid before the society at Alston, July 10th 1884. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 8, 1-6. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1992) Roman Britain in 1991. Britannia, 23, 309-323. HILDYARD, E. J. W. & GILLAM, J. P. (1951) Renewed excavation at Low Borrow Bridge. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 51, 40-67. LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. Maiden Castle SJ498529 Small fort covering approximately one quarter of an acre that remained in use from the second to fourth century AD. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1927a) Maiden Castle in Stainmore. Transactions of the Cumberland and

150

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 27, 170-177. Malton SE792716 Malton is an auxiliary fort in East Yorkshire. The fort remained in use until the late fourth century AD. The fort appears to have been abandoned in the late third century AD and then rebuilt shortly thereafter. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1994) Roman Britain in 1993. Britannia, 25, 245-291 and 293-314. CORDER, P. (1930a) The Defences of the Roman Fort at Malton, London, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. CORDER, P. & KIRK, J. L. (1928) Roman Malton: a Yorkshire Fortress and its neighbourhood. Antiquity, 2, 69-82. FRERE, S. S. (1990) Roman Britain in 1989. Britannia, 21, 303-378. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1992) Roman Britain in 1991. Britannia, 23, 309-323. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. MITCHELSON, N. (1966) Roman Malton: The civilian settlement. Excavations in Orchard Field. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 209-262. ROBINSON, J. F. (1978) The Archaeology of Malton and Norton, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. Manchester SJ8397 The fort of Manchester was an important in the distribution of goods going north to Hadrian’s Wall. The first fort was constructed in AD 80 and was probably repaired in both the Trajanic and Severan period. BRUTON, F. A. (Ed.) (1909) The Roman Fort at Manchester, Manchester, Manchester University Press. BRYANT, S., MORRIS, M. & WALKER, J. S. F. (1986) Roman Manchester: A Frontier Settlement, Manchester, Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit. BURNHAM, B. C., HUNTER, F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2002) Roman Britain in 2001. Britannia, 33, 275-371. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1986) Roman Britain in 1985. Britannia, 17, 363-454.

FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1992) Roman Britain in 1991. Britannia, 23, 309-323. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. GREGORY, R. A. (2007) Roman Manchester: The University of Manchester’s Excavations within the Vicus 2001-5, Oxford, Oxbow Books. JONES, G. B. D. (1974) Roman Manchester, Altrincham, Manchester Excavation committee. SIMPSON, G. (1973) Roman Manchester and Templebrough: the forts and dates reviewed. IN HAWKES, C. & HAWKES, H. (Eds.) Greeks, Celts, and Romans: Studies in Venture and Resistance. London, J.M. Dent and sons LTD. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. Maryport NY039375 The fort was first occupied in AD 122 and remained in use until AD 400. In the late second century some of the timber barracks were reconstructed in stone. BAILEY, J. B. (1923) Maryport and the Tenth Iter with further notes on Roman Antiquities. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 23, 142-52. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2001) Roman Britain in 2000. Britannia, 32, 311-385 and 387-400. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1936) The Roman fort and settlement at Maryport. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 36, 85-99. JARRETT, M. G. (1959) The pre-Hadrianic occupation of Roman Maryport. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 58, 63-67. JARRETT, M. G. (1976) Maryport, Cumbria: A Roman fort and its Garrison, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. Melandra Castle SK10208951 The fort was first occupied under the reign of Agricola and was made of timber. The fort was then rebuilt in stone and fell out of use in the mid-second century AD. CONWAY, R. S. (1906a) Melandra Castle, Manchester, Manchester University Press. CONWAY, R. S. (1906b) Melandra Castle, 1906. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 28, 55-75. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332.

151

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. FRERE, S. S. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1991) Roman Britain in 1990. Britannia, 22, 211-311. GARSTANG, J. (1901) Melandra Castle. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 22, 90-98. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1981) Roman Britain in 1980. Britannia, 12, 313-396. HOLLAND, W. R. (1912) Melandra Castle. Origin of the name. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 34, 158-160. LAWRENCE, H. (1912) Melandra Castle. Excavations 1908-1911. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 34, 153-157. PETCH, J. A. (1949) The Date of Melandra Castle: Evidence of the Pottery. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 69, 1-40. PETCH, J. A. (1958) Melandra Castle Excavations 1958. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 78, 1-8. PETCH, J. A. (1959) Melandra Castle Excavations 1959. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 79, 122-124. PETCH, J. A. (1960) Melandra Castle Excavations, 1960. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 80, 105-108. PETCH, J. A. (1963) Melandra Castle. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 83, 1-9. WEBSTER, P. V. (1967) Melandra Castle excavations, 1966. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 87, 161-162. WEBSTER, P. V. (1970) Excavations at Melandra Castle, Derbyshire, 1969. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 89, 85-110. WEBSTER, P. V. (1971) Melandra Castle Roman Fort: excavations in the civil settlement 1966-69. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 91, 58-118. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294.

Moresby NX979205

Meltham SE1517

Papcastle NY108316

This fort was built in the early Flavian period. No buildings were found inside the fort as it may have been part of a failed attempt to cross the Pennines.

The fort at Papcastle was first constructed in the late second century AD. There was a later reconstruction in stone.

RICHMOND, I. A. (1924a) Excavations at Meltham, near Huddersfield. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 27, 319-320.

BIRLEY, E. (1963) Roman Papcastle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 63, 96-125.

The fort was built in AD 128 and was occupied into the third century AD. BIRLEY, E. (1949) The Roman fort at Moresby. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 47, 42-72. Newton Kyme SE454454 Newton Kyme was a first century marching camp. MONGAHAN, J. M. (1991) A Roman marching camp and native settlement site at Newton Kyme, Tadcaster. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 63, 51-58. Old Penrith NY496384 The fort was first occupied in the second century AD. There is evidence of use from both the third and fourth century AD. AUSTEN, P. S. (1991) Bewcastle and Old Penrith. Carlisle, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Research Series, number 6. BIRLEY, E. (1947a) Old Penrith and its Problems. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 48, 166-182. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. POULTER, A. (1982) Old Penrith: excavations 1977 and 1979. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 82, 51-66. Ravenscar NZ985015 The ruins of a Roman fortlet were excavated. The site was part of the late period coastal defenses. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.

152

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (2000) Roman Britain in 1999. Britannia, 31, 371-431, 433-449. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1965) Excavations at Papcastle 1961-62. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 65, 102-114. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1913) Report on the excavations at Papcastle, 1912. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 13, 131-142. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332. Petteril Green Camp NY419533

Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 85, 81-86. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1928c) Roman Ravenglass. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 28, 353-366. JACKSON, W. (1877) The camp at Muncaster and certain Roman discoveries there. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 3, 17-23. POTTER, T. W. (1979) Romans in north-west England: excavations at the Roman forts of Ravenglass, Watercrook, and Bowness on Solway, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society.

Petteril Green Camp was a semi-permanent camp.

Ribchester SD649351

SPENCE, J. E. (1933) Preliminary Report on the Petteril Green Camp. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 33, 227-232.

The fort was first constructed in the late first century AD and built with a clay rampart. It was later destroyed at the end of the second century AD and subsequently reconstructed under Severus.

Piercebridge NZ210157

BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (2000) Roman Britain in 1999. Britannia, 31, 371-431, 433-449. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2001) Roman Britain in 2000. Britannia, 32, 311-385 and 387-400. BUXTON, K. & HOWARD-DAVIS, C. (2000) Bremetenacum: Excavations at Roman Ribchester, 1980, 1989-1990., Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. EDWARDS, B. J. N. & WEBSTER, P. V. (1985a) Ribchester excavations part 2: Excavations in the civil settlement: the structure, Cardiff, University College. EDWARDS, B. J. N. & WEBSTER, P. V. (Eds.) (1985b) Ribchester Excavations Part I: Excavations within the Roman Fort, Cardiff, Cardiff University Press. FRERE, S. S. (1990) Roman Britain in 1989. Britannia, 21, 303-378. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1992) Roman Britain in 1991. Britannia, 23, 309-323. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1981) Roman Britain in 1980. Britannia, 12, 313-396. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294.

The fort was in place by AD 100 and took the normal rectangular shape. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1980) Roman Britain in 1979. Britannia, 11, 345-417. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1981) Roman Britain in 1980. Britannia, 12, 313-396. RANKOV, N. B., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1982) Roman Britain in 1981. Britannia, 13. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, J., HASSALL, M. W. C., BOWMAN, A. K. & THOMAS, J. D. (1974) Roman Britain in 1973. Britannia, 5, 397-460. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. WOOLER, E. (1915) Roman Piercebridge. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 23, 401-444. Ravenglass SD086958 The first fort was built in the second century AD and was made of a wooden palisade. The fort was reconstructed in the later Hadrianic period and included the demolition of the earlier fort and a new defensive system. BIRLEY, E. (1959b) The Roman Fort at Ravenglass. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 58, 14-30. BRANN, M. L. (1985) Walls Castle, Ravenglass, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland

Scarborough TA049886 Scarborough was a coastal fortlet that remained in use throughout the third and fourth centuries.

153

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. SPRATT, D. A. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. (1993) Prehistoric and Roman archaeology of North-East Yorkshire, London, Council for British Archaeology. Slack SE084176 The fort at Slack was constructed during the governship of Agricola around AD 79. The interior shows three phases of use which included the reconstruction of granaries and headquarters around AD 100. The fort was however abandoned early in Hadrian’s reign. BARBER, F. (1870) On the Roman station at Slack. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 1, 1-10. DODD, P. W. & WOODWARD, A. M. (1922) Excavations at Slack, 1913-1915. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 26, 2-91. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1981) Roman Britain in 1980. Britannia, 12, 313-396. HASSALL, M. W. C., WILSON, D. M., WRIGHT, R. P. & REA, J. (1972) Roman Britain in 1971. Britannia, 3, 298-352. HUNTER, J. K. T., MANBY, T. G. & SPAUL, J. E. H. (1971) Recent Excavations at the Slack Roman Fort. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 74-98. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. Templebrough SK410916 The site of Templebrough consists of three forts. The first fort was constructed circa AD 54 and was the largest. The second fort was slightly smaller and constructed in stone. MAY, T. (1922) The Roman Forts of Templebrough, near Rotherham., Rotherham, Henry Garnett and Co. SIMPSON, G. (1973) Roman Manchester and Templebrough: the forts and dates reviewed. IN HAWKES, C. & HAWKES, H. (Eds.) Greeks, Celts, and Romans: Studies in Venture and Resistance. London, J.M. Dent and sons LTD.

WOODWARD, A. M. (1924) The Roman Forts at Templebrough. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 27, 112-117. Troutbeck NY3827 Troutbeck was the site of three temporary marching camps. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1957) The Temporary Camps near Troutbeck, Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 56, 28-36. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. Watercrook SD514907 The fort was first constructed at the end of the first century AD and was later rebuilt in stone in the late third or fourth century. While the fort remained in use into the late Roman period, it was not heavily occupied. BIRLEY, E. (1958) The Roman fort at Watercrook. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 58, 13-18. GIBBONS, P. (1988) Archaeological Report on the Watercrook E.T.W. Pipeline. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 88, 71-86. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. NORTH, O. H. (1932) The Roman Station at Watercrook. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 32, 116-23. NORTH, O. H. (1934) Finds from the Roman Station at Watercrook. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 34, 35-40. NORTH, O. H. & HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1945) Excavations at the Roman fort of Watercrook, 1944. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 45, 148-162. POTTER, T. W. (1976) Excavations at Watercrook 1974: An interim report. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 76, 6-66. POTTER, T. W. (1977) Excavations at the Roman fort of Watercrook, 1975: a second interim report. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 77, 49-52. POTTER, T. W. (1979) Romans in north-west England: excavations at the Roman forts of Ravenglass, Watercrook, and Bowness on Solway, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society.

154

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. Whitbarrow Camp NY407282 Whitbarrow Camp was a small camp with minimal evidence of use and period. FERGUSON, R. (1880) An Attempt at a Survey of Roman Cumberland and Westmorland, continued. Part III. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 4, 318-329. York SE603521 York was the location of the legionary fortress in the north of England. The site was first occupied in the 70’s and was built for the ninth legion. The fortress extended across 50 acres. There were massive reconstructions under Severus most likely following attacks from Scotland in AD 197. BURNHAM, B. C., HUNTER, F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2002) Roman Britain in 2001. Britannia, 33, 275-371. BURNHAM, B. C., HUNTER, F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2003) Roman Britain in 2002. Britannia, 34, 292-359, 361382. BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (1998) Roman Britain in 1997. Britannia, 29, 365-445. BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (2000) Roman Britain in 1999. Britannia, 31, 371-431, 433-449. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F. & CLEARY, S. E. (1999) Roman Britain in 1998. Britannia, 30, 319-386. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1993) Roman Britain in 1992. Britannia, 24, 267, 269-322. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1994) Roman Britain in 1993. Britannia, 25, 245-291 and 293-314. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1995) Roman Britain in 1994. Britannia, 26, 342-370. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1996) Roman Britain in 1995. Britannia, 27, 389-457. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1997) Roman Britain in 1996. Britannia, 28, 395-453 and 455-472. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2001) Roman Britain in 2000. Britannia, 32, 311-385 and 387-400. BANKS, J. (1812) A Description of a Roman Vault, discovered in the suburbs of the city of York.

Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 16, 340. BRINKLOW, D. A. (1984) Roman settlement around the legionary fortress at York. IN ADDYMAN, P. V. & BLACK, E. W. (Eds.) Archaeological Papers from York presented to M W Barley. York, York Archaeological Trust. BRINKLOW, D. A., HALL, R. A., MAGILTON, J. R. & DONAGHEY, S. (1986) Coney Street, Aldwark, and Clementhorpe, minor sites, and Roman Roads, York, York Archaeological Trust. BUCKLAND, P. C. (1988) The Stones of York: Building materials of Roman Yorkshire. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. CARVER, M. O. H., DONAGHEY, S. & SUMPTER, A. (1978) Riverside Structures and a Well in Skeldergate and Buildings in Bishophall, York, Yorkshire Archaeological Trust. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. COLLINGE, W. E. (1929) Roman beads found near York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 29, 108-109. COOL, H. E. M., JACKSON, C. M. & MONAGHAN, J. (1999) Glass-making and the Sixth Legion at York. Britannia, 30, 147-162. COOL, H. E. M., LLOYD-MORGAN, G. & HOOLEY, A. D. (1995) Finds from the Fortress, York, York Archaeological Trust. DICKENSON, C. & WENHAM, L. P. (1957) Discoveries in the Roman cemetery on the Mount, York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 283-324. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1986) Roman Britain in 1985. Britannia, 17, 363-454. FRERE, S. S. (1989) Roman Britain in 1988. Britannia, 20, 257-345. FRERE, S. S. (1990) Roman Britain in 1989. Britannia, 21, 303-378. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1984) Roman Britain in 1983. Britannia, 15, 265-356. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1987) Roman Britain in 1986. Britannia, 18, 301-377. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1988) Roman Britain in 1987. Britannia, 19, 415-508. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1992) Roman Britain in 1991. Britannia, 23, 309-323. FRERE, S. S. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1991) Roman Britain in 1990. Britannia, 22, 211-311. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485.

155

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1980) Roman Britain in 1979. Britannia, 11, 345-417. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1981) Roman Britain in 1980. Britannia, 12, 313-396. HALL, R. A. (1997) Excavations in the Praetentura 9 Blake Street, York, York Archaeological Trust. HASSALL, M. W. C., WILSON, D. M., WRIGHT, R. P. & REA, J. (1972) Roman Britain in 1971. Britannia, 3, 298-352. JARRETT, M. G. (1966) Septimius Severus and the defences of York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 516-524. JONES, R. F. J. (1984b) Cemeteries of Roman York. IN ADDYMAN, P. V. & BLACK, E. W. (Eds.) Archaeological Papers from York presented to M.W. Barley. York, York Archaeological Trust. MACGREGOR, A. (1976) Finds from a Roman sewer system and an adjacent building in Church Street, York, York Archaeological Trust. MCGREGOR, A. (1978) Roman Finds from Skeldergate and Bishophill, York, York Archaeological Trust. MILLER, S. N. (1928) Roman York: excavations of 19267. Journal of Roman Studies, 18, 61-99. OTTAWAY, P. (1984a) The Colonia at York, past, present and future. IN WILSON, P., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) Settlement and society in the Roman north. Bradford, School of Archaeological Science. OTTAWAY, P. (1984b) Colonia Eburacensis: a Review of Recent Work. IN ADDYMAN, P. V. & BLACK, E. W. (Eds.) Archaeological Papers from York presented to M W Barley. York, York Archaeological Trust. OTTAWAY, P. (1996) Excavations and Observations on the Defences and Adjacent sites, 1871-90, York, York Archaeological Trust. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. PHILLIPS, D. & HEYWOOD, B. (1995) Excavations at York Minster: volume I; from Roman fortress to Norman cathedral, part 1 - the site and part 2 - the finds, HMSO. RADLEY, J. (1972) Excavations in the defences of the city of York: an early medieval stone tower and the successive earth ramparts. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 44, 38-65. RAMM, H. G. (1956) Roman York: Excavations in 1955. Journal of Roman Studies, 46, 76-90. RICHARDSON, K. M. (1959) Excavations in Hungate, York. The Archaeological Journal, 116, 51-114. RANKOV, N. B., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1982) Roman Britain in 1981. Britannia, 13, 328422.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON HISTORICAL MONUMENTS. (1962) An inventory of the historical monuments in the city of York, [London], [H.M. Stationery Office]. STEAD, I. M. (1958) Excavations at the south corner tower of the Roman fortress at York 1956. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 515-538. STEAD, I. M. (1971) Excavation at King’s Square York, 1957. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 151-155. SUMPTER, A. & COLL, S. (1977) Interval Tower SW5 and the South-west Defences: Excavations 1972-75, York, York Archaeological Trust. TWEEDLE, D. (1986) Finds from Parliament Street and Other Sites in the City Centre, York, York Archaeological Trust. WENHAM, L. P. (1962a) Excavations and discoveries adjoining the south-west wall of the Roman legionary fortress in Feasegate, York 1955-57. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 40, 329-351. WENHAM, L. P. (1962b) Excavations and discoveries within the legionary fortress in Davygate, York, 19558. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 1955-8, 40, 507588. WENHAM, L. P. (1966) Blossom Street Excavations, 1953-5. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 524590. WENHAM, L. P. (1968a) Discoveries at King’s Square, York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 165-169. WENHAM, L. P. (1968b) Romano-British Cemetery: Trentholme Drive, York, London, HMSO. WENHAM, L. P. (1972) Excavations at Low Petergate, York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 65-113. WENHAM, L. P. (1988) Roman gold ring from York. IN MANBY, T. G. (Ed.) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire: Essays in honour of T.C.M. Brewster. Gainsborough, John R. Collies. WHITWELL, J. B. (1976) The Church Street Sewer and an Adjacent Building, York, York Archaeological Trust. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, J., HASSALL, M. W. C., BOWMAN, A. K. & THOMAS, J. D. (1974) Roman Britain in 1973. Britannia, 5, 397-460. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. NUCLEATED SETTLEMENT Adel SE277409 The only evidence of this Roman town is a rampart. Its function and period are unknown.

156

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES ATKINSON, D. (1913) An excavation at Adel Camp. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 22, 287-302. FAULL, M. L. & MOORHOUSE, S. (1981) West Yorkshire: An Archaeological Survey to A.D. 1500, Wakefield, West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. VILLY, F. (1923) A Note on the Position of the Roman Site near Adel. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 27, 320-321.

FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. LEECH, R. H. & SCOTT, D. (1993) The Roman Fort and vicus at Ambleside: Archaeological Research in 1982. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 93, 51-74. MANN, S. & DUNWELL, A. (1995) An interim note on the further discoveries on the Roman vicus at Ambleside, 1992-1993. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 95, 79-84.

Aldborough SE406664

Brough-on-Humber SE9326

The site of Aldborough was home to a fort in that dated from AD 85-130. The town earthworks from the town date to the second century. Aldborough was the civitas capital for the Brigantes.

The vicus was first constructed in the late second century AD at the same time the fort was being abandoned. At this time it functioned as a supply depot for the military and may have been the civitas capital for the Parisi.

BISHOP, M. C. (1996) Finds from Aldborough: A catalogue of small finds from the Romano-British town of Isurium Brigantum, Oxford, Oxbow Books. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1994) Roman Britain in 1993. Britannia, 25, 245-291 and 293-314. DEARNE, M. J. (2002) Some ‘rediscovered’ Roman finds from Aldborough and Victoria Cave, Settle. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 74, 135-150. FRERE, S. S. (1990) Roman Britain in 1989. Britannia, 21, 303-378. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. JOHNSON, S. & NEAL, D. S. (2002) The re-excavation and study of the Helicon mosaic, Aldborough Roman town. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 74, 113-134. JONES, M. U. (1972) Aldborough, West Riding 1964: excavations at the south gate and bastion and at extramural sites. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 43, 3979. SNAPE, M., BIDWELL, P. & CROOM, A. (2002) Aldborough Roman town: excavations by Miss D. Chadwick 1961-1973 and by RCHME 1959-60. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 74, 29-111.

BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1993) Roman Britain in 1992. Britannia, 24, 267, 269-322. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1995) Roman Britain in 1994. Britannia, 26, 342-370. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. CORDER, P. (1939) Excavations at Brough, E. Yorkshire, 1934. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 28, 1-35. CORDER, P. & ROMANS, T. (1939a) Excavations at Brough, E. Yorkshire, 1935. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 28, 43-84. CORDER, P. & ROMANS, T. (1939b) Excavations at Brough, E. Yorkshire, 1936. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 28, 85-152. COWPER, H. S. (1903) Romano-British Fibulae and other objects from Brough. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 3, 70-72. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. HEELIS, A. J. (1911) A find of Roman Coins near Brougham Castle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 11, 209-211. WACHER, J. (1960) Petuaria: New Evidence for the Roman town and its earlier fort. Antiquaries Journal, 40, 58-64.

Ambleside Vicus NY37300360 The vicus was in use from the early second century AD throughout the Antonine period. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1994) Roman Britain in 1993. Britannia, 25, 245-291 and 293-314. DRURY, D. & DUNWELL, A. (2004) Excavations and watching briefs at Borrons Road Ambleside, 190093. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, Third Series: 5, 71-104.

157

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH WACHER, J. (1969) Excavations at Brough-on-Humber, Leeds, Reports on the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London No. XXV. ZANT, J. M. (2001) An excavation at Brougham Castle. Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, Third Series: I, 31-37. Castleford SE427256 Like the fort, the vicus at Castleford originated to the late first century AD. The vicus remained in use until the mid to late second century AD. In the third and fourth centuries there were occasional burials. ABRAMSON, P. (1998) The Search for Roman Castleford. Current Archaeology. COOL, H. E. M. & PHILO, C. (Eds.) (1998) Roman Castleford Excavations 1974-85. Volume I: the small finds, Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service. CROCKETT, A. & FITZPATRICK, A. P. (1998) Archaeological mitigation in the Flavian fort annexe and later Roman settlement at Bradley Street, Castleford, West Yorkshire, 1991-1993. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 70, 35-66. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. SUMPTER, T. (1984) The vicus of the Roman fort at Castleford. IN WILSON, P., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) Settlement and society in the Roman North. Bradford, School of Archaeological Science. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. Catterick SE2299 Catterick was first occupied in the early Roman period and went through a number of permutations. By the fourth century the town was occupied by stone buildings and laid out in insula with a stone wall. CADE, J. (1792) Further observations of Cataractonium and parts adjacent. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 10, 54-66. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1984) Roman Britain in 1983. Britannia, 15, 265-356. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392.

HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1955) A Roman and Saxon Site at Catterick. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 38, 241246. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1957) Cataractonium, Fort and Town. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 224-265. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. (2002) Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology. Doncaster SE574034 The extramural settlement was built in conjunction with the fort in the early Roman period. However, when the fort was abandoned in the second century AD, timber and earthwork defences were added to the civil settlement. BUCKLAND, P. C. (1986) Roman South Yorkshire: A Source Book, Sheffield, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield. BUCKLAND, P. C. & MAGILTON, J. R. (1986) The Archaeology of Doncaster: the Roman civil settlement, Oxford, BAR British Series. CREGEEN, S. M. (1956) The Roman Excavations at Cantley Housing Estate, Doncaster, Part III. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 32-48. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. HASSALL, M. W. C., WILSON, D. M., WRIGHT, R. P. & REA, J. (1972) Roman Britain in 1971. Britannia, 3, 298-352. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. Dragonby SE905138 Dragonby has Neolithic links, but in the Roman period there was a mixture of stone rectilinear and timber circular buildings. The site was most popular in the early second century AD but remained in use throughout the third century AD. MAY, J. (1996) Dragonby: Report on the excavations at an Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in North Lincolnshire., Oxford, Oxbow monograph 61. Elslack SD925495 The vicus at Elslack coincides with the construction of the first fort during the governship of Petilius Cerialis.

158

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES MAY, T. (1911) The Roman Forts at Elslack. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 21, 113-168. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society.

GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. SMYTH, W. H. (1846) On some Roman vestigia recently found at Kirkby Thore, in Westmorland. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 31, 279288.

Greta Bridge NZ0813 The fort and vicus formed in the Flavian period. The evidence suggests that in the late second century there was ironworking and other industrial activities. The site was rebuilt with stone buildings in the late third century AD. CASEY, P. J. & HOFFMAN, B. (1998) Rescue Excavations in the Vicus of the Fort at Greta Bridge, Co. Durham 1972-4. Britannia, 29, 111-183. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, J., HASSALL, M. W. C., BOWMAN, A. K. & THOMAS, J. D. (1974) Roman Britain in 1973. Britannia, 5, 397-460. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. Irby SJ255845 Irby was first occupied in the early Roman period and was comprised of numerous timber roundhouses. In the late third/fourth century there was a significant change of the settlement with oval buildings being replaced by circular varieties and in the late fourth century stone buildings were constructed. Structural Phases of Irby, Privately Printed. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1993) Roman Britain in 1992. Britannia, 24, 267, 269-322. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1994) Roman Britain in 1993. Britannia, 25, 245-291 and 293-314. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1997) Roman Britain in 1996. Britannia, 24, 395-453 and 455-472. PHILPOTT, R. A. (1994) The implications of Irby. From Flints to Flower Pots: Current Research in the DeeMersey Region. Papers from a seminar held at Chester. Chester, Cheshire County Council. Kirkby Thore NY639257 There were vici on the north and northwest sides of the fort. The site dates to the early Roman period. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1964) Recent Work at Kirkby Thore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 64, 63-75.

Lancaster SD3761 The vicus was developed during the first century AD. The major focus of the excavations has been in a large bathhouse and a courtyard style building, both of which are part of the vicus. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2001) Roman Britain in 2000. Britannia, 32, 311-385 and 387-400. BUXTON, K. & SHOTTER, D. (1996) The Roman Period. IN NEWMAN, R. (Ed.) Archaeology of Lancashire Present State and Future Priorities. Lancashire, Lancaster University Archaeological unit. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1988) Roman Britain in 1987. Britannia, 19, 415-508. JONES, G. B. D., SHOTTER, D. & ARTHUR, D. C. (1988) Roman Lancaster: rescue archaeology in an historic city, 1970-75, Manchester, Department of Manchester: Brigantia Monograph. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1980) Roman Britain in 1979. Britannia, 11, 345-417. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1981) Roman Britain in 1980. Britannia, 12, 313-396. HASSALL, M. W. C., WILSON, D. M., WRIGHT, R. P. & REA, J. (1972) Roman Britain in 1971. Britannia, 3, 298-352. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, J., HASSALL, M. W. C., BOWMAN, A. K. & THOMAS, J. D. (1974) Roman Britain in 1973. Britannia, 5, 397-460. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. Malton SE792716 The vicus at Malton was first built in the late first century AD and in the second century a building program commenced

159

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH with permanent stone buildings being constructed. The vicus then remained in use throughout the Roman period until being abandoned at the end of the fourth century AD. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1994) Roman Britain in 1993. Britannia, 25, 245-291 and 293-314. CORDER, P. (1930a) The Defences of the Roman Fort at Malton, London, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. CORDER, P. & KIRK, J. L. (1928) Roman Malton: a Yorkshire Fortress and its neighbourhood. Antiquity, 2, 69-82. FRERE, S. S. (1990) Roman Britain in 1989. Britannia, 21, 303-378. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1992) Roman Britain in 1991. Britannia, 23, 309-323. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. MITCHELSON, N. (1966) Roman Malton: The civilian settlement. Excavations in Orchard Field. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 209-262. ROBINSON, J. F. (1978) The Archaeology of Malton and Norton, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WENHAM, L. P. & HEYWOOD, B. (1997) The 1968 to 1970 excavations in the vicus at Malton, North Yorkshire, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. Manchester SJ8397 The fort of Manchester was an important in the distribution of goods going north to Hadrian’s Wall. The first fort was constructed in AD 80 and was probably repaired in both the Trajanic and Severan period. BRUTON, F. A. (Ed.) (1909) The Roman Fort at Manchester, Manchester, Manchester University Press. BRYANT, S., MORRIS, M. & WALKER, J. S. F. (1986) Roman Manchester: A Frontier Settlement, Manchester, Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit. BURNHAM, B. C., HUNTER, F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2002) Roman Britain in 2001. Britannia, 33, 275-371. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1986) Roman Britain in 1985. Britannia, 17, 363-454. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1992) Roman Britain in 1991. Britannia, 23, 309-323. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392.

GREGORY, R. A. (2007) Roman Manchester: The University of Manchester’s Excavations within the Vicus 2001-5, Oxford, Oxbow Books. JONES, G. B. D. (1974) Roman Manchester, Altrincham, Manchester Excavation committee. SIMPSON, G. (1973) Roman Manchester and Templebrough: the forts and dates reviewed. IN HAWKES, C. & HAWKES, H. (Eds.) Greeks, Celts, and Romans: Studies in Venture and Resistance. London, J.M. Dent and sons LTD. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. Melandra Castle SK009951 The occupation of the vici began shortly after the fort with large-scale construction occurring in the Hadrianic period. The site remained in use until the late second century AD. CONWAY, R. S. (1906a) Melandra Castle, Manchester, Manchester University Press. CONWAY, R. S. (1906b) Melandra Castle, 1906. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 28, 55-75. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. FRERE, S. S. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1991) Roman Britain in 1990. Britannia, 22, 211-311. GARSTANG, J. (1901) Melandra Castle. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 22, 90-98. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1981) Roman Britain in 1980. Britannia, 12, 313-396. HOLLAND, W. R. (1912) Melandra Castle. Origin of the name. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 34, 158-160. LAWRENCE, H. (1912) Melandra Castle. Excavations 1908-1911. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 34, 153-157. PETCH, J. A. (1949) The Date of Melandra Castle: Evidence of the Pottery. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 69, 1-40. PETCH, J. A. (1958) Melandra Castle Excavations 1958. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 78, 1-8. PETCH, J. A. (1959) Melandra Castle Excavations 1959. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 79, 122-124. PETCH, J. A. (1960) Melandra Castle Excavations, 1960. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 80, 105-108. PETCH, J. A. (1963) Melandra Castle. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 83, 1-9.

160

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES WEBSTER, P. V. (1967) Melandra Castle excavations, 1966. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 87, 161-162. WEBSTER, P. V. (1970) Excavations at Melandra Castle, Derbyshire, 1969. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 89, 85-110. WEBSTER, P. V. (1971) Melandra Castle Roman Fort: excavations in the civil settlement 1966-69. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 91, 58-118. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. Old Penrith NY4938 The initial occupation was identified by the recovery of Trajanic Samian ware. There was no occupation after AD 300, however there is minimal activity until AD 370. AUSTEN, P. S. (1991) Bewcastle and Old Penrith. Carlisle, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Research Series, number 6. BIRLEY, E. (1947a) Old Penrith and its Problems. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 48, 166-182. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. HAVERFIELD, F. (1913) Voreda, The Roman Fort at Plumpton Wall. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 13, 177-198. POULTER, A. (1982) Old Penrith: excavations 1977 and 1979. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 82, 51-66. Papcastle NY1031 There was an extensive civil settlement outside of the fort, which produced datable pottery from the Flavian until the fourth century AD. BIRLEY, E. (1963) Roman Papcastle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 63, 96-125. BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (2000) Roman Britain in 1999. Britannia, 31, 371-431, 433-449. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1965) Excavations at Papcastle 1961-62. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 65, 102-114. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1913) Report on the excavations at Papcastle, 1912. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 13, 131-142.

FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332. Pym’s Parlour SK0495 This vicus remained in use until the late third century AD. NEVELL, M. (1992) Tameside before 1066, Tameside Metropolitan Brough Council. Ribchester SD649351 The vicus was in use by the end of the first century AD. It was rebuilt in the mid-third century but on a much smaller scale. BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (2000) Roman Britain in 1999. Britannia, 31, 371-431, 433-449. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2001) Roman Britain in 2000. Britannia, 32, 311-385 and 387-400. BUXTON, K. & HOWARD-DAVIS, C. (2000) Bremetenacum: Excavations at Roman Ribchester, 1980, 1989-1990., Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. EDWARDS, B. J. N. & WEBSTER, P. V. (1985a) Ribchester excavations part 2: Excavations in the civil settlement: the structure, Cardiff, University College. EDWARDS, B. J. N. & WEBSTER, P. V. (Eds.) (1985b) Ribchester Excavations Part I: Excavations within the Roman Fort, Cardiff, Cardiff University Press. FRERE, S. S. (1990) Roman Britain in 1989. Britannia, 21, 303-378. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1992) Roman Britain in 1991. Britannia, 23, 309-323. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1981) Roman Britain in 1980. Britannia, 12, 313-396. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. Saddleworth SD925045 The vicus at Saddleworth was short-lived with an origin around 79 AD. It fell out of use in the early to mid-second century AD. BOOTH, K. (2001) Roman Saddleworth: The history, archaeology and visible remains of the Roman occupation of an area in the Pennines, Oldham, Saddleworth Archaeological Trust.

161

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Templebrough SK410916 The vicus has been studied in very limited amounts. However, two female burials and limited material culture indicates some social settlement. BUCKLAND, P. C. (1986) Roman South Yorkshire: a source book, Sheffield, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield. MAY, T. (1922) The Roman Forts of Templebrough, near Rotherham., Rotherham, Henry Garnett and Co. SIMPSON, G. (1973) Roman Manchester and Templebrough: the forts and dates reviewed. IN HAWKES, C. & HAWKES, H. (Eds.) Greeks, Celts, and Romans: Studies in Venture and Resistance. London, J.M. Dent and sons LTD. WOODWARD, A. M. (1924) The Roman Forts at Templebrough. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 27, 112-117. Warrington SJ6088 The civilian settlement at Warrington dated to around AD 100. The evidence suggests that it was primarily an industrial site with only a few domestic structures. HINCHLIFFE, J., WILLIAMS, J. H. & WILLIAMS, F. (1992) Roman Warrington: Excavations at Wilderspool1966-9 and 1976, Manchester, University of Manchester. GREALEY, S. (Ed.) (1976) The Archaeology of Warrington’s Past., Warrington, Warrington Development Corporation. Watercrook SD5190 The civilian settlement at Watercrook originally dated to the Flavian-Trajanic period and was characterized by timber strip houses. It remained in use throughout the second century AD. BIRLEY, E. (1958) The Roman fort at Watercrook. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 58, 13-18. GIBBONS, P. (1988) Archaeological Report on the Watercrook E.T.W. Pipeline. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 88, 71-86. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. NORTH, O. H. (1932) The Roman Station at Watercrook. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 32, 116-23. NORTH, O. H. (1934) Finds from the Roman Station at Watercrook. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 34, 35-40.

NORTH, O. H. & HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1945) Excavations at the Roman fort of Watercrook, 1944. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 45, 148-162. POTTER, T. W. (1976) Excavations at Watercrook 1974: An interim report. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 76, 6-66. POTTER, T. W. (1977) Excavations at the Roman fort of Watercrook, 1975: a second interim report. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 77, 49-52. POTTER, T. W. (1979) Romans in north-west England: excavations at the Roman forts of Ravenglass, Watercrook, and Bowness on Solway, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. York SE603517 York was the legionary fortress in the north of England and in the late Roman period it served an important administrative role. The Colonia was the civil settlement on the southwest bank of the Ouse and would have been first used in the second century AD. It remained prosperous throughout the fourth century AD. BURNHAM, B. C., HUNTER, F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2002) Roman Britain in 2001. Britannia, 33, 275-371. BURNHAM, B. C., HUNTER, F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2003) Roman Britain in 2002. Britannia, 34, 292-359, 361382. BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (1998) Roman Britain in 1997. Britannia, 29, 365-445. BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (2000) Roman Britain in 1999. Britannia, 31, 371-431, 433-449. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F. & CLEARY, S. E. (1999) Roman Britain in 1998. Britannia, 30, 319-386. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1993) Roman Britain in 1992. Britannia, 24, 267, 269-322. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1994) Roman Britain in 1993. Britannia, 25, 245-291 and 293-314. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1995) Roman Britain in 1994. Britannia, 26, 342-370. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1996a) Roman Britain in 1995. Britannia, 27, 389-457. 162

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1996b) Roman Britain in 1995. Britannia, 26, 389-457. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1997) Roman Britain in 1996. Britannia, 24, 395-453 and 455-472. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2001) Roman Britain in 2000. Britannia, 32, 311-385 and 387-400. BANKS, J. (1812) A Description of a Roman Vault, discovered in the suburbs of the city of York. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 16, 340. BRINKLOW, D. A. (1984) Roman settlement around the legionary fortress at York. IN ADDYMAN, P. V. & BLACK, E. W. (Eds.) Archaeological Papers from York presented to M W Barley. York, York Archaeological Trust. BRINKLOW, D. A., HALL, R. A., MAGILTON, J. R. & DONAGHEY, S. (1986) Coney Street, Aldwark, and Clementhorpe, minor sites, and Roman Roads, York, York Archaeological Trust. BUCKLAND, P. C. (1988) The Stones of York: Building materials of Roman Yorkshire. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. CARVER, M. O. H., DONAGHEY, S. & SUMPTER, A. (1978) Riverside Structures and a Well in Skeldergate and Buildings in Bishophall, York, Yorkshire Archaeological Trust. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. COLLINGE, W. E. (1929) Roman beads found near York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 29, 108-109. COOL, H. E. M., JACKSON, C. M. & MONAGHAN, J. (1999) Glass-making and the Sixth Legion at York. Britannia, 30, 147-162. COOL, H. E. M., LLOYD-MORGAN, G. & HOOLEY, A. D. (1995) Finds from the Fortress, York, York Archaeological Trust. DICKENSON, C. & WENHAM, L. P. (1957) Discoveries in the Roman cemetery on the Mount, York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 283-324. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1986) Roman Britain in 1985. Britannia, 17, 363-454. FRERE, S. S. (1989) Roman Britain in 1988. Britannia, 20, 257-345. FRERE, S. S. (1990) Roman Britain in 1989. Britannia, 21, 303-378. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1984) Roman Britain in 1983. Britannia, 15, 265-356.

FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1987) Roman Britain in 1986. Britannia, 18, 301-377. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1988) Roman Britain in 1987. Britannia, 19, 415-508. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1992) Roman Britain in 1991. Britannia, 23, 309-323. FRERE, S. S. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1991) Roman Britain in 1990. Britannia, 22, 211-311. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1980) Roman Britain in 1979. Britannia, 11, 345-417. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1981) Roman Britain in 1980. Britannia, 12, 313-396. HALL, R. A. (1997) Excavations in the Praetentura 9 Blake Street, York, York Archaeological Trust. HASSALL, M. W. C., WILSON, D. M., WRIGHT, R. P. & REA, J. (1972) Roman Britain in 1971. Britannia, 3, 298-352. JARRETT, M. G. (1966) Septimius Severus and the defences of York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 516-524. JONES, R. F. J. (1984b) Cemeteries of Roman York. IN ADDYMAN, P. V. & BLACK, E. W. (Eds.) Archaeological Papers from York presented to M.W. Barley. York, York Archaeological Trust. MACGREGOR, A. (1976) Finds from a Roman sewer system and an adjacent building in Church Street, York, York Archaeological Trust. MACGREGOR, A. (1978) Roman Finds from Skeldergate and Bishophill, York, York Archaeological Trust. MILLER, S. N. (1928) Roman York: excavations of 19267. Journal of Roman Studies, 18, 61-99. OTTAWAY, P. (1984a) The Colonia at York, past, present and future. IN WILSON, P., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) Settlement and society in the Roman north. Bradford, School of Archaeological Science. OTTAWAY, P. (1984b) Colonia Eburacensis: a Review of Recent Work. IN ADDYMAN, P. V. & BLACK, E. W. (Eds.) Archaeological Papers from York presented to M W Barley. York, York Archaeological Trust. OTTAWAY, P. (1996) Excavations and Observations on the Defences and Adjacent sites, 1871-90, York, York Archaeological Trust. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. PHILLIPS, D. & HEYWOOD, B. (1995) Excavations at York Minster: volume I; from Roman fortress to Norman cathedral, part 1 - the site and part 2 - the finds, HMSO.

163

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH RADLEY, J. (1972) Excavations in the defences of the city of York: an early medieval stone tower and the successive earth ramparts. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 44, 38-65. RICHARDSON, K. M. (1959) Excavations in Hungate, York. The Archaeological Journal, 116, 51-114. RANKOV, N. B., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1982) Roman Britain in 1981. Britannia, 13, 328422. ROYAL COMMISSION ON HISTORICAL MONUMENTS. (1962) An inventory of the historical monuments in the city of York, [London], [H.M. Stationery Office]. STEAD, I. M. (1958) Excavations at the south corner tower of the Roman fortress at York 1956. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 515-538. STEAD, I. M. (1971) Excavation at King’s Square York, 1957. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 151-155. SUMPTER, A. & COLL, S. (1977) Interval Tower SW5 and the South-west Defences: Excavations 1972-75, York, York Archaeological Trust. TWEEDLE, D. (1986) Finds from Parliament Street and Other Sites in the City Centre, York, York Archaeological Trust. WENHAM, L. P. (1962a) Excavations and discoveries adjoining the south-west wall of the Roman legionary fortress in Feasegate, York 1955-57. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 40, 329-351. WENHAM, L. P. (1962b) Excavations and discoveries within the legionary fortress in Davygate, York, 19558. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 1955-8, 40, 507588. WENHAM, L. P. (1966) Blossom Street Excavations, 1953-5. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 524590. WENHAM, L. P. (1968a) Discoveries at King’s Square, York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 165-169. WENHAM, L. P. (1968b) Romano-British Cemetery: Trentholme Drive, York, London, HMSO. WENHAM, L. P. (1972) Excavations at Low Petergate, York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 65-113. WENHAM, L. P. (1988) Roman gold ring from York. IN MANBY, T. G. (Ed.) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire: Essays in honour of T.C.M. Brewster. Gainsborough, John R. Collies. WHITWELL, J. B. (1976) The Church Street Sewer and an Adjacent Building, York, York Archaeological Trust. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, J., HASSALL, M. W. C., BOWMAN, A. K. & THOMAS, J. D. (1974) Roman Britain in 1973. Britannia, 5, 397-460. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294.

Villas Beadlam SE63378412 The villa was occupied between the late second century AD and the fourth century AD. The villa was preceded by a number of structures including masonry buildings. NEAL, D. S. (1996) Excavations on the Roman Villa at Beadlam, Yorkshire., Leeds, Archaeological Report No. 2. SPRATT, D. A. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. (1993) Prehistoric and Roman archaeology of North-East Yorkshire, London, Council for British Archaeology. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. Blansby Park SE828872 The villa is from the late Roman period and as been studied minimally thus far. However excavations have revealed a hypocaust and substantial walls. WATTS, L., JONES, A. & RAHTZ, P. (2003) The Roman Villa at Blansby Park, Pickering: Excavations at the Park Gate Roman Site in 2000. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 75, 15-56. Brantingham SE939292 The villa was occupied throughout the late Roman period and included a high quality mosaic, a hypocaust, circular oven and significant quantities of wall plaster were recovered. There is no evidence for pre-villa activity. DENT, J. S. (1988) Some problems of continuity in rural settlement. IN MANBY, T. G. (Ed.) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire: Essays in honour of T.C.M. Brewster. Gainsborough, John R. Collies. STEAD, I. M., LIVERSIDGE, J. & SMITH, D. J. (1973) Brantingham Roman Villa: Discoveries in 1962. Britannia, 4, 84-106. Dalton Parlours SE402445 Dalton Parlours was in use during the Iron Age but was abandoned until approximately AD 260 when the villa was built. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. SUMPTER, A. (1988) Iron Age and Roman at Dalton Parlours. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent

164

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. WRATHMELL, S. & NICHOLSON, A. (Eds.) (1991) Dalton Parlours: Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service.

WRIGHT, R. P. & GILLAM, J. P. (1953) Third report on the Roman site at Old Durham. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 31, 116-126. Rudston TA089667

Harpham TA092617 Excavations revealed large quantities of sandstone and tesserae on the site and large mosaics. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. COLLIER, C. V. (1906) The Roman remains at Harpham. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 13 (ii), 141-152. SHEPPARD, T. (1904) Discoveries at the Roman Villa at Harpham. Hull Museum Publications, Quarter Records of Additions, 11, 3-9. SHEPPARD, T. (1923a) Ancient Mazes at Harpham and Pompeii. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 24, 68-72. Langton SE814674 Langton had three main phases of occupation starting with an early oblong rectilinear building, which may have been of military use. This early phase dated to circa AD 70. The villa was constructed in the third century and remained in use until the late fourth century AD. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. CORDER, P. & KIRK, J. L. (1932) A Roman Villa at Langton, near Malton, East Yorkshire, Oxford, Roman Antiquities Committee. GODDALL, I. H. (1972) Industrial Activity from the Villa at Langton, East Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 44, 32-38. MORTIMER, J. R. (1903) An account of the discovery of Roman remains at Langton. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 10, 71-75.

The site dates back to the Neolithic with some of the first sedentary structures dating from the Iron Age. The villa dates to the third and fourth century AD. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. HASSALL, M. W. C., WILSON, D. M., WRIGHT, R. P. & REA, J. (1972) Roman Britain in 1971. Britannia, 3, 298-352. STEAD, I. M. (1980) Rudston Roman Villa, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. WOODWARD, A. M. (1933) The Roman Villa at Rudston. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 31, 366-386. WOODWARD, A. M. (1934) The Roman Villa at Rudston. Second Interim Report of the excavations, 1934. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 32, 214-229. WOODWARD, A. M. & STEER, K. A. (1936) The Roman Villa at Rudston. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 33, 81-86. Stancil SK609960 The villa was constructed and destroyed in the third century AD and evidence consists of a bath and hypocaust. There was an unconnected burial of 30 individuals from unknown period. BUCKLAND, P. C. (1986) Roman South Yorkshire: a source book, Sheffield, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield. WHITING, C. E. (1943) Excavations at Stancil 19381939. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 35, 261-269.

Old Durham NZ2841 The remains from Old Durham are very limited, but two circular threshing floors and a bath house have been exposed. MILES, D. (1982) The Romano-British Countryside: Studies in Rural Settlement and Economy, Oxford, BAR British Series. WRIGHT, R. P. & GILLAM, J. P. (1951) Second report on Roman Buildings at Old Durham. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 29, 203-212.

Well SE26508185 Excavations at the villa at Wells revealed a large bath complex, which were constructed in the late Roman period. GILYARD-BEER, R. (1951) The Romano-British Baths at Well, Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society.

165

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Wharram Le Street SE867661

Aiketgate NY4846

Wharram Le Street was a major prehistoric site with either permanent or seasonal occupation. By the late Roman period it had developed into a villa that was linked with Malton and Norton.

The site included large square enclosures with pits of industrial use. There are also two hut circles of unknown date.

GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1980) Roman Britain in 1979. Britannia, 11, 345-417. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. RAHTZ, P., HAYFIELD, C. & BATEMAN, J. (1986) Two Roman Villas at Wharram-Le-Street, York, York University Archaeological Publications. Wharram Grange SE846657 Wharram Grange had prehistoric connections and became a villa in the late period. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. Winterton SE926185 Winterton’s first occupational evidence is a circular hut from the Iron Age. In the late Roman period, a large aisled house and bath-suite were in use. The villa was in use from the third and fourth century AD. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1981) Roman Britain in 1980. Britannia, 12, 313-396. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332. FRERE, S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1986) Roman Britain in 1985. Britannia, 17, 363-454. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1984) Roman Britain in 1983. Britannia, 15, 265-356. STEAD, I. M. (1976) Winterton Roman Villa. Antiquaries Journal, 40, 72-84. STEAD, I. M. & CHARLESWORTH, D. (1976) Excavations at Winterton Roman Villa and other Roman sites in North Lincolnshire, London, HMSO. Rural Sites Aberford Dykes SE4337 Aberford Dykes consists of ditches first cut in the prehistoric period that were re-cut in Roman period before being filled in the third century AD.

LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. Aldro Farmstead SE807636 Aldro was a fourth century farmstead where large quantities of pottery were recovered. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. Amotherby SE7473 Some structures were recorded. The finds were primarily hand-made pottery of unknown date. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Apperley Dene NZ055585 The site was occupied between the second and fourth centuries AD. Prior to the 1980’s the site was thought to be a fortlet or a villa. Only minimal excavations have occurred on the site and large quantities of Roman pottery have been recovered associated with modern ploughing. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. GREENE, K. (1978) Apperley Dene Roman Fortlet: a reexamination. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 6, 29-59. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1952) A Roman Site on Dere Street. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 30, 223-239. MILES, D. (1982) The Romano-British Countryside: Studies in Rural Settlement and Economy, Oxford, BAR British Series. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294.

ROBERTS, I., BURGESS, A. & BERG, D. (2001) A New Link to the Past: The archaeological landscape of the M1-A1 link road., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service.

166

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES Ashton Moss SJ9198

Bella House SE865645

The site of Ashton Moss is a comprised of a collection of circular hut-circles. Additionally there is evidence of metalworking on the north side of the site.

According to pottery scatters, the small farmstead was occupied in the late Roman period.

NEVELL, M. (1992) Tameside before 1066, Tameside Metropolitan Brough Council.

HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series.

Aughertree Fell NY2637

Birdsall High Barn Farmstead SE844644

The site consists of three circular camps all with a ring ditch and single entrance.

A single bank and ditch earthwork with the majority of finds suggesting that it has early Roman origins and fell out of use in the late Roman period.

BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1967) The Aughertree Fell Enclosure. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 67, 26-30.

HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series.

Barbon High SD6282

Birdsall Township SE847647

The site shows multiple phases of use including pottery kilns and a large rectangular enclosure. There was activity on the site from the early Bronze Age throughout the Roman period.

The site is comprised of a linear ladder of enclosures that were most likely used for agriculture.

CHERRY, J. & CHERRY, P. J. (1991) Archaeological Survey of Structural Remains on Barbon High Fell. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 91, 13-18. LOWNDES, R. A. C. (1963) ‘Celtic’ fields, farmsteads, and burial-mounds in the Lune Valley. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 63, 77-95. Barnby Howes SE7848 Barnby Howes was dominated by a mound of turf surrounded by a stone wall. The site was damaged by modern ploughing and later pitting action. The finds were primarily flint and jet fragments. ASHBEE, P. & APSIMON, A. M. (1956) Barnby Howes, Barnby, East Cleveland, Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 9-32. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Becca Banks SE4238

HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. Bolton Wood NY1004 Bolton Wood was an enclosure that was enclosed with a stone wall. There was no evidence of domestic structures. HODGSON, K. S. (1941) Excavations at Measand. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 41, 207-208. SPENCE, J. E. (1937) Bolton Wood Enclosure. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 37, 43-48. Bonny Grove Farm NZ52501420 The site had two phases of use including a sub-circular enclosure ditch with cereal grains and heath grass. It was occupied in the 1-3rd century AD. ANNIS, R. (1996) Bonny Grove Farm and Dixon’s Bank: two Romano-British settlement sites in Cleveland. Durham Archaeological Journal, 12, 41-60. Borrens SD628839

Becca Banks is part of the Aberford Dyke and dates to between the 1-7th century AD. There is no indication of military activity.

The site is either an Iron Age or Roman hut surrounded by a walled enclosure.

ROBERTS, I. BURGESS, A. & BERG, D. (2001) A New Link to the Past: The archaeological landscape of the M1-A1 link road., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service.

LOWNDES, R. A. C. (1963) “Celtic” fields, farmsteads, and burial-mounds in the Lune Valley. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 63, 77-95.

167

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Bowes NY995135 This was a multi-roomed homestead with a large central hut. Appears most similar to Force Garth and dated to the early period. LAURIE, T. (1983) An enclosed settlement near East Mellwaters Farm, Bowes, Co Durham. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 1, 35-39.

JOBEY, G. (1971) Excavations at Brough Law and Ingram Hill. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 49, 71-94. Broughton SD9451 CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Brunt Boggart SJ4688

Brampton NY493179 The site produced no finds and is undated. It has a cairn and a rampart surrounding a central hut.

Brunt Boggart is a first century domestic site.

NOBLE (1903) Towtop Kirk, Brampton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 3, 265-269.

COWELL, R. W. & PHILPOTT, R. A. (1999) Prehistoric, Roman, and Medieval Excavations in Merseyside, 1993: Excavations on the Line of the A5300 in Tarbock and Halewood, Liverpool, Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside.

Brantingham SE9431

Bullerthorpe Lane SE3732

The site yielded a small artefact assemblage and appears to have been comprised of multiple phases of roundhouses.

The site had a series of enclosures that dated from the second to fourth century AD. In the early Roman period there were three ditches that formed a rectangular enclosure. In the second century an annexe was added that dated in the late Roman period.

DENT, J. S. (1989) Settlements at North Cave and Brantingham. IN HALKON, P. (Ed.) New Light on the Parisi: Recent discoveries in Iron Age and Roman East Yorkshire. East Riding Archaeological Society. Brook House Farm SD5464 Brook House Farm was a settlement site from the first century AD.

ROBERTS, I., BURGESS, A. & BERG, D. (2001) A New Link to the Past: The archaeological landscape of the M1-A1 link road., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service. Burdale SE8762

COWELL, R. W. & PHILPOTT, R. A. (2000) Prehistoric, Roman, and Medieval Excavations in the Lowlands of North West England: excavations along the line of the A5300 in Tarbock and Halewood, Merseyside, Liverpool, Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside.

This is a farmstead site. Based upon pottery sherds, the site dated to the late Roman period.

Broomrigg NY5446

Burstall Garth TA372193

Broomrigg was a small enclosure that produced Bronze Age pottery, a cairn circle and a small number of Roman fragments.

A single brooch was recovered from a presumed rural site.

RICHARDSON, G. G. S. & FELL, C. I. (1975) Unpublished excavations by the late Miss K.S. Hodgson. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 75, 16-28.

HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series.

CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquites Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Canklow SK4290

Brough Law NY998164

This was the site of an iron-age hill fort that had first and second century Roman activity. No structures were found.

Brough Law is bivallate hill fort. The interior includes stone built huts indicate that it was occupied in the Roman period. It primarily functioned in the Iron Age.

PRESTON, F. L. (1954) The hill-forts of the Peak. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 74, 1-31.

168

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES Castle Crag NY2918 Castle Crag was a small native site with limited archaeological evidence. FAIR, M. C. (1943) Roman and Briton. A theory for future establishment of facts. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 43, 82-86 Cat Babbleton SE9877 The site is complex with earthworks, round barrows and a series of rectangular enclosures. The site was first used before the Roman conquest and was used until the fourth century AD. CARDWELL, P. (1989) Excavations at Cat Babbleton Farm, Gantion, North Yorkshire, 1986. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 61, 15-27. Catcote NZ5034 Catcote was first used in the first century BC and consisted of round wooden houses. The buildings were replaced as needed throughout the Roman period with no perceivable change visible after the Roman conquest. In addition, there were a number of burials. LONG, C. D. (1988) The Iron Age and RomanoBritish settlement at Catcote, Hartlepool, Cleveland. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 4, 13-45. VYNER, B. E. & DANIELS, R. (1989) Further Investigation of the Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement Site of Catcote. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 5, 11-35. Cawood SE5737 The site consists of a series of ditches entering into a clay pit. There may have once been a building, but no remains are visible. The site may have been used for pottery manufacture. CORDER, P. (1936) A Roman Site Near Cawood. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 32, 333-339. Copper House NY82281888 Copper House was a site that produced no clear dating but appears to be Roman. It is a stone-riveted terrace and a well-built dry stone wall. No domestic structures were found. DRURY, D. (1998) Stainmore, Cumbria: Archaeological investigation on the A56 Stainmore to Banks Gate road improvement scheme. Transactions of the Cumberland

and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 98, 119-132. Cowardy Hill SE839673 A series of small enclosures indicate that another farmstead site was located here. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. Crag Bank NZ611100 Crag Bank was a lyncheted field system that included a circular hut. The site was first built in the Iron Age and fell out of use in the third century AD. CLOSE, R. S., HAYES, R. H. & SPRATT, D. A. (1975) Romano-British Settlements at Crag Bank and Lounsdale, Kildale, North Riding. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 47, 61-68. Crayke SE5568 The site produced a rectangular building. The majority of finds were fourth century AD. HAYES, R. H. (1959) Sites at Woodhouse Farm, Crayke. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 40, 90-99. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1962) Romano-British Discoveries at Crayke. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 40, 99112. Crimbles SD4550 The excavations at Crimbles produced a succession of linear earthworks underlying a deserted medieval village. LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. Croftlands NY190380 The site dated to the second century AD and was a stone walled enclosure with a series of shallow ditches. HIGHAM, N. J. (1982a) ‘Native’ settlements on the north slopes of the Lake District. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 83, 29-35. Cronton SJ4988 A small curvilinear enclosure was observed at Cronton. COWELL, R. W. & PHILPOTT, R. A. (2000) Prehistoric, Roman, and Medieval Excavations in the Lowlands of North West England: excavations along the line

169

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH of the A5300 in Tarbock and Halewood, Merseyside, Liverpool, Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside.

ANNIS, R. (1996) Bonny Grove Farm and Dixon’s Bank: two Romano-British settlement sites in Cleveland. Durham Archaeological Journal, 12, 41-61.

Crossgates TA031833

Driffield TA0359

The site of Crossgates was comprised of a first century ditched enclosure that was first constructed in the Roman period. In the late first century AD there is evidence of occupation. In the fourth century there was intensive occupation when many earlier huts were destroyed and replaced. Additionally, the reoccupation of Malton is linked with Crossgates.

The site was a small enclosure where a Bramble Hill brooch was found.

RUTTER, J. G. & DUKE, G. (1958) Excavations at Crossgates near Scarborough 1947-1956, Scarborough, Scarborough and District Archaeological Survey. Dalston NY392451 There were two enclosures with a number of stone filled post-pits inside. The larger enclosure is pre-roman while the inner ditch dates to the second century AD and small quantities of Roman pottery were found in the vicinity. HIGHAM, N. J. (1981) Two enclosures at Dobcross Hall, Dalston. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 81, 1-6. Dalton-in-Furness SD235745 The stone foundation of a building of unknown date— thought to be Roman--was discovered. FELL, J. & GHYLL, D. (1883) Some notes on the discovery of an ancient building near the Park Farm, Dalton-in-Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 6, 77-82. Derwent SK178908 Small receptacle in the ground, appears to have been recovered in relation to other domestic architecture. BIRLEY, E. (1963) Roman Papcastle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 63, 96-125. ROBINSON, J. F. (1978) The Archaeology of Malton and Norton, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Dixon’s Bank NZ5314 A total of seven trenches were excavated and due to the Roman pottery it was clear that the site was occupied in the Roman period. Little other artefactual data was recorded. The site was used between the first and third century AD.

BREWSTER, T. C. M. (1956) Four Finds from East Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 5357. EDDY, M. R. (1983) Excavations at Moot Hill, Driffield. East Riding Archaeologist, 7, 40-51. Duggleby Ladder SE876666 The site was a series of ladder enclosures that had two or three phases of occupation. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. Dumplington SJ7899 The site of Dumplington was an enclosure and farmstead that produced a brooch and loom weight. NEVELL, M. (1997) The archaeology of Trafford: a study of the origins of community in north west England before 1900, Chester, Trafford Metropolitan Brough Council. Eamont Bridge NY5228 This is a series of earthworks that produced no finds. ATKINSON, W. (1882) On Some Earthworks near Eamont Bridge. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 6, 444-456. Eastburn/North Ferriby SE0144 The site was first used in the early Iron Age but a human skeleton with large quantities of Roman pottery was recovered. SHEPPARD, T. (1938) Excavations at Eastburn, East Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 34, 3547. SHEPPARD, T. (1939) Roman Remains at North Ferriby. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 28, 166-168. Edderside NY09654576 A stone wall existed in the second and third century AD. The occupation ceased in the mid fourth century AD.

170

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES BEWLEY, R. H. (1998) Survey and Excavations of a Cropmark Enclosure at Edderside, Cumbria 1989-90. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 98, 107-117. Eller Beck SD642781 There were six farmsteads located at the site, all of which dated between the second and fourth century AD. The only finds recovered were two pottery sherds. LOWNDES, R. A. C. (1963) “Celtic” fields, farmsteads, and burial-mounds in the Lune Valley. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 63, 77-95. LOWNDES, R. A. C. (1964) Excavation of a RomanoBritish farmstead at Eller Beck. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 64, 6-13. Embsay SE005535 A beaded torc was recovered.

COLLINGWOOD, W. G. (1908a) Report on the exploration of the Romano-British settlement at Ewe Close, Crosby, Ravensworth. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 8, 366-368. COLLINGWOOD, W. G. (1909) Report on a Further Exploration of the Romano-British Settlement at Ewe Close, Crobsy, Ravensworth. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 9, 295-310. HIGHAM, N. J. (1982a) ‘Native’ settlements on the north slopes of the Lake District. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 83, 29-35. Farleton SD575766 The site is a small complex feature that appears to date to the Roman period. LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints.

MACGREGOR, M. (1976) Early Celtic Art in North Britain: A Study of Decorative Metalwork from the Third Century BC to the Third Century AD, Surrey, Leicester University Press.

Farndale SE6697

Etton SE9842

CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.

The site consisted of walls and roofing slabs. No finds were recovered.

The small Roman enclosure produced a number of Roman finds.

CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.

Fingland NY26895745

Ewanrigg NY0335

BEWLEY, R. H. (1986) Survey and Excavation in the Solway Plain, Cumbria (1982-4). Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 86, 19-40. RICHARDSON, G. G. S. (1977) A Romano-British farmstead at Fingland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 77, 53-60.

The site was first occupied in the Bronze Age and remained in use until the Medieval period. There was a late Roman settlement with a stone rampart and large quantities of pottery and barley. BEWLEY, R. H. (1992) Excavations on two cropmarked sites in the Solway Plain, Cumbria. Ewanrigg settlement and Swarthy Hill 1986-1988. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 92, 23-47. Ewe Close NY142380 Ewe Close was a collection of buildings and dykes. In addition, there was a larger central building that was floored with native rock. The site was located near to the Roman roads.

The site included a circular enclosure that was protected by a ditch. The site dates to the early fourth century AD.

Forcegarth Pasture North NY875285 The site consisted of a marshy hollow and a house with a stone foundation. Although no personal ornaments were recorded, both pottery and bones were found. COGGINS, D. (1986) Upper Teesdale: The archaeology of the north Pennine valley, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, British Series.

171

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Forcegarth Pasture South NY876283 In this site a circular enclosure and three houses were found. The site had two phases of construction and was most likely occupied by a single family. The area outside the house appears to be for animal husbandry. COGGINS, D. (1986) Upper Teesdale: The archaeology of the north Pennine valley, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, British Series. FAIRLESS, K. J. & COGGINS, D. (1986) Excavations at the early settlement site of Forcegarth Pasture South. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 2, 25-40.

NEVELL, M. (1999a) Great Woolden Farm: a model for the material culture of Iron Age and Romano-British rural settlement in North West England. IN NEVELL, M. (Ed.) Living on the edge of Empire: models, methodology and marginality. Manchester, Council for British Archaeology North West. Grimston Road SE861666 There was a rectilinear enclosure that produced only a few Roman sherds. However the pottery dated to the fourth century AD. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series.

Fremington SE0499 The site was predominantly a prehistoric funerary monument and a small quantity of Roman pottery. There were post-Roman buildings that retained some Roman artefacts. LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints Garton Slack SE9959 The site produced the skeleton of a boy, sheep and goat bones and a large collection of third century pottery. DENT, J. S. (1983b) A summary of the excavations carried out in Garton and Wetwang Slack. East Riding Archaeologist, 7, 1-14. Giggleswick SD815645 A rural site yielded a beaded torc of the Embsay type. MACGREGOR, M. (1976) Early Celtic Art in North Britain: A Study of Decorative Metalwork from the Third Century BC to the Third Century AD, Surrey, Leicester University Press. Great Woolden Hall Farm SJ691936 A total of four circular structures were found. The origins in the prehistoric period, but the site remained in use until the second century AD. NEVELL, M. (1987) Great Woolden Farm: excavations on a late Prehistoric/Romano-British native site. The Greater Manchester Archaeological Journal, 3, 35-44. NEVELL, M. (1997) The Archaeology of Trafford: A study of the origins of community in north west England before 1900, Chester, Trafford Metropolitan Brough Council.

Grindale TA1371 Grindale Barrow was a Neolithic grave. A number of Roman buildings were found. MANBY, T. G. (1972) Excavations of barrows at Grindale and Boynton, East Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 52, 19-47. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Gypsey Race Ladder SE871665 The site is a linear agricultural system. There was no evidence for domestic structures, but the lack of finds leaves it undated. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. Hale SJ4682 The site of Hale produced a curvilinear enclosure. COWELL, R. W. & PHILPOTT, R. A. (2000) Prehistoric, Roman, and Medieval Excavations in the Lowlands of North West England: excavations along the line of the A5300 in Tarbock and Halewood, Merseyside, Liverpool, Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside. Halewood SJ4586 The settlement at Court Farm was first settled in the second century AD and started as a rectangular enclosure. The site went through a number of rebuilds and a total of 14 structures were found. ADAMS, M. (2004) The Excavation of a Romano-British Settlement at Court Farm, Carbridge Lane, Halewood, Merseyside: Interim Report. 172

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES Halsham TA2727

Holme-on-Spalding Moor SE8038

The site was a mausoleum of the Constable family and a collection of Roman material culture was found.

The enclosure produced large quantities of Roman pottery.

CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.

CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Hovingham SE665755

Halton Brow SD8555 The rural site was open land with ditches on three sides and dates to the second century AD.

This is the site of a possible villa. There were two stations, one with a bath and hypocaust. The site remains largely unexcavated.

COWELL, R. W. & PHILPOTT, R. A. (2000) Prehistoric, Roman, and Medieval Excavations in the Lowlands of North West England: excavations along the line of the A5300 in Tarbock and Halewood, Merseyside, Liverpool, Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside.

CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.

Hawk SD225905

An oval embanked enclosure with an annex was found. A well-defined track way provided access from one of the Roman roads into the valley.

The site produced nine urns with a plethora of personal ornaments including bone pins, combs, jet rings and earrings. ORROM, M. H. (1971) A settlement on the Hawk, Broughton Mills. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 71, 12-16.

Howgill Fells SD6799

BOWDEN, M. (1996) Recent Archaeological Fieldwork in the Howgill Fells. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 96, 1-12. Hoylake SJ225895

Helme NZ125367

Evidence of non-military activity.

Helme produces very limited evidence, but it is a minor post that reflects Roman influence.

COWELL, R. W. & PHILPOTT, R. A. (2000) Prehistoric, Roman, and Medieval Excavations in the Lowlands of North West England: excavations along the line of the A5300 in Tarbock and Halewood, Merseyside, Liverpool, Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside.

FAIR, M. C. (1943) Roman and Briton. A theory for future establishment of facts. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 43, 82-86.

Hull TA095295 Hexhamshire Low Quarter NY935585 The site contained the foundation of three roundhouse all contained within a single ditch. JOBEY, G. (1972) Notes on additional early settlement in Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 50, 71-80.

A single roundhouse yielded a silver brooch of the early period. DIDSBURY, P. (1988) Evidence for Romano-British settlement in Hull and the Lower Hull Valley. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. Ingleby Barwick NZ437150

High Mowthorpe SE8868 A silver fibula was found at the site. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A Gazetteer of Roman Remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.

The site consisted of a curvilinear crop mark that was first occupied in the Iron Age. The site remained in use during the Roman period and the recovery of hobnails, pottery and glass suggests that acculturation was occurring. HESLOP, D. H. (1984) Initial Excavation at Ingleby Barwick. Durham Archaeological Journal:

173

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 1, 23-34. Kildale NZ613107 The site included a number of hearths and the structure appears to have been built in stone with a thatch roof. There was no fourth century occupation. HAYES, R. H. (1967) A Romano-British Site at Pale End, Kildale. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 687701. Kilnsea TA415155 This Romano-British enclosure was the site of many finds including a dragonesque brooch. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Knapton SE5652 The site of Knapton included a Roman urn of unbaked clay and a Roman trumpet brooch. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.

Lounsdale NZ611100 There is evidence of a Romano-British enclosure. The site was in close proximity to good arable soils and occupation continued into the fourth century AD. CLOSE, R. S., HAYES, R. H. & SPRATT, D. A. (1975) Romano-British Settlements at Crag Bank and Lounsdale, Kildale, North Riding. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 47, 61-68 Low Carlingill NY61400040 The enclosure had minimal chronology, but has produced limited quantities of Roman pottery. LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. Lowgill SD6564 Lowgill was a multi-phase settlement with a series of enclosures as well as ridge and furrow. LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. Manor House SE838610

Langtoft TA015665

The site was a small enclosure with late Roman material.

The enclosure excavations exposed a horse-shoe shaped enclosure.

HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series.

CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Lazonby Fell NZ5719 Lazonby Fell originated as an Iron Age settlement with a large hut and stone walled enclosure. There was minimal evidence of Roman occupation. LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. Lings Farm SE652078

Melton SE975264 Aerial photography identified the ladder settlement that originated in the pre-Roman period. In the Roman period a rectangular structure was found. Excavations revealed a number of timber post-holes supporting a timber frame. After the conquest pottery becomes increasingly common and the faunal data suggests a change in diet. BISHOP, M. C. (1999) An Iron Age and Romano-British ‘Ladder’ settlement at Melton, east Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 71, 23-63. Methley SE395265 Three ditched enclosures were investigated. They were late iron age or early Roman.

A collection of artefacts and pollen analysis was recovered. MAGILTON, J. R. (1978) Excavations at Lings Farm, Hatfield. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 50, 57-63.

BURNHAM, B. C., HUNTER, F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2002) Roman Britain in 2001. Britannia, 33, 275-371.

174

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES Middleton Settlements SD631875, SD631874, SD627871 The sites consisted of rectangular form. There is no dating evidence and the sites may have been Dark Age. LOWNDES, R. A. C. (1963) “Celtic” fields, farmsteads, and burial-mounds in the Lune Valley. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 63, 77-95. WOOLISCROFT, D. J. (1995) The ring ditch above Middleton Hall, Cumbria: surface and resistivity surveys. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 95, 61-72. Middleton-on-the-Wold SE945495 A V-shaped ditch and two burials of Roman date were found. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. SHEPPARD, T. (1923b) Roman Remains at Middleton-onthe Wolds. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 24, 80-84. Millington SE8351 The foundations of a stone building were located at Millington. Additionally, a stone pillar and two buildings: one of oblong shape and one circular. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Mow Road SD895135 A torc was recovered. MACGREGOR, M. (1976) Early Celtic Art in North Britain: A Study of Decorative Metalwork from the Third Century BC to the Third Century AD, Surrey, Leicester University Press.

Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 15, 151-198. Naburn SE6045 At Naburn a small collection of hut circles dating to the Roman period were excavated. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Normanby NZ559166 The site yielded a bead and pottery. HAYES, R. H. (1988b) Roman sites in Ryedale and on the North York Moors. IN WILSON, D. M. (Ed.) Northeast Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers by Raymond H. Hayes. Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Norton SE7971 The site was located at a ford near the fort of Malton. The site produced evidence of kilns, pottery and a number of artefacts. The terminus post quem for the site was the fourth century AD. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.. COWELL, R. W. & PHILPOTT, R. A. (2000) Prehistoric, Roman, and Medieval Excavations in the Lowlands of North West England: excavations along the line of the A5300 in Tarbock and Halewood, Merseyside, Liverpool, Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside. HAYES, R. H. (1988a) Roman Norton, Excavations and Discoveries. IN WILSON, P. (Ed.) North-east Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers by Raymond H. Hayes. Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Ochre Brook SJ465875 The site was a farmstead dating to the second century with minimal third century activity.

Murton High Crags NY965496 The two enclosures on the site were atop a crag. There were unenclosed timber-built houses dating from the first millennium BC. In the Late Iron Age and Roman period three of four independent enclosed settlements existed. The site remained in use until late third early fourth century AD.

COWELL, R. W. & PHILPOTT, R. A. (2000) Prehistoric, Roman, and Medieval Excavations in the Lowlands of North West England: excavations along the line of the A5300 in Tarbock and Halewood, Merseyside, Liverpool, Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside.

JOBEY, I. & JOBEY, G. (1987) Prehistoric, RomanoBritish and later remains on Murton High Crags, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana: or 175

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Old Winteringham SE9521 The site included two buildings and a number of ditches. It appears to have early military activity, most likely a Claudian fort, which was followed by a rural settlement. STEAD, I. M. & CHARLESWORTH, D. (1976) Excavations at Winterton Roman Villa and other Roman sites in North Lincolnshire, London, HMSO. Oughterby NY2955 Oughterby was the site of a sub-square enclosure dating to the third century AD. BEWLEY, R. H. (1986) Survey and Excavation in the Solway Plain, Cumbria (1982-4). Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 86, 19-40. Park End Farm NY917262 The site was home to a pair of semi-detached rectangular buildings. There was extensive cultivation outside the farm and in the late Roman period poor crop yields led to its abandonment. COGGINS, D. & FAIRLESS, K. J. (2001) “The High side”, Park End Farm, Holwick in Teesdale. Durham Archaeological Journal, 16, 15-18. Parlington Hollins SE4135 Parlington Hollins was a late prehistoric site that was reoccupied in the second century AD when one of the early enclosures was expanded and two others were developed. The site was abandoned in the third century AD. ROBERTS, I. BURGESS, A. & BERG, D. (2001) A New Link to the Past: The archaeological landscape of the M1-A1 link road., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service. Priest Hutton SD5373 The excavation exposed earthworks of unknown date. LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints.

HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series Raisthorpe Township SE864623 The farmstead was a late Roman site with large quantities of pottery. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. Redcliffe TA035265 The site shows three phases of construction and dates to the early Roman period. CROWTHER, D. & DIDSBURY, P. (1988) Redcliffe and the Humber. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. Ree Castle NY2717 Ree castle was the site of a pre-Roman roundhouse that after the Roman conquest was rebuilt on a rectilinear plan. It is one of many sites that shows acculturation. FAIR, M. C. (1943) Roman and Briton. A theory for future establishment of facts. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 43, 82-86. Ridgeway Crossroad Complex SE876639 The site was a triple-ditched enclosure of unknown date. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. Riding Wood SE1105 In the second century there were three stone roundhouses. In the early third century a fourth house was added. MILES, D. (1982) The Romano-British Countryside: Studies in Rural Settlement and Economy, Oxford, BAR British Series. Rillington SE8674

Raisthorpe Wold Farmstead SE860626

A harp-shaped fibula and bead were found.

The site yielded a dense pottery find. There are modern trackways that may be on the same alignment as Roman tracks. All the pottery dated to the late Roman period.

CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.

176

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES Risby TA005345 The site was a possible villa that developed from an Iron Age settlement. DIDSBURY, P. (1988) Evidence for Romano-British settlement in Hull and the Lower Hull Valley. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series.

CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Sandtoft SE745085 Excavations revealed a main enclosure with Roman pottery but no domestic structures. There were two hearths from the late period.

Rock Castle NZ186067 Rock Castle originated as a Late Iron Age multiple enclosure. There were two circular structures inside the enclosure. There is minimal evidence of the Roman activity on the site. FITTS, R. L., HASELGROVE, C. & LOWTHER, P. C. (1994) An Iron Age Farmstead at Rock Castle, Gilling West, North Yorkshire. Durham Archaeological Journal, 10, 31-39. Roe Cross SJ9098 The site had hut-circles and a bowl hearth with large quantities of metal slag. The dating is unclear.

SAMUELS, J. R. (1977) Archaeology on the M180., Humberside County, Humberside County Leisure Service on Behalf of the M180 Joint Archaeological Committee. SAMUELS, J. R. & BUCKLAND, P. C. (1978) A RomanoBritish settlement at Sandtoft, South Humberside. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 50, 65-75. Sandybrow NY307474 The only Romano-British remains were a few scattered finds.

NEVELL, M. (1992) Tameside before 1066, Tameside Metropolitan Brough Council. PRESTON, F. L. (1954) The hill-forts of the Peak. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 74, 1-31.

BEWLEY, R. H. (1986) Survey and Excavation in the Solway Plain, Cumbria (1982-4). Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 86, 19-40. CARUANA, I. (1989) Fieldwalking in the Solway Plain 1983-4. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 89, 51-68.

Roman Ridge SE4229

Scampston SE865755

In the prehistoric period there was evidence of smallscale settlement. By the Roman period the site the site functioned as a Roman road the subdivided the landscape.

A penannular brooch was found from an enclosure.

ROBERTS, I., BURGESS, A. & BERG, D. (2001) A New Link to the Past: The archaeological landscape of the M1-A1 link road., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service.

CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Scarborough TA 0489

Sandhill SE435065

Brooch recovered associated with roundhouse.

Although the evidence is limited, there were three phases of Roman activity from Sandhill. The site was a collection of dumped deposits on the river bank.

SPRATT, D. A. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. (1993) Prehistoric and Roman archaeology of North-East Yorkshire, London, Council for British Archaeology.

PASSMORE, D., O’BRIEN, C. F. & DORE, J. (1991) Roman Period Riverside Deposits at Castle Stairs, Sandhill. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 19, 17-25. Sand Hutton SE6958 The site was occupied in the fourth century AD. Although the evidence is scant, there were two cobble surfaces laid out.

Sceugh Farm NY4442 A series of ditches, stone banks and a raised enclosure were found. The site dates to either late Iron Age or early Roman. LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. 177

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Sealford SD583789

Staxton TA015795

The field system produced second and third century pottery.

The site originated in the late first century AD and was a Romano-British farmstead. There were three buildings: 1 and 2 were Trajanic and the rebuilt 2 and 3 were Flavian.

LOWNDES, R. A. C. (1963) “Celtic” fields, farmsteads, and burial-mounds in the Lune Valley. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 63, 77-95.

BREWSTER, T. C. M. (1957) Excavations at Newham’s Pit, Staxton 1947-48. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 193-223.

Shoulthwaite NY2920

Stone Carr NY4228

Shoulthwaite was an enclosure with domestic structure that transitioned from roundhouse to rectilinear structure in conjunction with the Roman conquest.

The site consisted of multiple huts of Roman date.

FAIR, M. C. (1943) Roman and Briton. A theory for future establishment of facts. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 43, 82-86.

HAY, T. (1945) Stone Carr. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 44, 126-133. Stonygate SE83348795

Silloth Farm NY1153

The site was a domestic building that yielded opus signinum and a few sherds of pottery.

Silloth Farm is a univalent with an internal bank. The site is similar to most other rural sites with an enclosure and timber superstructure buildings. The site dates to the third century AD.

HAYES, R. H. (1988d) Stonygate Romano-British Site. IN WILSON, D. R. (Ed.) North-east Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers by Raymond H. Hayes. Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society.

HIGHAM, N. J., JONES, G. B. D., HILLMAN, R., WILD, F. C. & J.N.DORE (1983) The excavation of two Romano-British farm sites in North Cumbria. Britannia, 14, 45-72.

Swillington Common SE3832

Skerne TA045555 A brass beaded torc was recovered. MACGREGOR, M. (1976) Early Celtic Art in North Britain: A Study of Decorative Metalwork from the Third Century BC to the Third Century AD, Surrey, Leicester University Press. Spain Wood NY295483

A double-ditched enclosure and a large D-shaped feature. There were two additional enclosures that dated from the Late Iron Age to the third century AD. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. ROBERTS, BURGESS, A. & BERG, D. (2001) A New Link to the Past: The archaeological landscape of the M1A1 link road., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service. Swinton SE215795

The site was probably an enclosure, but further work is required.

A bone pin was found from a small enclosure.

CARUANA, I. (1989) Fieldwalking in the Solway Plain 1983-4. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 89, 51-68.

CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report.

Staple Howe SE898749

Thixendale Grange Site SE814605

The site was an Iron Age settlement.

Roman pottery fragments were recovered from within a Roman field system.

BREWSTER, T. C. M. (1963) The Excavation of Staple Howe, Malton, East Riding Archaeological Research Committee.

HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series.

178

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES Thornegrafton NY784649 The site consisted of a pre-Flavian Roman site that included a circular ditch enclosure. The site had pre-Roman use as well. WOODFIELD, P. (1966) Barcombe Hill, Thornegrafton. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 44, 71-78. Thornton Dale SE8382 Two Roman brooches were recovered. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Threlkeld NY3125 The site was early in date with no clear dating material. Threlkeld may have been Roman or pre-Roman. HAY, T. (1943) Threlkeld Settlement. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 43, 20-24. Thurnscoe SE4505 The site included a multi-phase settlement enclosure and field system. NEAL, P. G. E. & FRASER, R. (2004) A Romano-British enclosed farmstead at Billingley Drive, Thurnscoe, South Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 76, 7-92. Towthorpe High Street SE903618 The site consisted of a small Romano-British roundhouse. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. Towthorpe Township SE912626 The site was settled in the late Roman period and yielded a large concentration of pottery. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series.

HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. Ushaw Moor NZ2242 A trumpet brooch was recovered with inlaid silver scrolls and a silver pointille wire down both sides. ALLASON-JONES, L. (1986) A Romano-British trumpet brooch from Ushaw Moor. Durham Archaeological Journal, 2, 41-42. Waitby NY7508 Waitby was a rectilinear site, which was dated by pottery to between AD 360-400. WEBSTER, R. A. (1972) Excavation of a Romano-British Settlement at Waitby. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 72, 66-73. Warburton SJ695895 A ditched enclosure. BURNHAM, B. C., HUNTER, F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2002) Roman Britain in 2001. Britannia, 33, 275-371. Warter SE8750 The site was an undated deposit that included beads, brooches, rings and architectural remains. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Wattle Syke SE3946 The site was a Roman rectilinear structure that was first inhabited in the Late Iron Age. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. West Long Lee SE0541 The site was a timber roundhouse dating to the mid-second century AD.

Tunnel Top SE869633 The site was located in close proximity to a natural spring. The site dated from the Iron Age through the sixth century AD.

MILES, D. (1982) The Romano-British Countryside: Studies in Rural Settlement and Economy, Oxford, BAR British Series.

179

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Wetherby SE4048 A number of roundhouses and rectilinear structures were excavated. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Wetwang SE9358 A skeleton with a stone armlet and bronze ring of Roman date were recovered. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. DENT, J. S. (1983) A summary of the excavations carried out in Garton and Wetwang Slack. East Riding Archaeologist, 7, 1-14.

Roman Britain in 2000. Britannia, 32, 311-385 and 387-400. Wincobank SK3891 Excavations revealed a rampart and ditch as well as second century pottery. PRESTON, F. L. (1954) The hill-forts of the Peak. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 74, 1-31. Wolsty Hall NY1050 Three circular ditches were found. The site pre-dated the construction of Hadrian’s Wall. BLAKE, B. (1960) Excavations of Native (Iron Age) sites in Cumberland, 1956-58. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 59, 1-14. Womersley SE5319

Wharram Le Street Township SE852651 The site included a Romano-British farmstead with rectilinear enclosure. Like the nearby villa it was occupied in the late Roman period. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series.

The site had Iron Age origins and included three phases of construction. In the Roman period there was a T-shaped oven from the 3rd/4th century. BUCKLAND, P. C. & DOLBY, M. J. (1987) A Roman Site at Womersley, North Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 59, 1-8. Woolley Lane SK9421

Whorlton NZ4802 The site yieded a bracelet, gold coin, which dated to the second and third century AD. HAYES, R. H. (1988b) Roman sites in Ryedale and on the North York Moors. IN WILSON, D. M. (Ed.) Northeast Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers by Raymond H. Hayes. Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Whins SD63209743 The site was a small settlement with minimal artefactual evidence. LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. Wigton NY255485 An oval timber building with second century pottery. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2001)

The roundhouse site was attached to the main road from Melandra Castle. The pottery dated the site between AD 80-140. NEVELL, M. (1992) Tameside before 1066, Tameside Metropolitan Brough Council. Wykeham SE815755 Earthworks were found in excavations. CLARK, M.K. (Ed.) 1935 A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. Yanwath Wood NY519260 Yanwath Wood was an highland site in the Eden Valley. The site included a small grouping of enclosures with an arable type system covering approximately 7-8 hectares. HIGHAM, N. J. (1983) A Romano-British Farm Site and Field System at Yanwath Wood, near Penrith. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 83, 49-58.

180

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES CAVES Albert Cave SD8165 The site was located near Victoria Cave and yielded Romano-British artefacts. Artefacts suggest use throughout the Roman period. DEARNE, M. J. & LORD, T. C. (1998) The Romano-British Archaeology of Victoria Cave, Settle: Researches into the site and its artefacts, Oxford, BAR British Series. Attermire Cave SD819635 The site included the recovery of a chariot and a number of Roman artefacts. KING, A. (1970) Romano-British metalwork from the Settle district of West Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 62, 410-417. WALTHAM, A. C. (Ed.) (1974) The Limestones and Caves of North-West England, David and Charles Newton Abbot. Dog Hole SD803484 The excavation yielded animal and human bones as well as personal ornamentation dating between the second and fourth century AD. BENSON, D. & BLAND, K. (1963) The Dog hole, Haverbrack Bank. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 63, 61-76. JACKSON, W. (1913) Report on the Explorations at Dog’s Hole, Warton Crag. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 13, 55-58.

WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, J., HASSALL, M. W. C., BOWMAN, A. K. & THOMAS, J. D. (1974) Roman Britain in 1973. Britannia, 5, 397-460. Victoria Cave SD819635 The site dated back to the Ice Age, but was most heavily used during the Roman period. Excavations yielded a large number of brooches and other personal ornaments. DAWKINS, W. B. (1872) Reports on the Results Obtained by the Settle Cave Exploration Committee Out of Victoria Cave in 1870. Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1, 60-70. DEARNE, M. J. & LORD, T. C. (1998) The Romano-British Archaeology of Victoria Cave, Settle: Researches into the site and its artefacts, Oxford, BAR British Series. CEMETERIES Beckfoot NY0849 The site yielded a number of cinerary urns and a funeral pyre that included soldier’s material. BELLHOUSE, R. L. & MOFFATT, I. (1959) Further Roman finds in the Beckfoot Cemetery Site. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 58, 57-62. HOGG, R. (1949) A Roman Cemetery Site at Beckfoot, Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 49, 32-37. Brougham NY5329

The artefact assemblage dated to the mid-second century AD.

Brougham was one of the largest funerary excavations in the north. It was located to the east of the fort and vicus. The first activity dates to the late second century and it remains in use throughout the fourth century AD. A total of 309 burials were excavated.

WALTHAM, A. C. (Ed.) (1974) The Limestones and Caves of North-West England, David and Charles Newton Abbot.

COOL, H. E. M. (2004) The Roman cemetery at Brougham, Cumbria: excavations 1966-67, London, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

Kelco Cave SD819635

Hartlepool NZ5032

The cave yielded Roman pottery and artefacts.

The burial was not located near any settlement, but included two burials with Romano-British personal adornments including an intact jet bead necklace.

Dowkerbottom Hole SD819635

KING, A. (1970) Romano-British metalwork from the Settle district of West Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 62, 410-417. Settle SD8264 A few sites were recovered from the cave at Settle.

DANIELS, R., JELLEY, D., MARLOW, M. & VYNER, B. E. (1987) A Romano-British double burial at Hartlepool, Cleveland. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 3, 1-4.

181

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Lanchester NZ156466

INDUSTRIAL SITES

There were a number of burials excavated including cremations from the first and second century AD and inhumations from the late period.

Brampton NY524613

TURNER, R. C. (1990) A Romano-British Cemetery at Lanchester, Durham. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 18, 63-78. Low Borrowbridge NY5504 A total of 65 cremation pits were recorded. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1992) Roman Britain in 1991. Britannia, 23, 309-323. Upton TA145545 A single cremated burial with no personal ornaments was recovered.

The site was the location of a tilery and it included rectangular form kilns. A total of eight kilns have been identified. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1971) The Roman Tileries at Scalesceugh and Brampton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 71, 35-44. HOGG, R. (1965) Excavations of the Roman Auxiliary Tilery, Brampton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 65, 133-168. NOBLE (1903) Towtop Kirk, Brampton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 3, 265-269. Branton SE655024

ROBERTS, I. (1995) Excavation of a D-shaped enclosure at Upton, West Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 67, 7-22.

Three kilns were recovered dating from the late Roman period. They produced mortaria, shallow dishes, cheese presses and imitation Samian ware.

Walkington Wold SE996371

BUCKLAND, P. C. (1976) A Romano-British Kiln Site at Branton, near Doncaster. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 48, 69-83.

The site included 12 skeletons, of which 10 were decapitated. The pottery dated to the fourth century AD. BARTLETT, J. E. & VARLEY, W. J. (Eds.) (1972) Walkington Wold Excavations: Bronze Age to Late Roman, East Riding Archaeologist.

Crambeck SE7367 Numerous kilns were found. The site started producing pottery in the late third century and by the mid-fourth was a major production site.

Wetherby SE4048 The site included three inhumations dating to the third or fourth century AD. KENT, B. J. W. & CLARK, M. K. (1933) A Roman settlement at Wetherby. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 31, 171-207. York SE6051 York was the largest cemetery excavation in the north of England. Trentholme Drive was in use from AD 140 through the fourth century AD. ROYAL COMMISSION ON HISTORICAL MONUMENTS. (1962) An inventory of the historical monuments in the city of York, [London], [H.M. Stationery Office]. WENHAM, L. P. (1968) Romano-British Cemetery: Trentholme Drive, York, London, HMSO.

CORDER, P. & BIRLEY, M. (1937) A pair of fourthcentury Romano-British pottery kilns near Crambeck. Antiquaries Journal, 17, 392-413. WILSON, P. (Ed.) (1989) Crambeck Roman Pottery Industry, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Doncaster SE655024 Excavations yielded iron smelting furnaces and ditches. There was also a kiln for pottery. CREGEEN, S. M. (1956) The Roman Excavations at Cantley Housing Estate, Doncaster, Part III. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 32-48. Drigg SD30674966 The site yielded mainly inhabitation debris including personal ornaments. There was also some slag recovered. The site dated to the late fourth century AD. CHERRY, J. & CHERRY, P. J. (1968) An Iron bloomery at Drigg. Transactions of the Cumberland and

182

APPENDIX: GAZETTEER OF SITES Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 68, 27-30. Eskdale NY2001 At Eskdale a kiln was found. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1961a) Excavations in Eskdale, the Muncastle Roman Kilns. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 60, 1-12. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1962) Excavation in Eskdale: the Muncastle Roman kilns. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 61, 47-56.

Holme-on-Spalding SE8138 The kilns dated to circa AD 280 and were producing pottery similar to Crambeck. CORDER, P. (1930b) Roman Pottery at Throlam, Holmeon-Spalding Moor. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 27, 6-35. HALKON, A. P. M. (1983) Investigations into the Romano-British industries of Holme-on-Spalding Moor. East Riding Archaeologist, 7, 15-24. SHEPPARD, T. (1924) Roman kilns and pottery near Holme-on-Spalding. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 27, 1-5. Lockington SE9946

Eskemeals SD0794 The site was a blow furnace of medieval or RomanoBritish date. CHERRY, J. (1966) Eskemeals and Sand-Dunes Occupation Sites, Phase II Iron Manufacture. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 66, 46-56. Grimescar SE131191 The tilery at Grimescar produced tiles fro the fort between AD 100-120.

The site yielded a fire chamber and a small pottery kiln. LLOYD, G. D. (1968) A pottery kiln in the Parish of Lockington. East Riding Archaeologist, 1(i), 28-38. Milford SK346451 Excavations yielded charcoal with a burnt clay area around the edge. No other evidence was found. BRASSINGTON, M. (1969) A possible Romano-British kiln, near Milford. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 89, 119-120. Parwich SK189542

PURDY, J. G. & MANBY, T. G. (1973) Excavations at the Roman tilery at Grimescar, Huddersfield, 1964. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 45, 96-107. Hasholme SE8333 A group of three kilns were excavated. They were most likely producing Thorlam ware pottery. HICKS, J. D. & WILSON, J. A. (1975) The RomanoBritish Kilns at Hasholme, East Riding. East Riding Archaeologist, 2, 40-70. Hazelwood NE327469 Hazelwood was a major producer of Derbyshire Ware pottery. The site dated to the late Roman period.

A kiln of unknown date was found. HANBURY, W. H. (1947) Notes on an Ancient Kiln at Parwich. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 67, 92-95. Scalesceugh NY444497 The tilery was established in the first century AD. Magnotometry showed that a total of 42 hearths or kilns. RICHARDSON, G. G. S. (1973) The Roman Tilery, Scalesceugh 1970-1971. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 73, 79-89. Springs Bloomery SD3198

BRASSINGTON, M. & WEBSTER, W. A. (1988) The Lumb Brook Pottery Kilns, Hazelwood: an interim report. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 108, 2133. KAY, S. O. (1962) The Romano-British pottery kilns at Hazelwood and Holbrook, Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 82, 21-42. KAY, S. O. & HUGHES, R. G. (1952) Romano-British “Derbyshire Ware” Kiln Site at Hazelwood. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 72, 119-120.

A heap of slag and old iron smelting operations were recovered. There was burned clay at the bottom of one trench and a circular foundation hearth recovered from a second trench. COWPER, H. S. (1898) Excavations at Springs Bloomery (iron smelting hearth) near Coniston Hall, Lancashire, with notes on the probable age of the Furness bloomeries. Archaeological Journal, 55, 88-105.

183

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Shottle Hall SK314475 The site yielded a late period kiln similar to Hazelwood. KAY, S. O. & HUGES, R. G. (1963) A Romano-British pottery kiln at Shottle Hall. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 83, 103-105.

184

REFERENCES Structural Phases of Irby, Privately Printed. (1956) [Ordnance Survey. Roman Britain], Chessington, Ordnance Survey. ABRAMSON, P. (1996) Excavations along the Caythorpe Gas Pipeline, North Humberside. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 68, 1-88. ABRAMSON, P. (1998) The Search for Roman Castleford. Current Archaeology. ADAMS, M. (2004) The Excavation of a Romano-British Settlement at Court Farm, Carbridge Lane, Halewood, Merseyside: Interim Report. ALCOCK, S. E. (2001) Vulgar Romanization and the Dominance of Elites. IN KEAY, S. & TERRENATO, N. (Eds.) Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Roman Studies. Oxford. ALLASON-JONES, L. (1986) A Romano-British trumpet brooch from Ushaw Moor. Durham Archaeological Journal, 2, 41-42. ALLASON-JONES, L. (1988) ‘Small Finds’ from turrets on Hadrian’s Wall. IN COULSTON, J. C. (Ed.) Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman Soldiers. ALLASON-JONES, L. (1989) Ear-rings in Roman Britain, Oxford, B.A.R. ALLASON-JONES, L. (1994) The Small Finds. IN FITTS, R. L., HASELGROVE, C. & LOWTHER, P. C. (1994) An Iron Age Farmstead at Rock Castle, Gilling West, North Yorkshire. Durham Archaeological Journal, 10, 13-42. ALLASON-JONES, L. (Ed.) (1995) Sexing Small Finds, IN RUSH, P. Theoretical Roman Archaeology: second conference proceedings. Avebury, Aldershot. ALLASON-JONES, L. (1996) Roman Jet in the Yorkshire Museum, York, Yorkshire Museum. ALLASON-JONES, L. (1997) Visions and Dreams in Roman Britain. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Series 5, 25, 21-25. ALLASON-JONES, L. (2001) Material Culture and Identity. IN JAMES, S. & MILLETT, M. (Eds.) Britons and Romans: Advancing an archaeological agenda. CBA Research Reports. ALLASON-JONES, L. (2002) The Material Culture of Hadrian’s Wall. IN FREEMAN, P., BENNETT, J., FIEMA, Z. T. & HOFFMAN, B. (Eds.) Limes XVIII: Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies in Amman Jordon. Oxford, BAR Publishing. ALLASON-JONES, L. (2005a) Coals to Newcastle. IN CRUMMY, N. (Ed.) Image, Craft and the Classical World. Montagnac, editions monique mergoil. ALLASON-JONES, L. (2005b) Women in Roman Britain, York, Council for British Archaeology. ALLASON-JONES, L. (2008) Daily life in Roman Britain, Oxford, Greenwood World. ALLASON-JONES, L. & JONES, M. (2001) Identification of ‘jet’ artefacts by reflected light microscopy. European Journal of Archaeology, 4(2), 233-251

ALLASON-JONES, L. & MCKAY, B. (1985) Coventina’s Well: A shrine on Hadrian’s Wall, Chester, The Trustees of the Clayton Collection. ALLASON-JONES, L., MIKET, R. & SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE. (1984) The catalogue of small finds from South Shields Roman fort, Newcastle upon Tyne, Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne. ALLEN, D. (1986) Roman Glass from Doncaster. IN BUCKLAND, P. C. & MAGILTON, J. R. The Archaeology of Doncaster: the Roman civil settlement, Oxford, BAR British Series, 103-109. ALLEN, D. (1996) Glass-Miscellaneous Objects. IN MAY, J. Dragonby: Report on the excavations at an Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in North Lincolnshire., Oxford, Oxbow monograph 61, 322. ALLEN, D. (2001) Glass. IN BOOTH, P., EVANS, J. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. Roman Alcester: Northern extramural area: 1969-1988 excavations, York, Council for British Archaeology, 67-70. ALLISON, P. (2006) Mapping gender: interpreting artefact distribution in Roman military forts in Germany. Archaeological Dialogues, 13.1, 1-48. ANDERSON, B. (1983) Imagined Communities, London, Verson. ANNIS, R. (1996) Bonny Grove Farm and Dixon’s Bank: two Romano-British settlement sites in Cleveland. Durham Archaeological Journal, 12, 41-60. ASHBEE, P. & APSIMON, A. M. (1956) Barnby Howes, Barnby, East Cleveland, Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 9-32. ATKINSON, D. (1913) An excavation at Adel Camp. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 22, 287-302. ATKINSON, J. A., BANKS, I. & MACGREGOR, G. (Eds.) (2000) Townships to Farmsteads: Rural settlement studies in Scotland, England and Wales, Oxford, BAR Publishing. ATKINSON, W. (1882) On Some Earthworks near Eamont Bridge. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 6, 444-456. AUSTEN, P. S. (1991) Bewcastle and Old Penrith. Carlisle, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Research Series, number 6. BAILEY, G. B. (1985) Late Roman inland signal station, or temple? Functional interpretation at Walkington Wold. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 57, 11-14. BAILEY, J. B. (1915) Catalogue of Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones, Coins, Earthenware, etc. Discovered in and near the Roman Fort at Maryport and preserved at Netherall. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 15, 137-173. BAILEY, J. B. (1923) Maryport and the Tenth Iter with further notes on Roman Antiquities. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 23, 142-52.

185

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH BANKS, J. (1812) A Description of a Roman Vault, discovered in the suburbs of the city of York. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 16, 340. BARBER, F. (1870) On the Roman station at Slack. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 1, 1-10. BARBER, B. & BOWSHER, D. (2000) The Eastern Cemetery of Roman London: excavations 1883-1990, Museum of London Archaeology Service. BARRETT, J. C. (1997) Romanization: A critical comment. IN MATTINGLY, D. J. (Ed.) Roman Imperialism: Power Discourse and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire. Portsmouth, RI, JRA Supp. 23. BARTHES, R. (1977) Elements of Semiology, New York, Hill and Wang. BART, H. E. (1893) Hardknott Castle: Part 2: Notes of perations in the Roman Camp at Hardknott. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 12, 212-228. BARTLETT, J. E. & VARLEY, W. J. (Eds.) (1972) Walkington Wold Excavations: Bronze Age to Late Roman, East Riding Archaeologist. BAYLEY, J. & BUTCHER, S. (2004) Roman Brooches in Britain: A technological and typological study based on the Richborough Collection, London, Society of Antiquities of London. BELCHER, J., DELANEY, C. & JENKINS, F. (1976) Glass. IN JARRETT, M. G. Maryport, Cumbria: A Roman fort and its Garrison, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 65-71. BELL, A. & THOMPSON, A. (2002a) Jet and Shale objects from Bainesse and Catterick Bridge. IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 176-179. BELL, A. & THOMPSON, A. (2002b) Beads from Bainesse, Catterick Bridge and Catterick Racecourse (Sites 46, 240 and 273). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 262. BELL, A. & THOMPSON, A. (2002c) Objects of bone and antler from Bainesse, Catterick Bridge, Catterick Honey Pot Road and Catterick Racecourse (Sites 46, 240, 251 and 273). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 192-196. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1955) Roman sites on the Cumberland coast 1954-. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 54, 28-55. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1956) The Roman Fort at Burrow Walls near Workington. Transactions of

the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 55, 30-45. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1957) The Temporary Camps near Troutbeck, Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 56, 28-36. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1958) Some fieldwork at Caermote. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 57, 18-26. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1960) Excavations at Old Carlisle, 1956. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 59, 15-31. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1961a) Excavations in Eskdale, the Muncastle Roman Kilns. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 60, 1-12. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1961b) The Roman Forts near Caermote. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 60, 20-23. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1962) Excavation in Eskdale: the Muncastle Roman kilns. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 61, 47-56. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1963) Roman sites on the Cumberland coast, 1962. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 63, 140-147. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1966) The problem of Burrow Walls. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 66, 37-41. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1967) The Aughertree Fell Enclosure. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 67, 26-30. BELLHOUSE, R. L. (1971) The Roman Tileries at Scalesceugh and Brampton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 71, 35-44. BELLHOUSE, R. L. & MOFFATT, I. (1959) Further Roman finds in the Beckfoot Cemetery Site. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 58, 57-62. BENNETT, J. (1984) The North-east in the Second Century. IN WILSON, P. R., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) Settlement and Society in the Roman North. Bradford, School of Archaeological Sciences. BENNETT, J. (2002) The Chronology of Hadrian’s Wall. IN FREEMAN, P., BENNETT, J., FIEMA, Z. T. & HOFFMAN, B. (Eds.) Limes XVIII: Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies in Amman Jordon. Oxford, BAR Publishing. BENNETT, P., FRERE, S. S. & STOW, S. (1982) Excavations at Canterbury Castle, Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society. BENSON, D. & BLAND, K. (1963) The Dog hole, Haverbrack Bank. Transactions of the Cumberland

186

REFERENCES and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 63, 61-76. BEVAN, B. (2005) Peaks Romana: The Peak District Romano-British rural highland settlement survey, 1998-2000. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 125, 26-58. BEWLEY, R. H. (1986) Survey and Excavation in the Solway Plain, Cumbria (1982-4). Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 86, 19-40. BEWLEY, R. H. (1992) Excavations on two cropmarked sites in the Solway Plain, Cumbria. Ewanrigg settlement and Swarthy Hill 1986-1988. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 92, 23-47. BEWLEY, R. H. (1998) Survey and Excavations of a Cropmark Enclosure at Edderside, Cumbria 1989-90. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 98, 107-117. BIDWELL, P. (Ed.) (1999) Hadrian’s Wall 1989-1999: a summary of recent excavations and research, Carlisle, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. BIDWELL, P. & SPEAK, S. (1989) South Shields. Current Archaeology. BIDWELL, P. & SPEAK, S. (1994) Excavations at South Shields Roman Fort, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle Upon Tyne. BIDWELL, P., SNAPE, M. & CROOM, A. (1999) Hardknott Roman Fort, Cumbria, Dorchester, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. BIRLEY, E. (1946) The Roman Site at Burrow in Lonsdale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 46, 126-156. BIRLEY, E. (1947a) Old Penrith and its Problems. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 48, 166-182. BIRLEY, E. (1947b) The Roman fort at Low Borrow Bridge. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 47, 1-19. BIRLEY, E. (1949) The Roman fort at Moresby. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 48, 42-72. BIRLEY, E. (1951) The Roman fort and settlement at Old Carlisle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 51, 16-39. BIRLEY, E. (1958) The Roman fort at Watercrook. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 58, 13-18. BIRLEY, E. (1959a) The Roman Fort at Brough-underStainmore. Transactions of the Cumberland and

Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 58, 31-56. BIRLEY, E. (1959b) The Roman Fort at Ravenglass. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 58, 14-30. BIRLEY, E. (1963) Roman Papcastle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 63, 96-125. BIRLEY, E. & RICHMOND, I. A. (1939) Excavations at Corbridge, 1936-38. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series, 15, 243-294. BISHOP, M. C. (1993) Excavations in the Roman Fort at Chester-le-Street (Concangis), Church Chare 19901991. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series, 21, 29-86. BISHOP, M. C. (1993b) The Small Finds Report. IN BISHOP, M. C. Excavations in the Roman Fort at Chester-le-Street (Concangis), Church Chare 19901991. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series, 21, 63-68. BISHOP, M. C. (1993) Excavations in the Roman Fort at Chester-le-Street (Concangis), Church Chare 19901991. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series, 21, 29-86. BISHOP, M. C. (1996) Finds from Aldborough: A catalogue of small finds from the Romano-British town of Isurium Brigantum, Oxford, Oxbow Books. BISHOP, M.C. (1998) Military equipment. IN COOL, H. E. M. & PHILO, C. (Eds.) Roman Castleford Excavations 1974-85. Volume I: the small finds, Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 61-81. BISHOP, M. C. (1999) An Iron Age and Romano-British ‘Ladder’ settlement at Melton, east Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 71, 23-63. BISHOP, M. C. & J.N.DORE (1989) Excavations of the Roman Fort and Town of Corbridge, York, HMSO Archaeological Reports. BLACK, E. W. (1987) The Roman villas of south-east England, Oxford, BAR British Series. BLACK, E. W. (1994) Villa-owners: Romano-British Gentlemen and Officers. Britannia, 25, 99-110. BLAGG, T. F. C. (1984) An Examination of the Connections between Military and Civilian Architecture in Roman Britain. IN BLAGG, T. F. C. & KING, A. C. (Eds.) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Province. Oxford, BAR British Series. BLAGG, T. F. C. (1991) Buildings. IN JONES, R. F. J. (Ed.) Britain in the Roman period: recent trends. Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publications. BLAGG, T. F. C. & KING, A. C. (Eds.) (1984) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural relationships in a frontier province, Oxford, BAR British Series. BLAGG, T. F. C. & MILLETT., M. (1990) The Early Roman Empire in the West, Oxford, Oxbow. BLAKE, B. (1960) Excavations of Native (Iron Age) sites in Cumberland, 1956-58. Transactions of the

187

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 59, 1-14. BOON, G. C. (1977) Gold-in-Glass beads from the ancient world. Britannia, 8, 193-207. BOOTH, K. (2001) Roman Saddleworth: The history, archaeology and visible remains of the Roman occupation of an area in the Pennines, Saddleworth, Saddleworth Archaeological Trust. BOOTH, P., EVANS, J. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. (1996) Roman Alcester: Northern extramural area: 1969-1988 excavations, York, Council for British Archaeology. BOWDEN, M. (1996) Recent Archaeological Fieldwork in the Howgill Fells. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 96, 1-12. BOWMAN, A. K. (1994) Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier Vindolanda and its people, London, British Museum Press. BRANDT, R. & SLOFSTRA, J. (1983) Roman and Native in the Low Countries, Oxford, Oxbow. BRANDT, T. (1983) A brief encounter along the northern frontier. IN BRANDT, R. & SLOFSTRA, J. (Eds.) Roman and Native in the Low countries. Oxford, BAR International Series. BRANIGAN, K. (1980) Villas in the North: Change in the rural landscape? IN BRANIGAN, K. (Ed.) Rome and the Brigantes: the impact of Rome on Northern England. Sheffield, Department of Prehistory and History. BRANIGAN, K. (1984) North east England in the first Century. IN WILSON, P. R., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) Settlement and Society in the Roman North. Bradford, School of Archaeological Science. BRANN, M. L. (1985) Walls Castle, Ravenglass, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 85, 81-86. BRASSINGTON, M. (1967) Roman material recovered from Little Chester, Derby. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 87, 39-69. BRASSINGTON, M. (1969) A possible Romano-British kiln, near Milford. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 89, 119-120. BRASSINGTON, M. & WEBSTER, W. A. (1988) The Lumb Brook Pottery Kilns, Hazelwood: an interim report. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 108, 2133. BREEZE, D. J. (1981) Demand and supply on the northern frontier. IN CLACK, P. & HASELGROVE, C. (Eds.) Rural settlement in the Roman north. Durham, Durham University Press. BREEZE, D. J. (1988) The Roman Army in Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 88, 9-22. BREWIS, P. (1924) British Brooches of the Backworth Type in the Black Gate Museum. Archaeologia

Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Third Series, 21, 173-181. BREWSTER, T. C. M. (1956) Four Finds from East Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 5357. BREWSTER, T. C. M. (1957) Excavations at Newham’s Pit, Staxton 1947-48. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 193-223. BREWSTER, T. C. M. (1963) The Excavation of Staple Howe, Malton, East Riding Archaeological Research Committee. BRINKLOW, D. A. (1984) Roman settlement around the legionary fortress at York. IN ADDYMAN, P. V. & BLACK, E. W. (Eds.) Archaeological Papers from York presented to M W Barley. York, York Archaeological Trust. BRINKLOW, D. A., HALL, R. A., MAGILTON, J. R. & DONAGHEY, S. (1986) Coney Street, Aldwark, and Clementhorpe, minor sites, and Roman Roads, York, York Archaeological Trust. BRUTON, F. A. (1908) Excavations of the Roman Forts at Castleshaw. First interim report, Manchester, Manchester University Press. BRUTON, F. A. (Ed.) (1909) The Roman Fort at Manchester, Manchester, Manchester University Press. BRUTON, F. A. (1911) The Roman forts at Castleshaw. Second interim report, Manchester, Manchester University Press. BRYANT, S., MORRIS, M. & WALKER, J. S. F. (1986) Roman Manchester: A Frontier Settlement, Manchester, Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit. BUCKLAND, P. C. (1976) A Romano-British Kiln Site at Branton, near Doncaster. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 48, 69-83. BUCKLAND, P. C. (1982) The Malton Burnt Grain: A cautionary tale. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 54, 53-61. BUCKLAND, P. C. (1986) Roman South Yorkshire: a source book, Sheffield, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield. BUCKLAND, P. C. (1988) The Stones of York: Building materials of Roman Yorkshire. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. BUCKLAND, P. C. & DOLBY, M. J. (1987) A Roman Site at Womersley, North Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 59, 1-8. BUCKLAND, P. C. & MAGILTON, J. R. (1986) The Archaeology of Doncaster: the Roman civil settlement, Oxford, BAR British Series. BULMER, W. (1938) Dragonesque Brooches and their development. Antiquaries Journal, 18, 146-153. BURNHAM, B. C., HUNTER, F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2002) Roman Britain in 2001. Britannia, 33, 275-371. BURNHAM, B. C., HUNTER, F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2003) Roman Britain in 2002. Britannia, 34, 292-359, 361382.

188

REFERENCES BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (1998) Roman Britain in 1997. Britannia, 29, 365-445. BURNHAM, B. C. & KEPPIE, L. J. F. (2000) Roman Britain in 1999. Britannia, 31, 371-431, 433-449. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F. & CLEARY, S. E. (1999) Roman Britain in 1998. Britannia, 30, 319-386. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1993) Roman Britain in 1992. Britannia, 24, 267, 269-322. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1994) Roman Britain in 1993. Britannia, 25, 245-291 and 293-314. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1995) Roman Britain in 1994. Britannia, 26, 342-370. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1996a) Roman Britain in 1995. Britannia, 27, 389-457. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1996b) Roman Britain in 1995. Britannia, 26, 389-457. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1997) Roman Britain in 1996. Britannia, 24, 395-453 and 455-472. BURNHAM, B. C., KEPPIE, L. J. F., FITZPATRICK, A. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (2001) Roman Britain in 2000. Britannia, 32, 311-385 and 387-400. BURNS, J. E. (1971) Two bead torcs in Tullie House, Carlisle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 71, 45-51. BUTCHER, S. (1974) Brooches. IN NEAL, D. S. The Excavation of the Roman Villa in Gadebridge Park, Hemel Hempstead 1963-8, London, Thames and Hudson Ltd, 123-127. BUTCHER, S. (1975) The Brooches. IN NEAL, D. S. Northchurch, Boxmoor, and Hemel Hempstead Station: The Excavation of Three Roman Buildings in the Bulbourne Valley. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 4, 76-87. BUTCHER, S. (1990) The brooches. IN NEAL, D. S., WARDLE, A. & HUNN, J. Excavations of the Iron Age, Roman and Medieval Settlement at Gorhambury, St. Albans., London, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, 115-121. BUTCHER, S. (1991) Brooches. IN AUSTEN, P. S. Bewcastle and Old Penrith. Carlisle, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Research Series, number 6, 179-185. BUTCHER, S. (2002) Brooches from Bainesse, Catterick Bridge and Catterick Racecourse. IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman

Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 157-160. BUTCHER , S. & BAYLEY, J. (1995) Roman Brooches. IN PHILLIPS, D. & HEYWOOD, B. Excavations at York Minster: volume I; from Roman fortress to Norman cathedral, part 1 - the site and part 2 - the finds, HMSO. BUXTON, K. & HOWARD-DAVIS, C. (2000) Bremetenacum: Excavations at Roman Ribchester, 1980, 1989-1990., Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. BUXTON, K. & SHOTTER, D. (1996) The Roman Period. IN NEWMAN, R. (Ed.) Archaeology of Lancashire Present State and Future Priorities. Lancashire, Lancaster University Archaeological unit. CADE, J. (1792) Further observations of Cataractonium and parts adjacent. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 10, 54-66. CALVERLY, W. S. (1895) The Roman fort on Hardknott known as Hardknott Castle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 13, 449-452. CARDWELL, P. (1989) Excavations at Cat Babbleton Farm, Ganton, North Yorkshire, 1986. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 61, 15-27. CARR, G. (2001) ‘Romanisation’ and the body. IN DAVIES, G., GARDNER, A. & LOCKYEAR, K. (Eds.) TRAC 2000: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference. Oxford, Oxbow Books. CARR, G. (2005) Woad, Tattooing and Identity in Later Iron Age and Early Roman Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 273-292. CARUANA, I. (1989) Fieldwalking in the Solway Plain 1983-4. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 89, 51-68. CARUANA, I. (1992) Carlisle: Excavation of a Section of the Annexe Ditch of the First Flavian Fort, 1990. Britannia, 23, 45-109. CARVER, M. O. H., DONAGHEY, S. & SUMPTER, A. (1978) Riverside Structures and a Well in Skeldergate and Buildings in Bishophall, York, Yorkshire Archaeological Trust. CASEY, P. J. (1982) Civilians and Soldiers-Friends, Romans, Countrymen? IN CLACK, P. & HASELGROVE, S. (Eds.) Rural Settlement in the Roman North. Durham, Durham University Press. CASEY, P. J. & HOFFMAN, B. (1998) Rescue excavations in the vicus of the fort at Greta Bridge, Co. Durham 1972-4. Britannia, 29, 111-183. CASEY, P. J., NOEL, M. & WRIGHT, J. (1992) The Roman Fort at Lanchester, Co. Durham: a geophysical survey and discussion of the garrisons. Archaeological Journal, 149, 69-81. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1959) Roman Glass in Northern Britain. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 37, 33-58.

189

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH CHARLESWORTH, D. (1961) Roman jewellery found in Northumberland and Durham. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 39, 1-36. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1963) The granaries at Hardknott Castle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 63, 148-152. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1964) Recent Work at Kirkby Thore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 64, 63-75. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1965) Excavations at Papcastle 1961-62. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 65, 102-114. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1972) The glass. IN FRERE, S. S. Verulamium Excavation volume 1, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 196-215 CHARLESWORTH, D. (1975a)The Glass. IN MAXFIELD, V. A. & REED, A. H. (1975) Excavation at Ebchester Roman fort 1972-3. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 3, 74-78. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1975b) The glass. IN NEAL, D. S. (1975) Northchurch, Boxmoor, and Hemel Hempstead Station: The Excavation of Three Roman Buildings in the Bulbourne Valley. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 4, 33. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1976) Glass. IN STEAD, I. M. & CHARLESWORTH, D. (1976) Excavations at Winterton Roman Villa and other Roman sites in North Lincolnshire, London, HMSO, 244-249. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1979) Glass, beads, armlets. IN POTTER, T. W. Romans in north-west England: excavations at the Roman forts of Ravenglass, Watercrook, and Bowness on Solway, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 230-234. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1980) Glass. IN STEAD, I. M. (1980) Rudston Roman Villa, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1982) The glass. IN WACHER, J., MCWHIRR, A. & CIRENCESTER EXCAVATION COMMITTEE. (1982) Early Roman occupation at Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 106-109. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1984) The Glass. IN FRERE, S. S. Verulamium Excavation volume III, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 145-176. CHARLESWORTH, D. (1991) Glass. IN AUSTEN, P. S. Bewcastle and Old Penrith. Carlisle, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Research Series, number 6, 175. CHERRY, J. (1966) Eskmeals and Sand-Dunes Occupation Sites, Phase II Iron Manufacture. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 66, 46-56.

CHERRY, J. & CARUANA, I. (1986) A Romano-British glass bangle from Ravenglass vicus. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 86, 277-278 CHERRY, J. & CHERRY, P. J. (1968) An Iron bloomery at Drigg. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 68, 27-30. CHERRY, J. & CHERRY, P. J. (1991) Archaeological Survey of Structural Remains on Barbon High Fell. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 91, 13-18. CLACK, P. & HASELGROVE, C. (Eds.) (1982) Rural Settlement in the Roman North, Durham, Durham University Press. CLACK, P. A. G. (1982) The northern frontier: farmers in the military zone. IN MILES, D. (Ed.) The RomanoBritish Countryside: Studies in rural settlement and economy. Oxford, BAR British Series. CLAESSEN, H. J. M. (1983) Kinship, Chiefdom, and Reciprocity: On the Use of Anthropological Concepts in Archaeology. IN BRANDT, R. & SLOFSTRA, J. (Eds.) Roman and Native in the Low Countries. Oxford, BAR International Series. CLARE, T. (1982) The Evidence for Continuity of Settlement in Cumbria. IN CLACK, P. & HASELGROVE, S. (Eds.) Rural Settlement in the Roman North. Durham, Durham University. CLARE, T. (1999) The Environs of the Castlerigg Stone Circle: Analysis of the landscape of the Naddle Valley near Keswick. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 99, 67-87. CLARK, M. K. (Ed.) (1935) A gazetteer of Roman remains in East Yorkshire., Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Roman Malton and District Report. CLARK, M. K. (1938) Where were the Brigantes? Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 34, 80-87. CLARK, J.C. (1998) Other Artefact of Stone. IN COOL, H. E. M. & PHILO, C. (Eds.) Roman Castleford Excavations 1974-85. Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 253-266. CLARK, S. (1995) Locational models and the study of Romano-British small towns. IN RUSH, P. (Ed.) Theoretical Roman Archaeology: second conference proceedings. Brookefield, Ashgate Publishing Company. CLARKE, J. (1958) Roman and Native AD 80-122. IN RICHMOND, I. A. (Ed.) Roman and Native in North Britain. Edinburgh, Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD. CLARKE, S. (1998) Social Change and Architectural Diversity in Roman Period Britain. IN FORCEY, C., HAWTHORNE, J. & WITCHER, R. (Eds.) TRAC 97: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Nottingham 1997. Oxbow. CLOSE, R.S. (1972) Excavation of Iron Age hut circles at Percy Rigg, Kildale. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 44, 23-31

190

REFERENCES CLOSE, R. S., HAYES, R. H. & SPRATT, D. A. (1975) Romano-British Settlements at Crag Bank and Lounsdale, Kildale, North Riding. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 47, 61-68. COGGINS, D. (1986) Upper Teesdale: The archaeology of the north Pennine valley, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, British Series. COGGINS, D. & FAIRLESS, K. J. (2001) “The High side”, Park End Farm, Holwick in Teesdale. Durham Archaeological Journal, 16, 15-18. COLLENS, J. (1995) Recent discoveries from the air in Cheshire. IN CARRINGTON, P. (Ed.) From flints to flowerpots, current research in the Dee-Mersey Region: Papers from a seminar held at Chester, February 1994. Chester, Cheshire County Council Archaeological Service Occasional Paper no. 2. COLLENS, J. (1998) Flying on the edge: aerial photography and early settlement patterns in Cheshire and Merseyside. IN NEVELL, M. (Ed.) Living on the edge of Empire: models, methodology and marginality. Manchester, Council for British Archaeology North West. COLLIER, C. V. (1906) The Roman remains at Harpham. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 13 (ii), 141-152. COLLINGE, W. E. (1929) Roman beads found near York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 29, 108-109. COLLINGWOOD BRUCE, J. (1881) Excavation at South Shields, Durham. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 46, 163-170. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1913) Report on the excavations at Papcastle, 1912. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 13, 131-142. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1915) The Exploration of the Roman Fort at Ambleside: Report on the second years work (1914). Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 15, 1-62. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1916) The Exploration of the Roman Fort at Ambleside: Report on the third year’s work (1915). Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 16, 57-91. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1921) Hardknott castle and the tenth Antonine itinerary. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Second Series, 71, 1-16. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1927a) Maiden Castle in Stainmore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 27, 170-177. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1927b) The Roman Frontier. Antiquity, 1, 15-30. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1928a) Hardknott Castle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 28, 314-352.

COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1928b) Old Carlisle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 28, 103-119. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1928c) Roman Ravenglass. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 28, 353-366. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1929) Town and Country in Roman Britain. Antiquity, 3, 261-276. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1930a) A newly-discovered Roman Site in Cumberland. Antiquity, 4, 472-477. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1930b) Romano-Celtic art in Northumbria. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 80, 39-58. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1931a) Objects from Brough under Stainmore in the Craven Museum. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 31, 81-86. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1931b) A Roman fortlet on Barrock Fell near Low Hesket. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 31, 111-118. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1931c) Ten Years’ Work on Hadrian’s Wall: 1920-1930. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 31, 87-110. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1936) The Roman fort and settlement at Maryport. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 36, 85-99. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. & MYRES, J. N. L. (1937) Roman Britain and the English Settlements, Oxford, Oxford University Press. COLLINGWOOD, R. G. & RICHMOND, I. A. (1969) The Archaeology of Roman Britain, London, Metheuen & Col. Ltd. COLLINGWOOD, W. G. (1904) Two Bronze Armlets from Thirlmere. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 4, 80-84. COLLINGWOOD, W. G. (1908a) Report on the exploration of the Romano-British settlement at Ewe Close, Crosby, Ravensworth. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 8, 366-368. COLLINGWOOD, W. G. (1908b) Three more ancient castles of Kendal. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 8, 97-113. COLLINGWOOD, W. G. (1909) Report on a Further Exploration of the Romano-British Settlement at Ewe Close, Crobsy, Ravensworth. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 9, 295-310. CONWAY, R. S. (1906a) Melandra Castle, Manchester, Manchester University Press. CONWAY, R. S. (1906b) Melandra Castle, 1906. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 28, 55-75.

191

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH COOL, H. E. M. (1983) Roman Personal Ornamentation Made of Metal Excluding Brooches. Archaeology. Cardiff, University of Wales. COOL, H. E. M. (1991a) Roman metal hair pins from southern Britain. Archaeological Journal, 147, 148-82. COOL, H.E.M. (1991b) Silver and Copper-Alloy Objects (other than brooches). IN WRATHMELL, S. & NICHOLSON, A. (Eds.) (1991) Dalton Parlours: Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 79-92. COOL, H. E. M. (1998a) The Brooches. IN COOL, H. E. M. & PHILO, C. (Eds.) Roman Castleford Excavations 1974-85. Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 29-57. COOL, H. E. M. (1998b) Personal ornaments other than brooches. IN COOL, H. E. M. & PHILO, C. (Eds.) Roman Castleford Excavations 1974-85. Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 57-61. COOL, H. E. M. (2000a) The parts left over: material culture into the fifth century. IN WILMOTT, T. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) The Late Roman transition in the North. Oxford, BAR British Series. COOL, H. E. M. (2000b) The significance of snake jewellery hoards. Britannia, 31, 29-40. COOL, H.E.M. (2001) A glass object. IN ROBERTS, I., BURGESS, A. & BERG, D. A New Link to the Past: The archaeological landscape of the M1-A1 link road., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 188. COOL, H. E. M. (2004) The Roman cemetery at Brougham, Cumbria: excavations 1966-67, London, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. COOL, H. E. M. (2006) Eating and Drinking in Roman Britain, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. COOL, H.E.M. (2007) Metal, Glass and Stone Artefacts IN GREGORY, R. A. (2007) Roman Manchester: The University of Manchester’s Excavations within the Vicus 2001-5, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 134-148. COOL, H. E. M., JACKSON, C. M. & MONAGHAN, J. (1999) Glass-making and the Sixth Legion at York. Britannia, 30, 147-162. COOL, H. E. M., LLOYD-MORGAN, G. & HOOLEY, A. D. (1995) Finds from the Fortress, York, York Archaeological Trust. COOL, H. E. M. & PHILO, C. (Eds.) (1998) Roman Castleford Excavations 1974-85. Volume I: the small finds, Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service. COOL, H.E.M. & PRICE, J. (2002) Beads from Catterick bypass (site 433). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 259-260. COOLEY, A. E. & BURNETT, A. (Eds.) (2002) Becoming Roman, writing Latin? Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West, Portsmouth, RI, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series. CORDER, P. (1930a) The Defences of the Roman Fort at Malton, London, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society.

CORDER, P. (1930b) Roman Pottery at Throlam, Holmeon-Spalding Moor. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 27, 6-35. CORDER, P. (1936) A Roman Site Near Cawood. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 32, 333-339. CORDER, P. (1939) Excavations at Brough, E. Yorkshire, 1934. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 28, 1-35. CORDER, P. & BIRLEY, M. (1937) A pair of fourthcentury Romano-British pottery kilns near Crambeck. Antiquaries Journal, 17, 392-413. CORDER, P. & HAWKES, C. F. C. (1940) A Panel of Celtic ornamentation from Elmswell, East Yorkshire. Antiquaries Journal, 20, 338-357. CORDER, P. & KIRK, J. L. (1928) Roman Malton: a Yorkshire Fortress and its neighbourhood. Antiquity, 2, 69-82. CORDER, P. & KIRK, J. L. (1932) A Roman Villa at Langton, near Malton, East Yorkshire, Oxford, Roman Antiquities Committee. CORDER, P. & RICHMOND, I. A. (1938) A RomanoBritish Interment with Bucket and Sceptres form Brough, East Yorkshire. Antiquaries Journal, 18, 6874. CORDER, P. & ROMANS, T. (1939a) Excavations at Brough, E. Yorkshire, 1935. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 28, 43-84. CORDER, P. & ROMANS, T. (1939b) Excavations at Brough, E. Yorkshire, 1936. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 28, 85-152. CORDWELL, J. M. (1979) The Very Human Acts of Transformation. IN CORDWELL, J. & SCHWARZ, R. (Eds.) The Fabrics of Culture: The Anthropology of Clothing and Adornment. The Hague, Mouton. COWELL, R. W. & PHILPOTT, R. A. (2000) Prehistoric, Roman, and Medieval Excavations in the Lowlands of North West England: excavations along the line of the A5300 in Tarbock and Halewood, Merseyside, Liverpool, Trustees of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside. COWPER, H. S. (1898) Excavations at Springs Bloomery (iron smelting hearth) near Coniston Hall, Lancashire, with notes on the probable age of the Furness bloomeries. Archaeological Journal, 55, 88-105. COWPER, H. S. (1903) Romano-British Fibulae and other objects from Brough. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 3, 70-72. COX, J. C. (1890) Some notes on Deepdale Cave, Buxton. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal and Natural History Society, 12, 228-230. COX, J. C. (1891) Some further finds in Deepdale Cave, Buxton. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 13, 194199. CRACKNELL, S. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. (1996) Roman Alcester: defences and defended area: Gateway supermarket and Gas House Lane, York, Council for British Archaeology.

192

REFERENCES CRACKNELL, S., MAHANY, C. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. (1994) Roman Alcester: southern extramural area: 1964-1966 excavations Part 2, Finds and discussion, York, Council for British Archaeology. CREGEEN, S. M. (1956) The Roman Excavations at Cantley Housing Estate, Doncaster, Part III. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 32-48. CROCKETT, A. & FITZPATRICK, A. P. (1998) Archaeological mitigation in the Flavian fort annexe and later Roman settlement at Bradley Street, Castleford, West Yorkshire, 1991-1993. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 70, 35-66. CROOM, A. (2002) Roman Clothing and Fashion, Stroud, Tempus. CROOM, A. (2004) Personal Ornamentation. IN TODD, M. (Ed.) A Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. CROW, J. (2004) The Northern Frontier of Britain from Trajan to Antoninus Pius: Roman Builders and Native Britons. IN TODD, M. (Ed.) A Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. CROWTHER, D. & DIDSBURY, P. (1988) Redcliffe and the Humber. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. CRUMMY, N. (1979) A Chronology of Romano-British Bone Pins. Britannia, 10, 157-163. CRUMMY, N. (2005) From bracelets to battle-honours: military armillae from the Roman conquest of Britain. IN CRUMMY, N. (Ed.) Image, Craft and the Classical World. Montagnac, editions monique mergoil. CRUMMY, N. & COLCHESTER ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST. (1983) The Roman small finds from excavations in Colchester 1971-9, Colchester (c/o Castle Museum, Colchester) (Essex)), Colchester Archaeological Trust. CRUMMY, N., CRUMMY, P., CROSSAN, C. & COLCHESTER ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST. (1993) Excavations of Roman and later cemeteries, churches and monastic sites in Colchester, 1971-1988, Colchester (c/o Castle Museum, Colchester) (Essex)), Colchester Archaeological Trust. CRUMMY, P. & COLCHESTER ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST. (1984) Excavations at Lion Walk Balkerne Lane and Middleborough, Colchester, Essex, Colchester (c/o Castle Museum, Colchester) (Essex)), Colchester Archaeological Trust. CUNLIFFE, B. (2004) Britain and the Continent: Networks of Interaction. IN TODD, M. (Ed.) A Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. CURLE, J. (1932) Roman Drift in Caledonia. The Journal of Roman Studies, 22, 73-77. DANIELS, C. M. (1959) The Roman bath-house at Red House, Beaufront near Corbridge. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 37, 85-176. DANIELS, R., JELLEY, D., MARLOW, M. & VYNER, B. E. (1987) A Romano-British double burial at Hartlepool, Cleveland. Durham Archaeological Journal:

Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 3, 1-4. DARK, K. (2000) The late Roman transition in the north: a discussion. IN WILMOTT, T. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) The Late Roman Transition in the North: Papers from the Roman Archaeology Conference, Durham 1999. Oxford, BAR British Series. DARK, K. & DARK, P. (1997) The Landscape of Roman Britain, Stroud, Sutton Publishing. DARK, P. (2000) The Environment of Britain in the First Millennium A.D., London, Duckworth. DARVILL, T. & FULTON, A. (1998) MARS: The Monuments at Risk Survey, London, English Heritage. DAVEY, N. (1935) The Romano-British Cemetery at St. Stephens near Verulamium. St. Albans and Hertfordshire Architectural and Archaeological Society, 244-275. DAVIES, J. L. (2002) Land Use and Military Supply in the Highland Zone of Roman Britain. IN ALDHOUSEGREEN, M. & WEBSTER, P. (Eds.) Artefacts and Archaeology: Aspects of the Celtic and Roman world. Cardiff, University of Wales Press. DAWKINS, W. B. (1872) Reports on the Results Obtained by the Settle Cave Exploration Committee Out of Victoria Cave in 1870. Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1, 60-70. DEARNE, M. J. (1996) Some observations on RomanoBritish brooch typology in the Peak district and adjacent areas. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 116, 68-76. DEARNE, M.J. (1998a) The Objects of Jet/Shale IN DEARNE, M. J. & LORD, T. C. The Romano-British Archaeology of Victoria Cave, Settle: Researches into the site and its artefacts, Oxford, BAR British Series, 111-112. DEARNE, M.J. (1998b) The Miscellaneous and Uncatalogued Finds. IN DEARNE, M. J. & LORD, T. C. The Romano-British Archaeology of Victoria Cave, Settle: Researches into the site and its artefacts, Oxford, BAR British Series, 119. DEARNE, M.J. (1998c) The Glass. IN DEARNE, M. J. & LORD, T. C. The Romano-British Archaeology of Victoria Cave, Settle: Researches into the site and its artefacts, Oxford, BAR British Series, 131-135. DEARNE, M.J. (1998d) The Brooches. IN DEARNE, M. J. & LORD, T. C. The Romano-British Archaeology of Victoria Cave, Settle: Researches into the site and its artefacts, Oxford, BAR British Series, 53-67. DEARNE, M.J. (1998e) The Other Objects of Copper Alloy. IN DEARNE, M. J. & LORD, T. C. The Romano-British Archaeology of Victoria Cave, Settle: Researches into the site and its artefacts, Oxford, BAR British Series, 167-82. DEARNE, M.J. (1998f) The Post-Prehistoric Objects of Ivory, Bone and Antler. IN DEARNE, M. J. & LORD, T. C. The Romano-British Archaeology of Victoria Cave, Settle: Researches into the site and its artefacts, Oxford, BAR British Series, 90-111.

193

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH DEARNE, M. J. (2002) Some ‘rediscovered’ Roman finds from Aldborough and Victoria Cave, Settle. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 74, 135-150. DEARNE, M. J. & LORD, T. C. (1998) The Romano-British Archaeology of Victoria Cave, Settle: Researches into the site and its artefacts, Oxford, BAR British Series. DEARNE, M. J. & PARSONS, J. (1997) Recent RomanoBritish metal-detector finds in the Sheffield and Rotherham museum collections and their relationships to rural settlement patterns in south Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 69, 39-92. DEELEY, J. (1990) Basics of Semiotics, Bloomington, Indiana University Press. DE MICHELI, C. (1996) Beads. IN MAY, J. Dragonby: Report on the excavations at an Iron Age and RomanoBritish Settlement in North Lincolnshire., Oxford, Oxbow monograph 61, 320. DENT, J. S. (1983a) The impact of Roman rule on native society in the territory on the Parisi. Britannia, 14, 3544. DENT, J. S. (1983b) A summary of the excavations carried out in Garton and Wetwang Slack. East Riding Archaeologist, 7, 1-14. DENT, J. S. (1988) Some problems of continuity in rural settlement. IN MANBY, T. G. (Ed.) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire: Essays in honour of T.C.M. Brewster. Gainsborough, John R. Collies. DENT, J. S. (1989) Settlements at North Cave and Brantingham. IN HALKON, P. (Ed.) New Light on the Parisi: Recent discoveries in Iron Age and Roman East Yorkshire. East Riding Archaeological Society. DICKENSON, C. & WENHAM, L. P. (1957) Discoveries in the Roman cemetery on the Mount, York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 283-324. DIDSBURY, P. (1988) Evidence for Romano-British settlement in Hull and the Lower Hull Valley. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. DOBSON, B. & MANN, J. C. (1973) The Roman army in Britain and Britons in the Roman army. Britannia, 4, 191-205. DODD, P. W. & WOODWARD, A. M. (1922) Excavations at Slack, 1913-1915. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 26, 2-91. DORE, J. & GILLAM, J. P. (1979) The Roman Fort at South Shields, Newcastle, Society of Antiquaries. DOWN, A. & RULE, M. (1971) Chichester Excavations, Oxford, Chichester Civic Society Excavations Committee. DRINKWATER, J. F. (1983) Roman Gaul: The Three Provinces 58 B-AD 260, London, Croom Helm. DRURY, D. (1998) Stainmore, Cumbria: Archaeological investigation on the A56 Stainmore to Banks Gate road improvement scheme. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 98, 119-132. DRURY, D. & DUNWELL, A. (2004) Excavations and watching briefs at Borrons Road Ambleside, 190093. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland

Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, Third Series: 5, 71-104. DUNCAN, H. (2001) The metalwork. IN ROBERTS, I., BURGESS, A. & BERG, D. A New Link to the Past: The archaeological landscape of the M1-A1 link road., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 184188. ECKARDT, H. (2005) The social distribution of Roman artefacts: the case of nail-cleaners and brooches in Britain. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 18, 139-160. ECKARDT, H. & CRUMMY, N. (2006) ‘Roman’ and ‘native’ bodies in Britain: the evidence of late Roman nail-cleaner strap-ends. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 25, 83-103. EDDY, M. R. (1983) Excavations at Moot Hill, Driffield. East Riding Archaeologist, 7, 40-51. EDWARDS, B. J. N. & WEBSTER, P. V. (1985a) Ribchester excavations part 2: Excavations in the civil settlement: the structure, Cardiff, University College. EDWARDS, B. J. N. & WEBSTER, P. V. (Eds.) (1985b) Ribchester Excavations Part I: Excavations within the Roman Fort, Cardiff, Cardiff University Press. ELLIS, S. P. (1995) Prologue to a study in Roman urban form. IN RUSH, P. (Ed.) Theoretical Roman Archaeology: Second Conference Proceedings. Brookefield, Ashgate Publishing Company. ENGELSTAD, E. (1991) Images of Power and Contradiction: Feminist theory and post-processual archaeology. Antiquity, 65, 202-514. ERIKSEN, T. H. (2002) Ethnicity and Nationalism, London, Pluto Press. ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S. (2000) Summing up. IN WILMOTT, T. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) The Late-Roman transition in the North. Oxford. ESMONDE CLEARY, A. S. (2004) Britain in the Fourth Century. IN TODD, M. (Ed.) A Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. EVANS, J. (1984) Settlement and Society in North-East England in the Fourth Century. IN WILSON, P., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) Settlement and Society in the Roman North. Bradford, School of Archaeological Sciences. EVANS, J. (1988) All Yorkshire is divided into three parts: social aspects of later Roman pottery distribution in Yorkshire. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. EVANS, J. (1991) Late Roman pottery in the North: a case study. IN JONES, R. F. J. (Ed.) Britain in the Roman period: recent trends. Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publications. EVANS, J. (1995) Roman finds assemblages: towards an integrated approach? IN RUSH, P. (Ed.) Theoretical Roman Archaeology: Second Conference Proceedings. Brookefield, Ashgate Publishing Company. EVANS, J. (2001) Material approaches to the identification of different Romano-British site types. IN JAMES, S. & MILLETT, M. (Eds.) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda., CBA Research Reports.

194

REFERENCES EVANS, J. ( 2001b) Stratified and phased small finds. IN BOOTH, P., EVANS, J. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. Roman Alcester: Northern extramural area: 1969-1988 excavations, York, Council for British Archaeology, Microfiche M1:F5. LLOYD-MORGAN, G. (2001b) Copper Alloy (AES 76-7). IN BOOTH, P., EVANS, J. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. Roman Alcester: Northern extramural area: 1969-1988 excavations, York, Council for British Archaeology, 232-239 EVANS, J., JONES, R. F. J. & TURNBULL, P. (1991) Excavations at Chester-le-Street, Co. Durham, 197879. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 7, 5-49. EVANS, J. & SCULL, S. (1990) Fieldwork on the Roman site at Blennerhasset, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 90, 127-138. EVANS, J. G., LIMBREY, S. & CLEERE, H. (1975) The Effect of Man on the Landscape: the Highland Zones, London, Council for British Archaeology. FACAROS, D. & PAULS, M. (2007) South of France, London, Cadogan Guides. FAIR, M. C. (1943) Roman and Briton. A theory for future establishment of facts. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 43, 82-86. FAIRLESS, K. J. & COGGINS, D. (1986) Excavations at the early settlement site of Forcegarth Pasture South. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 2, 25-40. FAULL, M. L. (1984) Settlement and Society in the NorthEast England of England in the Fifth Century. IN WILSON, P., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) Settlement and Society in the Roman North. Bradford, School of Archaeological Science. FAULL, M. L. & MOORHOUSE, S. (1981) West Yorkshire: An Archaeological Survey to A.D. 1500, Wakefield, West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council. FEACHEM, R. W. (1951) Dragonesque Fibulae. Antiquaries Journal, 31, 32-44. FELL, J. & GHYLL, D. (1883) Some notes on the discovery of an ancient building near the Park Farm, Dalton-in-Furness. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 6, 77-82. FENTON-THOMAS, C. (2003) Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Landscapes on the Yorkshire Chalk, Oxford, BAR British Series. FERGUSON, R. (1880) An Attempt at a Survey of Roman Cumberland and Westmorland, continued. Part III. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 4, 318-329. FERGUSON, R. (1886) The Roman Camp at Low Borrow Bridge. Report of the committee appointed Aug. 22, 1883; laid before the society at Alston, July 10th 1884.

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 8, 1-6. FERGUSON, R. (1888) Excavations on the line of the Roman wall. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 9, 162-178. FERGUSON, R. (1891) The Roman camp on Kreiginthorpe (Crakenthorpe) common near Kirkbythore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 11, 312-314. FERGUSON, R. (1893a) An Archaeological Survey of Cumberland and Westmorland. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 53, 485538. FERGUSON, R. (1893b) On the Roman cemeteries of Luguvallium and on a Sepulchral Slav of Roman date found recently. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 12, 365-374. FERGUSON, R. (1893c) The Roman Fort at Hardknott known as Hardknott Castle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 12, 375-438. FERRIS, I. (1995) Shoppers’ Paradise: consumers in Roman Britain. IN RUSH, P. (Ed.) Theoretical Roman Archaeology: Second Conference Proceedings. Brookefield, Ashgate Publishing Company. FERRIS, I. & JONES, R. F. J. (1991) Binchester-A Northern Roman Fort and Vicus. IN JONES, R. F. J. (Ed.) Britain in the Roman period: recent trends. Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publication. FERRIS, I. & JONES, R. F. J. (2000) Transforming an elite: reinterpreting late Roman Binchester. IN WILMOTT, T. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) The Late Roman Transition in the North. Oxford, BAR British Series. FITTS, R. L., HASELGROVE, C. & LOWTHER, P. C. (1994) An Iron Age Farmstead at Rock Castle, Gilling West, North Yorkshire. Durham Archaeological Journal, 10, 13-42.. FLEET, C. (Ed.) (1997) First Nation--firsthand: A History of Five Hundred years of Encounter, War and Peace, Rowayton, Saraband. FLYNN, P. & MCCARTHY, M. R. (1991) Excavation and ground-based radar survey at Long Lane, Carlisle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 91, 31-48. FORCEY, C. (1997) Beyond Romanization’: technologies of power in Roman Britain. IN MEADOWS, K. C., LEMKE, C. & HERON, J. (Eds.) Proceedings of the sixth annual theoretical Roman archaeology conference, 1996. Oxford, Oxbow Books. FORREST, M. (1967) Recent Work at Strutt’s Park, Derby. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 87, 162-164. FORSTER, R. H. & KNOWLES, K. H. (1908a) The Corbridge Excavations 1907. Archaeological Journal, 65, 53-61.

195

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH FORSTER, R. H. & KNOWLES, K. H. (1910) Corstopitum: Report on the excavations in 1909. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Third Series: 6, 205-272. FORSTER, R. H. & KNOWLES, K. H. (1911) Corstopitum: Report on the excavations in 1910. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Third Series: 7, 143-267. FORSTER, R. H. & KNOWLES, K. H. (1912) Corstopitum: Report on the excavations of 1911. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, New Series: 8, 137-263. FORSTER, R. H. & KNOWLES, K. H. (1913) Corstopitum: Report on the excavations of 1912. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Third Series: 8, 230-280. FORSTER, R. H. & KNOWLES, K. H. (1914) Corstopitum: Report on the excavations in 1913. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Third Series: 11, 297-306. FORSTER, R. H. & KNOWLES, K. H. (1915) Corstopitum: Report on the excavations in 1914. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Third Series: 12, 227-286. FORSTER, R. H. & KNOWLES, W. H. (1908b) The Corbridge Excavations 1908. The Archaeological Journal, 65, 121-124. FORSTER, R. H. & KNOWLES, W. H. (1908c) Corstopitum: Report on the excavations in 1908. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Third Series: 4, 205-303. FOWLER, E. (1960) The origins and development of the penannular brooch in Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 26, 149-177. FOX, C. (1938) The Personality of Britain: the influence of inhabitation in prehistoric and early Historic times, Cardiff, National Museum of Wales. FOX, W. S. (1907) Recent Cave-digging in Derbyshire. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 29, 113-122. FRANCE, N. E. & GOBEL, B. M. (Eds.) (1985) The Romano-British Temple at Harlow, Essex., Harlow, West Essex Archaeological Group. FREEMAN, P. W. M. (1997) Mommsen to Haverfield: the origins of Romanization in late 19th Century Britain. IN MATTINGLY, D. J. (Ed.) Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: power, discourse, and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire. Portsmouth, JRA Supplementary Series. FRERE, S.S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332. FRERE, S.S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1986) Roman Britain in 1985. Britannia, 17, 363-454. FRERE, S. S. (1972) Verulamium Excavation volume 1, Oxford, Oxford University Press FRERE, S. S. (1975) The Origins of Small Towns. IN RODWELL, W. & ROWLEY, T. (Eds.) Small Towns of Roman Britain. Oxford, BAR British Series 15.

FRERE, S. S. (1984) Verulamium Excavation volume III, Oxford, Oxford University Press FRERE, S. S. (1987) Britannia: A History of Roman Britain, London, Routledge & Kegan. FRERE, S. S. (1989) Roman Britain in 1988. Britannia, 20, 257-345. FRERE, S. S. (1990) Roman Britain in 1989. Britannia, 21, 303-378. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1983) Roman Britain in 1982. Britannia, 14, 279-356. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1984) Roman Britain in 1983. Britannia, 15, 265-356. FRERE, S.S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1985) Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332. FRERE, S.S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1986) Roman Britain in 1985. Britannia, 17, 363-454. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1987) Roman Britain in 1986. Britannia, 18, 301-377. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1988) Roman Britain in 1987. Britannia, 19, 415-508. FRERE, S. S., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1992) Roman Britain in 1991. Britannia, 23, 309-323. FRERE, S. S., STOW, S. & BENNETT, P. (1982) Excavations on the Roman and Medieval Defences of Canterbury, Oxbow: Oxford. FRERE, S. S. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1991) Roman Britain in 1990. Britannia, 22, 211-311. FULFORD, M. (1984) Demonstrating Britannia’s economic dependence in the first and second centuries. IN BLAGG, T. F. C. & KING, A. C. (Eds.) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Province. Oxford, BAR British Series 136. FULFORD, M. (1991) Britain and the Roman Empire: the evidence for regional and long distance trade. IN JONES, R. F. J. (Ed.) Britain in the Roman period: recent trends. Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publications. GARDIN, C. & PEEBLES, C. S. (Eds.) (1992) Representations in Archaeology, Bloomington, Indiana University Press. GARRARD, I.P. (1982) Other Objects of Bronze. IN FRERE, S. S., STOW, S. & BENNETT, B. A. (Eds.) Excavations on the Roman and Medieval Defences of Canterbury. Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society. GARRARD, I.P. (1982b) Objects of Bronze IN BENNETT, P., FRERE, S. S. & STOW, S. Excavations at Canterbury Castle, Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society, 173-177. GARRARD, I.P. (1982c) Objects of Bone IN BENNETT, P., FRERE, S. S. & STOW, S. Excavations at Canterbury Castle, Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society, 181. GARRARD, I.P. (1982d) Objects of Bone IN BENNETT, P., FRERE, S. S. & STOW, S. Excavations at Canterbury Castle, Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society, 181. GARSTANG, J. (1901) Melandra Castle. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 22, 90-98.

196

REFERENCES GATES, T. (1982) Farming on the frontier: RomanoBritish fields in Northumberland. IN CLACK, P. & HASELGROVE, S. (Eds.) Rural Settlement in the Roman North. Durham, Durham University Press. GENTRY, A. P. (1976) Roman military stone-built granaries in Britain, Oxford, BAR British Series. GERGEL, R. A. (1994) Costume as Geographic Indicator: Barbarians and Prisoners on Cuirassed Statue Breastplates. IN SEBESTA, J. L. & BONFANTE, L. (Eds.) The World of Roman Costume. Madison, University of Wisconsin. GIBBONS, P. (1988) Archaeological Report on the Watercrook E.T.W. Pipeline. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 88, 71-86. GIBBONS, P. (1989) Excavations and Observations at Kirkby Thore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 89, 93-130. GIBONS, J. P. & SIMPSON, F. G. (1909) The Roman Fort on the Stanegate at Haltwhistle burn. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Third Series: 5, 213-285. GILLAM, J. P. (1958) Roman and Native AD 122-197. IN RICHMOND, I. A. (Ed.) Roman and Native in North Britain. Edinburgh, Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD. GILLAM, J. P. & TAIT, J. (1968) The Roman Fort at Chester-le-Street. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series 46, 75-96. GILYARD-BEER, R. (1951) The Romano-British Baths at Well, Leeds, Roman Antiquities Committee of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society. GOBEL, B. M. (1985a) The Brooches. IN FRANCE, N. E. & GOBEL, B. M. (Eds.) The Romano-British Temple at Harlow. Gloucester, West Essex Archaeological Group, 70-81. GOBEL, B. M. (1985b) The Bronze Small Finds. IN FRANCE, N. E. & GOBEL, B. M. (Eds.) The RomanoBritish Temple at Harlow. Gloucester, West Essex Archaeological Group, 82-91. GOBEL, B. M. (1985c) Bone Small Finds. IN FRANCE, N. E. & GOBEL, B. M. (Eds.) The RomanoBritish Temple at Harlow. Gloucester, West Essex Archaeological Group, 99-100. GOBEL, B. M. (1985d) Miscellaneous small finds. IN FRANCE, N. E. & GOBEL, B. M. (Eds.) The RomanoBritish Temple at Harlow. Gloucester, West Essex Archaeological Group, 101-103. GODDALL, I. H. (1972) Industrial Activity from the Villa at Langton, East Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 44, 32-38. GONZALEZ-RUIBAL, A. (2003) Transformations in meaning: amber and glass beads across the Roman frontier. IN SWIFT, E. (Ed.) Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference 2002, 5-6 April 2002, Canterbury. Oxford, Oxbow.

GOODBURN, R. (1984) The non-Ferrous Metal Objects. IN FRERE, S. S. Verulamium Excavation volume III, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 19-68. GOODBURN, R. & GREW, F. (1984) Objects of bone. IN FRERE, S. S. Verulamium Excavation volume III, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 69-77. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1978) Roman Britain in 1977. Britannia, 9, 403485. GOODBURN, R., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1979) Roman Britain in 1978. Britannia, 10, 268-356. GOODBURN, R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1976) Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392. GOODCHILD, J. G. (1886) The Earthworks near Kirkland, known as the Hanging Walls of Mark Antony. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 8, 40-47. GRAHAME, M. (1998) Redefining Romanization: material culture and the question of social continuity in Britain. IN FORCEY, C., HAWTHORNE, J., LEMKE, C. & WITCHER, R. (Eds.) TRAC 97: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeological Conference, Nottingham 1997. Oxford, Oxbow Books. GREALEY, S. (Ed.) (1976) The Archaeology of Warrington’s Past, Warrington, Warrington Development Corporation. GREEP, S. (1994) Antler Roundel Pendants from Britain and North-Western Roman Provinces. Britannia, 25, 79-97. GREEP, S. (1996) Hairpins. IN MAY, J. Dragonby: Report on the excavations at an Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in North Lincolnshire, Oxford, Oxbow monograph 61. GREEP, S. (1997) Objects of bone, antler and ivory. IN WENHAM, L. P. & HEYWOOD, B. The 1968 to 1970 excavations in the vicus at Malton, North Yorkshire, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 144-148. GREEP, S. (1998) The Bone, Antler and Ivory Artefacts. IN COOL, H. E. M. & PHILO, C. (Eds.) Roman Castleford Excavations 1974-85. Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 267-284. GREENE, K. (1978) Apperley Dene Roman Fortlet: a reexamination. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 6, 29-59. GREGORY, R. A. (2007) Roman Manchester: The University of Manchester’s Excavations within the Vicus 2001-5, Oxford, Oxbow Books. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1980) Roman Britain in 1979. Britannia, 11, 345-417. GREW, F. O., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1981) Roman Britain in 1980. Britannia, 12, 313-396. GROENMAN-VAN WAATERINGE, W. (1983) The disastrous effect of the Roman occupation. IN BRANDT, R. & SLOFSTRA, J. (Eds.) Roman and Native in the Low Countries. Oxford, BAR International Series.

197

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH GUIDO, M. (1979) The Glass Beads of the Prehistoric and Roman Period in Britain and Ireland., London, Society of Antiquaries of London. HALKON, A. P. M. (1983) Investigations into the Romano-British industries of Holme-on-Spalding Moor. East Riding Archaeologist, 7, 15-24. HALKON, P. (1999a) The Foulness Valley in the Iron Age and Roman Periods. IN HALKON, P. (Ed.) Further Light on the Parisi: Recent research in Iron Age and Roman East Yorkshire. Hull, East Riding Archaeological Society. HALKON, P. (1999b) The Welton villa-a view of social and economic change during the Roman period in East Yorkshire. IN HALKON, P. (Ed.) Further Light on the Parisi: Recent research in Iron Age and Roman East Yorkshire. Hull, East Riding Archaeological Society. HALKON, P., MILLETT, M., YORKSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. ROMAN ANTIQUITIES SECTION. & EAST RIDING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. (1999) Rural settlement and industry: studies in the Iron Age and Roman archaeology of lowland East Yorkshire, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Roman Antiquities Section and East Riding Archaeological Society. HALL, C. (2000) Cultures of Empire. A reader colonizers in Britain and the Empire in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries., Manchester, Manchester University Press. HALL, J. & WARDLE, A. (2005) Dedicated followers of fashion? Decorative bone hairpins from Roman London. IN CRUMMY, N. (Ed.) Image, Craft and the Classical World. montagnac, editions monique mergoil. HALL, R. A. (1997) Excavations in the Praetentura 9 Blake Street, York, York Archaeological Trust. HAMNETT, R. (1908) Excavation at the Roman Camp of Melandra 1906-7. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 30, 319-323. HANBURY, W. H. (1947) Notes on an Ancient Kiln at Parwich. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 67, 92-95. HANSON, B. & CONOLLY, R. J. (2002) Language and literacy in Roman Britain: some archaeological considerations. IN COOLEY, A. E. (Ed.) Becoming Roman, Writing Latin? Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West. Rhode Island, Journal of Roman Archaeology. HANSON, W. S. (1997) Forces of Change and Methods of Control. IN MATTINGLY, D. J. (Ed.) Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power discourse and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire. Portsmouth, JRA Supplementary Series. HANSON, W. S. (2002) Why did the Roman Empire cease to expand? IN FREEMAN, P., BENNETT, J., FIEMA, Z. T. & HOFFMAN, B. (Eds.) Limes XVIII: Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman Jordon. British Archaeological Reports, International Series.

HARDEN, D. B. (1933) Ancient Glass. Antiquity, 7, 419428. HARDING, D. (1973) Round and Rectangular: Iron Age House, British and Foreign. IN HAWKES, C. & HAWKES, H. (Eds.) Greeks, Celts, and Romans: Studies in Venture and Resistance. London, J.M. Dent and Sons LTD. HART, C. R. (1981) The North Derbyshire Archaeological Survey, Chesterfield, The North Derbyshire Archaeological Trust. HARTLEY, B. R. (1960) The Roman Fort at Bainbridge: Excavations 1957-59. Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literacy Society, 9 (iii), 107-131. HARTLEY, B. R. (1966) The Roman Fort at Ilkley: Excavations 1962. Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literacy Society, 12 (ii), 23-72. HARTLEY, B.R. (1972) The Roman occupation of Scotland: The evidence of Samian Ware. Britannia, 3, 1-55. HARTLEY, B. R. (1980) The Brigantes and the Roman Army. IN BRANIGAN, K. (Ed.) Rome and the Brigantes: The impact of Rome on Northern England. Sheffield, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology. HARTLEY, B. R. (1987) Roman Ilkley, Ilkley, Olicana Museum and Historical Society. HARTLEY, B. R. (1988) Plus CA Change., or reflections of the Roman Forts of Yorkshire. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. HARTLEY, B. R. & FITTS, R. L. (1988) The Brigantes, Gloucester, Sutton. HARTLEY, K. F. & WEBSTER, P. V. (1973) The Romano-British Pottery Kilns near Wilderspool. The Archaeological Journal, 130, 77-103. HASELGROVE, C. (1982) Indigenous Settlement Patterns in the Tyne-Tees Lowlands. IN CLACK, P. & HASELGROVE, S. (Eds.) Rural Settlement in the Roman North. Durham, Durham University. HASELGROVE, C. (1984) ‘Romanization’ before the Conquest: Gaulish precedents and British Consequences. IN BLAGG, T. F. C. & KING, A. C. (Eds.) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Provinces. Oxford, BAR International Series. HASELGROVE, C., LOWTHER, P. C. & TURNBULL, P. (1990a) Stanwick, North Yorkshire, Part 3: Excavations on earthworks sites 1981-86. The Archaeological Journal, 147, 37-90. HASELGROVE, C., TURNBULL, P. & FITTS, R. L. (1990b) Stanwick, North Yorkshire, Part I: recent research and previous archaeological investigation. The Archaeological Journal, 147, 1-15. HASSALL, M. W. C. (1984) Epigraphy and the Roman army in Britain. IN BLAGG, T. F. C. & KING, A. C. (Eds.) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Province. Oxford, BAR British Series.

198

REFERENCES HASSALL, M. W. C., WILSON, D. M., WRIGHT, R. P. & REA, J. (1972) Roman Britain in 1971. Britannia, 3, 298-352. HATTATT, R. (1982) Ancient and Romano-British Brooches, Dorset, Dorset Publishing Company. HATTATT, R. (1985) Iron Age and Roman Brooches., Oxford, Oxbow Books. HAVERCROFT, A. B. (1979) An Unusual Roman Brooch from Gadebridge, Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 6, 120-122. HAVERFIELD, F. (1899) Report on the Cumberland Excavation Committee for 1898. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 15, 345-364. HAVERFIELD, F. (1903) Report of the Cumberland Excavation Committee for 1902. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 3, 328-350. HAVERFIELD, F. (1904) Report of the Cumberland Excavation Committee for 1903. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 4, 239-249. HAVERFIELD, F. (1913) Voreda, The Roman Fort at Plumpton Wall. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 13, 177-198. HAVERFIELD, F. (1915) The Romanization of Roman Britain, Oxford, Oxford University Press. HAVERFIELD, F. (1920a) Old Carlisle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 20, 143-150. HAVERFIELD, F. (1920b) The Provisioning of Roman Forts. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 20, 127-142. HAVERFIELD, F. & COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1914) Report on the Exploration of the Roman Fort at Ambleside, 1903. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 14, 433-465. HAWKES, C. & HULL, M.R. (1947) Camulodunum: the first report on the excavations at Colchester, 19301939. Oxford: University Press HAWKES, C. (1973) From Venture to Resistance: Rome in the British north. IN HAWKES, C. & HAWKES, H. (Eds.) Greeks, Celts, and Romans: Studies in Venture and Resistance. London, J.M. Dent and Sons LTD. HAY, T. (1943) Threlkeld Settlement. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 43, 20-24. HAY, T. (1945) Stone Carr. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 44, 126-133. HAYES, R. H. (1959) Sites at Woodhouse Farm, Crayke. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 40, 90-99. HAYES, R. H. (1967) A Romano-British Site at Pale End, Kildale. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 687701.

HAYES, R. H. (1988a) Roman Norton, Excavations and Discoveries. IN WILSON, P. (Ed.) North-east Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers by Raymond H. Hayes. Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. HAYES, R. H. (1988b) Roman sites in Ryedale and on the North York Moors. IN WILSON, D. M. (Ed.) Northeast Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers by Raymond H. Hayes. Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. HAYES, R. H. (1988c) Small square or rectilinear enclosures in north-east Yorkshire. IN WILSON, P. (Ed.) North-east Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers by Raymond H. Hayes. Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. HAYES, R. H. (1988d) Stonygate Romano-British Site. IN WILSON, D. R. (Ed.) North-east Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers by Raymond H. Hayes. Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. HAYFIELD, C. (1987) An Archaeological Survey of the Parish of Wharram Percy, East Yorkshire; the evolution of the Roman landscape, Oxford, BAR British Series. HEAD, R. (1773) An account of some antiquities discovered digging into a large Roman Barrow at Ellenborough in Cumberland 1763. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 2, 54-57. HEELIS, A. J. (1911) A find of Roman Coins near Brougham Castle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 11, 209-211. HEMBREY, N., SUMMERFIELD, J. & THOMPSON A. (2002) Brooches from Thornbrough Farm (Site 452). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 161. HENIG, M. (1970) The veneration of heroes in the Roman Army in Britain. Britannia, 1, 249-263. HENIG, M. (1972) Intaglios from Castlesteads and the Roman Fort at Kirkbride. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 72, 57-65. HENIG, M. (1974a) The Art of Roman Britain, London, B.T. Batsford Ltd. HENIG, M. (1974b) A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites, Oxford, BAR British Series. HENIG, M. (1975) The Intaglio. IN MAXFIELD, V. A. & REED, A. H. (1975) Excavation at Ebchester Roman fort 1972-3. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 3, 79. HENG, M. (1979) Gemstones. IN POTTER, T. W. Romans in north-west England: excavations at the Roman forts of Ravenglass, Watercrook, and Bowness on Solway, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 65-69. HENIG, M. (1984) Thrown, Altar and Sword: Civilian Religion and the Roman Army in Britain. IN BLAGG, T. F. C. & KING, A. C. (Eds.) Military and Civilian in

199

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Roman Britain: Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Province. Oxford, BAR British Series. HENIG, M. (1985) The intaglios. IN FRANCE, N. E. & GOBEL, B. M. (Eds.) The Romano-British Temple at Harlow. Gloucester, West Essex Archaeological Group, 92-95 HENIG, M. (1986) Intaglios and Rings from Doncaster. IN BUCKLAND, P. C. & MAGILTON, J. R. The Archaeology of Doncaster: the Roman civil settlement, Oxford, BAR British Series, 97-100. HENIG, M. (1987) Jet. IN ZEEPVAT, R. J., WILLIAMS, R. J. & MYNARD, D. C. Roman Milton Keynes: excavations and fieldwork, 1971-1982, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society, 145 HENIG, M. (1990) The intaglios. IN NEAL, D. S., WARDLE, A. & HUNN, J. Excavations of the Iron Age, Roman and Medieval Settlement at Gorhambury, St. Albans., London, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, 115-121HENIG, M. (1991) The Intaglios. IN WRATHMELL, S. & NICHOLSON, A. (Eds.) (1991) Dalton Parlours: Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service,160-162. HENIG, M. (1991) Intaglios. IN AUSTEN, P. S. Bewcastle and Old Penrith. Carlisle, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Research Series, number 6, 178. HENIG, M. (1995) Roman Intaglios. IN PHILLIPS, D. & HEYWOOD, B. Excavations at York Minster: volume I; from Roman fortress to Norman cathedral, part 1 the site and part 2 - the finds, HMSO. HENIG, M. (1996) Intaglios from Dragonby. IN MAY, J. Dragonby: Report on the excavations at an Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in North Lincolnshire., Oxford, Oxbow monograph 61, 319. HENIG, M. (1998) The Intaglios and Gold Jewellery. IN COOL, H. E. M. & PHILO, C. (Eds.) Roman Castleford Excavations 1974-85. Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 23-26. HENIG, M. (2001) Symbol Gem. IN BOOTH, P., EVANS, J. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. Roman Alcester: Northern extramural area: 1969-1988 excavations, York, Council for British Archaeology, 121 HENIG, M. (2002a) Gemstone from Catterick Bridge. IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 265. HENIG, M. (2002b) Intaglio from Bainesse. IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 264. HENIG, M. (2002c) Intaglio from Cadbury Schweppes Site. IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE.

Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 265. HENIG, M. (2002d) Intaglio from Thornbrough Farm. IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 264. HENIG, M. & KING, A. C. (2003) Two Roman Intaglios from Craven. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 75, 9-13. HESLOP, D. H. (1984) Initial excavation at Ingleby Barwick, Cleveland. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 1, 23-34. HESLOP, D.H. (2001) The jet and shale objects. IN ROBERTS, I., BURGESS, A. & BERG, D. A New Link to the Past: The archaeological landscape of the M1A1 link road., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 202-203. HICKS, J. D. & WILSON, J. A. (1975) The RomanoBritish Kilns at Hasholme, East Riding. East Riding Archaeologist, 2, 40-70. HIGHAM, N. J. (1980) Native settlements west of the Pennines. IN BRANIGAN, K. (Ed.) Rome and the Brigantes: the Impact of Rome on Northern England. Sheffield, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology. HIGHAM, N. J. (1981) Two enclosures at Dobcross Hall, Dalston. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 81, 1-6. HIGHAM, N. J. (1982a) ‘Native’ settlements on the north slopes of the Lake District. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 83, 29-35. HIGHAM, N. J. (1982b) The Roman impact upon rural settlement in Cumbria. IN CLACK, P. & HASELGROVE, S. (Eds.) Rural Settlement in the Roman North. Durham, CBA. HIGHAM, N. J. (1983) A Romano-British Farm Site and Field System at Yanwath Wood, near Penrith. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 83, 49-58. HIGHAM, N. J. (1986) The Northern Counties to AD 1000, London, Longman Publishing. HIGHAM, N. J. (1991) Soldiers and settlement in Northern England. IN JONES, R. F. J. (Ed.) Britain in the Roman period: recent trends. Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publications. HIGHAM, N. J. & JONES, G. B. D. (1975) Frontier, Forts and Farmers: Cumbrian Aerial Survey, 1974-5. The Archaeological Journal, 132, 16-53. HIGHAM, N. J., JONES, G. B. D., HILLMAN, R., WILD, F. C. & J.N.DORE (1983) The excavation of two Romano-British farm sites in North Cumbria. Britannia, 14, 45-72.

200

REFERENCES HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1952) A Roman Site on Dere Street. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 30, 223-239. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1955a) Excavations at Burrow in Lonsdale. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 54, 93-97. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1955b) A Roman and Saxon Site at Catterick. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 38, 241246. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1956) An Enamelled Fibula from Brough-under-Stainmore. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series 55, 54-58. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1957) Cataractonium, Fort and Town. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 224-265. HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1962) Romano-British Discoveries at Crayke. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 40, 99112. HILDYARD, E. J. W. & GILLAM, J. P. (1951) Renewed excavation at Low Borrow Bridge. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 51, 40-67. HILL, J. D. (1997) The end of one kind of body and the beginning of another kind of body? Toilet instruments and ‘Romanization’ in southern England during the first century AD. IN GWILT, A. & HASELGROVE, C. (Eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxford, Oxbow. HILL, J. D. (2001) Romanisation, gender and class: recent approaches to identity in Britain and their possible consequences. IN JAMES, S. & MILLETT, M. (Eds.) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. CBA Research Reports. HILL, P. R. (2004) The construction of Hadrian’s Wall, Oxford, BAR Publishing. HINCHLIFFE, J. (1980) Excavations within the Roman City of Verulamium 1978. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 7, 10-27. HINCHLIFFE, J. & SPAREY-GREEN, C. (1985) Excavations at Brancaster, 1974 and 1977. East Anglican Archaeology Report, 23. HINCHLIFFE, J., WILLIAMS, J. H. & WILLIAMS, F. (1992) Roman Warrington: Excavations at Wilderspool, 1966-1969 and 1976, Manchester, University of Manchester. HINGLEY, R. (1991) The Romano-British Countryside: the significance of rural settlement Forms. IN JONES, R. F. J. (Ed.) Britain in the Roman period: recent trends. Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publications. HINGLEY, R. (1997) Resistance and domination social change in Roman Britain. IN MATTINGLY, D. J. (Ed.) Dialogues in Roman imperialism: power, discourse, and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire. Portsmouth, JRA supplementary series. HINGLEY, R. (2001) Images of Rome. IN HINGLEY, R. (Ed.) Images of Rome: Perceptions of Ancient Rome in Europe and the United States in the Modern

Age. Portsmouth, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series. HINGLEY, R. (2004) Rural Settlement in Northern Britain. IN TODD, M. (Ed.) A Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. HODDER, I. (1975) The spatial distribution of RomanoBritish small towns. IN ROWLEY, T. & RODWELL, W. (Eds.) Small Towns of Roman Britain. Oxford, BAR British Series. HODDER, I. & HUTSON, S. (2003) Reading the past: Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. HODGSON, H. (2008) South Shields. http://www.dur. ac.uk/resources/archaeological.services/research_ training/hadrianswall_research_framework/project_ documents/SouthShields.pdf. HODGSON, K. S. (1941) Excavations at Measand. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 41, 207-208. HODGSON, N. (2000) The Stanegate: a frontier rehabilitated. Britannia, 31, 11-22. HODGSON, N. & BIDWELL, P. (2004) Auxiliary barracks in a new light: recent discoveries on Hadrian’s Wall. Britannia, 35, 121-157. HOGG, A. H. A. (1943) Native Settlements in Northumberland. Antiquity, 17, 136-147. HOGG, R. (1949) A Roman Cemetery Site at Beckfoot, Cumberland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 49, 32-37. HOGG, R. (1956) Excavations at Carlisle, 1953. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 55, 59-107. HOGG, R. (1964) Excavations at Tullie House, Carlisle 1954-56. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 64, 14-62. HOGG, R. (1965) Excavations of the Roman Auxiliary Tilery, Brampton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 65, 133-168. HOLLAND, W. R. (1912) Melandra Castle. Origin of the name. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 34, 158-160. HOOLEY, A.D. (1997) Jet and shale. IN WENHAM, L. P. & HEYWOOD, B. The 1968 to 1970 excavations in the vicus at Malton, North Yorkshire, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 148-155. HORNSBY, W. & STANTON, R. (1912) The Roman Fort at Huntcliff, near Saltburn. Journal of Roman Studies, 2, 215-232. HORSFIELD, D. & THOMPSON, D. (1997) The highlands: Guidance on terminology regarding altitudinal zonation and related terms. Edinburgh, Scottish Natural Heritage. HOWARD-DAVIS, C. (2000) The gold ring. IN BUXTON, K. & HOWARD-DAVIS, C. Bremetenacum: Excavations at Roman Ribchester, 1980, 1989-1990., Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints, 241-242.

201

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH HOWARD-DAVIS, C. & BUXTON, K. (2000) Roman Forts in the Fylde: excavations at Dowbridge, Kirkham, Lancaster University, Centre for North West Regional Studies. HULL, M. R. (1958) Roman Colchester, Oxford, Society of Antiquaries. HUNTER, F. (2001) Roman and native in Scotland: new approaches. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 14, 289309. HUNTER, F. (2002) Problems in the Study of Roman and Native. IN FREEMAN, P., BENNETT, J., FIEMA, Z. T. & HOFFMAN, B. (Eds.) Limes XVIII: Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies in Amman Jordon. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, International Series. HUNTER, F. (2008) Celtic Art in Roman Britain. IN GARROW, D., GOSDEN, C. & HILL, J. D. (Eds.) Rethinking Celtic Art. London, Oxbow Books. HUNTER, J. K. T., MANBY, T. G. & SPAUL, J. E. H. (1971) Recent Excavations at the Slack Roman Fort. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 74-98. HUNTLEY, J. P. (2000) Late Roman transition in the north: the palynological evidence. IN WILMOTT, T. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) The Late Roman Transition in the North: Papers from the Roman Archaeology Conference. Oxford, BAR British Series. INMAN, R. (1988) Romano-British settlement in the south Tees basin. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. ISSAC, A. & THOMPSON A. (2002) Jet and Shale objects from Catterick Bypass and Catterick 1972 (sites 433 and 434). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 173-175. ISSAC, A. & THOMPSON A. (2002b) Objects of bone and antler from Catterick bypass and Catterick 1972 (sites 433 and 434). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 181-191. JACKSON, W. (1877) The camp at Muncaster and certain Roman discoveries there. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 3, 17-23. JACKSON, W. (1913) Report on the Explorations at Dog’s Hole, Warton Crag. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 13, 55-58. JACKSON, R.P.J (1988) The Iron Objects. IN JONES, G. B. D., SHOTTER, D. & ARTHUR, D. C. (1988) Roman Lancaster: rescue archaeology in an historic city, 1970-75, Manchester, Department of Manchester: Brigantia Monograph, 155-157. JACKSON, R.P.J. (1992) The Iron Objects. IN HINCHLIFFE, J., WILLIAMS, J. H. & WILLIAMS,

F. Roman Warrington: Excavations at Wilderspool, 1966-1969 and 1976, Manchester, University of Manchester, 78-87. JAMES, S. (1984) Britain and the Late Roman Army. IN BLAGG, T. F. C. & KING, A. C. (Eds.) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Province. Oxford, BAR British Series. JAMES, S. (2001a) “Romanization” and the peoples of Britain. IN KEAY, S. & TERRENATO, N. (Eds.) Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization. Rhode Island, JRA Supplement Series. JAMES, S. (2001b) Soldiers and Civilians: identity and interaction in Roman Britain. IN JAMES, S. & MILLETT, M. (Eds.) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. York, CBA Research Reports. JAMES, S. (2006) The impact of steppe peoples and the Partho-Sasanian world on the development of Roman military equipment and dress, 1st to 3rd centuries AD. IN MODE, M. & TUBACH, J. (Eds.) Arms and Armour as Indicators of Cultural Transfer: the steppes and the ancient world from Hellenistic times to the early Middle Ages. Wiesbaden, Reichert. JARRETT, M. G. (1959) The pre-Hadrianic occupation of Roman Maryport. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 58, 63-67. JARRETT, M. G. (1966) Septimius Severus and the defences of York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 516-524. JARRETT, M. G. (1976) Maryport, Cumbria: A Roman fort and its Garrison, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. JOBEY, G. (1960) Some rectilinear settlements of the Roman period in Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 38, 1-38. JOBEY, G. (1964) Enclosed stone built settlements in North Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 42, 41-64. JOBEY, G. (1965) Hillforts and settlement in Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 43, 21-64. JOBEY, G. (1971) Excavations at Brough Law and Ingram Hill. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 49, 71-94. JOBEY, G. (1972) Notes on additional early settlements in Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 50, 71-80. JOBEY, G. (1979) Palisaded enclosures, a Roman temporary camp and Roman gravel quarries on Bishop Rigg, Corbridge. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 7, 99-114. JOBEY, G. (1982) Between Tyne and Forth: Some Problems. IN CLACK, P. & HASELGROVE, S.

202

REFERENCES (Eds.) Rural Settlement in the Roman North. Durham, Durham University. JOBEY, I. & JOBEY, G. (1987) Prehistoric, RomanoBritish and later remains on Murton High Crags, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 15, 151-198. JOHNS, C. (1989a) Finger-rings. IN STEAD, I.M. & RIGBY, V. Verulamium: The King Harry Lane Site. London, HMSO, 20-23 JOHNS, C. (1989b) Other copper-alloy objects. IN STEAD, I.M. & RIGBY, V. Verulamium: The King Harry Lane Site. London, HMSO, 20-23 JOHNS, C. (1996) The Jewellery of Roman Britain, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press. JOHNSON, M. (1993) Investigations of a multi-period landscape, Potter Brompton, North Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 65, 1-9. JOHNSON, M. (1999) Archaeological Theory: An introduction, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. JOHNSON, S. (1975) Vici in Lowland Britain. IN RODWELL, W. & ROWLEY, T. (Eds.) Small Towns of Roman Britain. Oxford, BAR British Series. JOHNSON, S. (1978) Excavations at Hayton Roman Fort, 1973. Britannia, 9, 57-114. JOHNSON, S. & NEAL, D. S. (2002) The re-excavation and study of the Helicon mosaic, Aldborough Roman town. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 74, 113-134. JOHNSTON, D. E. (1979) Roman Villas, Aylesbury, Shire Archaeology. JONES, A. (2007) Roman Glass. IN GREGORY, R. A. (2007) Roman Manchester: The University of Manchester’s Excavations within the Vicus 2001-5, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 15. JONES, G. D. B. (1976) The western extension of Hadrian’s Wall: Bowness to Cardurnock. Britannia, 7, 236-247. JONES, G. D. B. (1984) Becoming different without knowing it. The role and development of vici. IN BLAGG, T. F. C. & KING, A. C. (Eds.) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Province. Oxford, BAR British Series. JONES, G. D. B. & GREALEY, S. (1974) Roman Manchester, Altrincham, Manchester Excavation committee. JONES, G. D. B., SHOTTER, D. & ARTHUR, D. C. (1988) Roman Lancaster: rescue archaeology in an historic city, 1970-75, Manchester, Department of Manchester: Brigantia Monograph. JONES, M. J. (1977) Archaeological work at Brough under Stainmore 1971-72: I. The Roman Discoveries. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 77, 17-48. JONES, M. J. (2004) Cities and Urban Life. IN TODD, M. (Ed.) A Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. JONES, M. U. (1972) Aldborough, West Riding 1964: excavations at the south gate and bastion and at extra-

mural sites. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 43, 3979. JONES, R. F. J. (1984a) Cemeteries of Roman York. IN ADDYMAN, P. V. & BLACK, E. W. (Eds.) Archaeological Papers from York presented to M.W. Barley. York, York Archaeological Trust. JONES, R. F. J. (1984b) Death and distinction. IN BLAGG, T. F. C. & KING, A. C. (Eds.) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Province. Oxford, BAR British Series. JONES, R. F. J. (1984c) Settlement and Society in NorthEast England in the Third Century A.D. IN WILSON, P., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. H. (Eds.) Settlement and Society in the Roman North. Bradford, Department of Archaeological Science. JONES, R. F. J. (1984d) Urbanisation in the Roman North. IN WILSON, P., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) Settlement and Society in the Roman North. Bradford, School of Archaeological Science. JONES, R. F. J. (1988) The hinterland of Roman York. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. JONES, R. F. J. (Ed.) (1991a) Britain in the Roman period: recent trends, Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publications. JONES, R. F. J. (1991b) Cultural change in Roman Britain. IN JONES, R. F. J. (Ed.) Britain in the Roman period: recent trends. Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publications. JONES, R. F. J. (1991c) The urbanisation of Roman Britain. IN JONES, R. F. J. (Ed.) Britain in the Roman period: recent trends. Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publications. JONES, R. F. J. (2002) Assemblages and cultural practices at Newstead: illusions of wealth and poverty. Roman Finds Group. Wallsend. JONES, R. L., CUDILL, P. R. & SIMMONS, I. G. (1979) Archaeology and Palaeobotany on the North York moors and their environs. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 51, 15-22. JONES, S. (1997) The Archaeology of Ethnicity, London, Routledge. JOPE, E. M. (2000) Early Celtic Art in the British Isles, Oxford, Clarendon. JUNDI, S. & HILL, J. D. (1998) Brooches and Identities in First Century AD Britain: more than meets the eye? IN FORCEY, C., HAWTHORNE, J. & WITCHER, R. (Eds.) TRAC 97: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Nottingham. Oxford, Oxbow Books. KAY, S. O. (1961) Some pottery fragments from the Roman camp at Pentrich. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 81, 139-141. KAY, S. O. (1962) The Romano-British pottery kilns at Hazelwood and Holbrook, Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 82, 21-42. KAY, S. O. & HUGES, R. G. (1963) A Romano-British pottery kiln at Shottle Hall. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 83, 103-105. KAY, S. O. & HUGHES, R. G. (1952) Romano-British “Derbyshire Ware” Kiln Site at Hazelwood. Journal

203

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 72, 119-120. KEAY, S. & TERRENATO, N. (Eds.) (2001) Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization, Oxford, Oxbow Books. KENT, B. J. W. & CLARK, M. K. (1933) A Roman settlement at Wetherby. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 31, 171-207. KENYON, D. (1991) The Origins of Lancashire, Manchester, Manchester University Press. KEWLEY, J. (1974) A Roman stone-Mason’s workshop at Chester-le-Street and Lanchester. Antiquaries Journal, 54, 53-65. KILBRIDE-JONES, H. E. (1938a) Excavations of a native settlement at Milking Gap, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 15, 303-350. KILBRIDE-JONES, H. E. (1938b) Glass Armlets in Britain. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 72, 166-198. KILBRIDE-JONES, H. E. (1980) Zoomorphic Penannular Brooches. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, 39. KING, A. (1970) Romano-British metalwork from the Settle district of West Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 62, 410-417. KING, A. (1999) Diet in the Roman world. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 12, 168-202. KING, A. C. (1986) Romano-British farms and farmers in Craven, North Yorkshire. IN MANBY, T. G. & TURNBULL, P. (Eds.) Archaeology in the Pennines: studies to honour Arthur Raistrick. Oxford, BAR British Series. KING, C. W. (1878) Antique Cameo, found at South Shields, Durham. The Archaeological Journal, 35, 103-107. KNIGHT, D., GARTON, D. & LEARY, R. (1998) The Elmton Fieldwalking Survey: Prehistoric and RomanoBritish Artefact Scatters. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 118, 69-85. KNOWLES, W. H. & FORESTER, R. H. (1909) Corstopitum: Report on the excavations of 1908. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Third Series: 5, 305-424. KNOWLES, M. & MAY, J. (1996) Catalogue of silver and Copper alloy artefacts. IN MAY, J. Dragonby: Report on the excavations at an Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in North Lincolnshire., Oxford, Oxbow monograph 61, 270-280. KRISTIANSEN, K. (1978) The consumption of wealth in Bronze Age Denmark. A study in the dynamics of economic processes in tribal society. IN KIRSITANSEN, K. & PALUDAN-MULLER, C. (Eds.) New Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology. Odense, The National Museum of Denmark. KRISTIANSEN, K. & LARSSON, T. B. (2005) The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

KUPER, A. (2000) Culture: The Anthropologists’ Account, Harvard, Harvard University Press. KURCHIN, B. (1995) Romans and Britons on the northern frontier: a theoretical evaluation of the archaeology of resistance. IN RUSH, P. (Ed.) TRAC 95: Second Conference Proceedings. Brookefield, Ashgate Publishing Company. LAMBERT, J., NEWMAN, R. & OLIVER, A. (1996) Transect Through Time: The Archaeological Landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Pipeline, Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints. LANDON, E. J. (1979) Siona Clothing and Adornment, or, You Are What you Wear? IN CORDWELL, J. & SCHWARZ, R. (Eds.) The Fabrics of Culture: The Anthropology of Clothing and Adornment. The Hague, Mouton. LAURIE, T. (1983) An enclosed settlement near East Mellwaters Farm, Bowes, Co Durham. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 1, 35-39. LAWRENCE, H. (1912) Melandra Castle. Excavations 1908-1911. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 34, 153-157. LEECH, R. H. & SCOTT, D. (1993) The Roman Fort and vicus at Ambleside: Archaeological Research in 1982. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 93, 51-74. LENTOWICZ, I.J. (2002) Copper-alloy objects from Catterick Bypass and Catterick 1972 (sites 433 and 434) IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 45-78. LEONE, M. P. & POTTER, P. B. (Eds.) (1988) The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press. LEVI-STRAUSS, C. (1969) Structural Anthropology, Aylesbury, Hazell Watson and Viney LTD. LEWIT, T. (2003) ‘Vanishing Villas’: What Happened to Elite Rural Habitation in the West in the 5th and 6th century A.D.? Journal of Roman Archaeology, 16, 260-274. LIGHTFOOT, K. G. (1995) Cultural Contact Studies: redefining the relationship between prehistoric and historical archaeology. American Antiquity, 60, 199217. LLOYD, G. D. (1968) A Pottery Kiln in the Parish of Lockington. East Riding Archaeologist, 1(i), 28-38. LLOYD-MORGAN, G. (1986) Small finds from Doncaster. IN BUCKLAND, P. C. & MAGILTON, J. R. The Archaeology of Doncaster: the Roman civil settlement, Oxford, BAR British Series, 83-96. LLOYD-MORGAN, G. (1995) Roman non-ferrous metalwork. IN PHILLIPS, D. & HEYWOOD, B. Excavations at York Minster: volume I; from Roman

204

REFERENCES fortress to Norman cathedral, part 1 - the site and part 2 - the finds, HMSO. LLOYD-MORGAN, G. (1997) The bronzes. IN WENHAM, L. P. & HEYWOOD, B. The 1968 to 1970 excavations in the vicus at Malton, North Yorkshire, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 133-144. LLOYD-MORGAN, G. (2001a) Copper Alloy (ALC 69 and ALC 72/2). IN BOOTH, P., EVANS, J. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. Roman Alcester: Northern extramural area: 1969-1988 excavations, York, Council for British Archaeology, 70-77 LLOYD-MORGAN, G. (2001b) Copper Alloy (AES 76-7). IN BOOTH, P., EVANS, J. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. Roman Alcester: Northern extramural area: 1969-1988 excavations, York, Council for British Archaeology, 232-239. LLOYD-MORGAN, G. (2001c) Worked bone (AES 76-7). IN BOOTH, P., EVANS, J. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. Roman Alcester: Northern extramural area: 1969-1988 excavations, York, Council for British Archaeology, 249-255. LONDESBOROUGH, L. (1872) An Account of the Opening of some Tumuli in East Riding of Yorkshire. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 34, 251-258. LONDON, S. O. A. O. (1773) An account of some Roman monuments found in Cumberland. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 2, 58-59. LONG, C. D. (1988) The Iron Age and RomanoBritish settlement at Catcote, Hartlepool, Cleveland. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 4, 13-35. LOWNDES, R. A. C. (1963) “Celtic” fields, farmsteads, and burial-mounds in the Lune Valley. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 63, 77-95. LOWNDES, R. A. C. (1964) Excavation of a RomanoBritish farmstead at Eller Beck. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 64, 6-13. LOWTHER, A. W. G. (1939) Report on the Excavation of the Roman Structure at Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden. St. Albans and Hertfordshire Architectural and Archaeological Society, 28, 108-114. LOWTHER, P. C., EBBATSON, L., ELLISON, M. & MILLETT, M. (1993) The city of Durham: an archaeological survey. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 9, 27-119. MACGREGOR, A. (1976) Finds from a Roman sewer system and an adjacent building in Church Street, York, York Archaeological Trust. MACGREGOR, A. (1978) Roman Finds from Skeldergate and Bishophill, York, York Archaeological Trust. MACGREGOR, A. (1995) Roman and early medieval bone and antler objects. IN PHILLIPS, D. & HEYWOOD, B. Excavations at York Minster: volume I; from Roman

fortress to Norman cathedral, part 1 - the site and part 2 - the finds, HMSO. MACGREGOR, M. (1976) Early Celtic Art in North Britain: A Study of Decorative Metalwork from the Third Century BC to the Third Century AD, Surrey, Leicester University Press. MACKEY, R. (1999) The Welton Villa-a view of social and economic change during the Roman period in East Yorkshire. IN HALKON, P. (Ed.) Further Light on the Parisi: Recent research in Iron Age and Roman East Yorkshire. Hull, East Riding Archaeological Society. MACKRETH, D.F. (1979a) Brooches. IN PARTRIDGE, C. (1979) Excavations at Puckeridge and Braughing 1975-79. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 7, 35-40. MACKRETH, D.F. (1979b) Brooches. IN PARTRIDGE, C. (1979) Excavations at Puckeridge and Braughing 1975-79. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 7, 102. MACKRETH, D. F. (1982a) The Brooches. .IN FRERE, S. S., STOW, S. & BENNETT, B. A. (Eds) Excavations on the Roman and Medieval Defences of Canterbury. Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society, 143-144. MACKRETH, D.F. (1982b) The brooches. IN WACHER, J., MCWHIRR, A. & CIRENCESTER EXCAVATION COMMITTEE. (1982) Early Roman occupation at Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 88-92. MACKRETH, D.F. (1982c) IN BENNETT, P., FRERE, S. S. & STOW, S. (1982) Excavations at Canterbury Castle, Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society, 169172. MACKRETH, D.F. (1986) Brooches. IN MCWHIRR, A. Houses in Roman Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 104-106. MACKRETH, D.F. (1991) The Brooches. IN WRATHMELL, S. & NICHOLSON, A. (Eds.) (1991) Dalton Parlours: Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 92-95. MACKRETH, D.F. (2002) Brooches from Catterick Bypass and Catterick 1972 (Sites 433 and 434). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 149-156. MAGIE, D. (1921) Historia Augusta. Cambridge, Loeb Classical Library. MAGILTON, J. R. (1978) Excavations at Lings Farm, Hatfield. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 50, 57-63. MAHANY, C. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. (1994) Roman Alcester: southern extramural area: 1964-1966 excavations Part 1, Stratigraphy and structures, York, Council for British Archaeology. MAKEPEACE, G. A. (1988) Romano-British rural settlements in the Peak District and North-East Staffordshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 118, 95-138.

205

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH MALINA, J. & VASICEK, Z. (1990) Archaeology yesterday and today, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. MANBY, T. G. (1972) Excavations of barrows at Grindale and Boynton, East Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 52, 19-47. MANBY, T. G. (Ed.) (1988) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire: Essays in honour of T.C.M. Brewster., Gainsborough, J.R. Collies. MANN, S. & DUNWELL, A. (1995) An interim note on the further discoveries on the Roman vicus at Ambleside, 1992-1993. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 95, 79-84. MANNING, W. (1975) Economic influences on land use in the military areas of the Highland Zone during the Roman period. IN EVANS, D. M., LIMBREY, S. & CLEERE, H. (Eds.) The Effect of Man on the Landscape: The Highland Zone. London, CBA Research Report. MANNING, W.H. (1984) Objects of Iron. IN FRERE, S. S. Verulamium Excavation volume III, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 83-106. MANNING, W.H. & MCDONALD, J.A. (1996) Iron Artefacts (other than brooches). IN MAY, J. Dragonby: Report on the excavations at an Iron Age and RomanoBritish Settlement in North Lincolnshire., Oxford, Oxbow monograph 61, 286-309. MARNEY, P.T. & MACKRETH, D.F. (1987) Brooches IN ZEEPVAT, R. J., WILLIAMS, R. J. & MYNARD, D. C. Roman Milton Keynes: excavations and fieldwork, 1971-1982, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society, 128-133. MATTHEWS, K. (1999) Rural Settlement in Roman Cheshire: a theoretical view. IN NEVELL, M. (Ed.) Living on the edge of Empire: models, methodology and marginality. Manchester, Council for British Archaeology North West. MATTINGLY, D. J. (Ed.) (1997) Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power discourse, and discrepant experience in the Roman Empire, Portsmouth, RI, JRA Supplementary Series. MATTINGLY, D. J. (2004) Being Roman: Expressing identity in a provincial setting. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 17, 5-25. MATTINGLY, D. J. (2007) An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, London, Penguin Books. MAUDE, K. (1999) The very edge: reappraising RomanoBritish settlement in the central Pennines; the Littondale Experience. IN NEVELL, M. (Ed.) Living on the edge of Empire: models, methodology and marginality. Manchester, Council for British Archaeology NorthWest. MAURER, E. M. (1979) Symbol and Identification in North American Indian Clothing. IN CORDWELL, J. & SCHWARZ, R. (Eds.) The Fabrics of Culture: The Anthropology of Clothing and Adornment. The Hague, Mouton.

MAXFIELD, V. A. (1974) The Benwell Torc--Roman or native? Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 5th series, II, 41-47. MAXFIELD, V. A. (1986) Pre-Flavian forts and their Garrisons. Britannia, 17, 59-72. MAXFIELD, V. A. & REED, A. H. (1975) Excavation at Ebchester Roman fort 1972-3. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 3, 43-105. MAXWELL, G. (1984) New Frontiers: The Roman fort at Doune and its possible significance. Britannia, 15, 217-223. MAXWELL, G. (2004) The Roman Penetration of the North in the Late First Century AD. IN TODD, M. (Ed.) A companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. MAY, J. (1996) Dragonby: Report on the excavations at an Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in North Lincolnshire., Oxford, Oxbow monograph 61. MAY, T. (1911) The Roman Forts at Elslack. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 21, 113-168. MAY, T. (1922) The Roman Forts of Templebrough, near Rotherham., Rotherham, Henry Garnett and Co. MCCARTHY, M. R. (1980) Excavations on the City Defences, Carlisle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 80, 69-78. MCCARTHY, M. R. (1984) Roman Carlisle. IN WILSON, P. R., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) Settlement and Society in the Roman North. Bradford, School of Archaeological Science. MCCARTHY, M. R. (1990) A Roman, Anglican and medieval site at Blackfriars Street, Carlisle: excavations 1977-9, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. MCCARTHY, M. R. (1991) Roman waterlogged remains at Castle Street, Carlisle: excavations, 1981, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Research Series 5. MCCARTHY, M. R. (2000) Roman and Medieval Carlisle: The southern Lanes: excavations 1981-2, Kendal, Carlisle Archaeological LTD. MCCARTHY, M. R. (2002) Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway, Stroud, Tempus. MCCARTHY, M..R. (2005) Social dynamics on the northern frontier of Roman Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 24, 47-71. MCCARTHY, M. R., BISHOP, M. C. & RICHARDSON, T. (2001) Roman armour and metalworking at Carlisle, Cumbria, England. Antiquity, 75, 507-508. MCCARTHY, M. R., PADLEY, T. G. & HENIG, M. (1982) Excavations and Finds from the Lanes, Carlisle. Britannia, 13, 79-89. MCCORD, N. & JOBEY, G. (1968) Notes on air reconnaissance in Northumberland and Durham, Tyne to Wansbeck, Northumberland. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 46, 51-68.

206

REFERENCES MCDONALD, T. (2004) Excavations at Buncefield Lane, Hemel Hempstead. St. Albans and Hertfordshire Architectural and Archaeological Society, 13, 47-69. MCNEIL, R., START, D. & WALKER, J. (1989) Castleshaw. Current Archaeology. MCWHIRR, A. (1986) Houses in Roman Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee. MEATES, G.W. (1987) The Roman Villa at Lullingstone, Kent. Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society MENDOZA, R. (1986) Plant and animal domestication: direct versus indirect evidence. Antiquity, 60, 7-15. MERRYWEATHER, A. D. & PRAG, J. R. W. (Eds.) (2002) Romanization, Institute of Archaeology University of London, Digressus. METZLER, J., MILLETT, M., ROYMANS, N. & SLOFSTRA, J. (1995) Integrating in the early Roman west: the role of culture and ideology, Luxembourg, Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée National d’Histore et d’Art IV. MIKET, R. (1975) Metalwork. IN MAXFIELD, V. A. & REED, A. H. (1975) Excavation at Ebchester Roman fort 1972-3. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 3, 69-74. MIKET, R. (1983) The Roman Fort at South Shields: Excavations of the Defences 1977-1981, Newcastleupon-Tyne, Tyne and Wear county Council. MILES, D. (1982) The Romano-British Countryside: Studies in Rural Settlement and Economy, Oxford, BAR British Series. MILLER, S. N. (1928) Roman York: excavations of 19267. Journal of Roman Studies, 18, 61-99. MILLETT, M. (1984) Forts and the Origins of Towns: Cause and Effect? IN BLAGG, T. F. C. & KING, A. (Eds.) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Province. Oxford, BAR British Series. MILLETT, M. (1990) The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. MILLETT, M. (2001) Approaches to urban societies. IN JAMES, S. & MILLETT, M. (Eds.) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. York, CBA Research Reports. MILLETT, M. & HALKON, P. (1988) Landscape and economy: recent fieldwork and excavation around Holmes-on-Spalding Moor. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. MITCHELSON, N. (1966) Roman Malton: The civilian settlement. Excavations in Orchard Field. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 209-262. MONGAHAN, J. M. (1991) A Roman marching camp and native settlement site at Newton Kyme, Tadcaster. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 63, 51-58. MORTIMER, J. R. (1903) An account of the discovery of Roman remains at Langton. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 10, 71-75. MOULD, Q. (1991) Metalwork. IN AUSTEN, P. S. Bewcastle and Old Penrith. Carlisle, Cumberland

and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Research Series, number 6, 185-212. MOULD, Q. (2002a) Copper-Alloy from Bainesse (site 46). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 109-114. MOULD, Q. (2002b) Copper-Alloy objects from Catterick Bridge (site 240). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 126. NEAL, D. S. (1974) The Excavation of the Roman Villa in Gadebridge Park, Hemel Hempstead 1963-8, London, Thames and Hudson Ltd. NEAL, D. S. (1975) Northchurch, Boxmoor, and Hemel Hempstead Station: The Excavation of Three Roman Buildings in the Bulbourne Valley. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 4, 1-136. NEAL, D. S. (1996) Excavations on the Roman Villa at Beadlam, Yorkshire., Leeds, Archaeological Report No. 2. NEAL, D. S., WARDLE, A. & HUNN, J. (1990) Excavations of the Iron Age, Roman and Medieval Settlement at Gorhambury, St. Albans., London, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. NEAL, D.S. & BUTCHER, S. (1974) Miscellaneous objects of bronze. IN NEAL, D. S. The Excavation of the Roman Villa in Gadebridge Park, Hemel Hempstead 1963-8, London, Thames and Hudson Ltd, 128-150. NEAL, P. G. E. & FRASER, R. (2004) A Romano-British enclosed farmstead at Billingley Drive, Thurnscoe, South Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 76, 7-92. NEVELL, M. (1987) Great Woolden Farm: excavations on a late Prehistoric/Romano-British native site. The Greater Manchester Archaeological Journal, 3, 35-44. NEVELL, M. (1989) An aerial survey of southern Trafford and northern Cheshire. The Greater Manchester Archaeological Journal, 3, 27-35. NEVELL, M. (1992) Tameside before 1066, Tameside Metropolitan Brough Council. NEVELL, M. (1997) The archaeology of Trafford: a study of the origins of community in north west England before 1900, Chester, Trafford Metropolitan Brough Council. NEVELL, M. (1999a) Great Woolden Farm: a model for the material culture of Iron Age and Romano-British rural settlement in North West England. IN NEVELL, M. (Ed.) Living on the edge of Empire: models, methodology and marginality. Manchester, Council for British Archaeology North West. NEVELL, M. (1999b) Iron Age and Romano-British settlement in North West England: theory, marginality and settlement. IN NEVELL, M. (Ed.) Living on the edge of Empire: models, methodology and marginality.

207

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Manchester, Council for British Archaeology North West. NEVELL, M. (Ed.) (1999c) Living on the edge of Empire: models, methodology and marginality, Manchester, CBA north west. NIBLETT, R. (1987) A New Plan of Roman Verulamium. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 9, 22-28. NOBLE (1903) Towtop Kirk, Brampton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 3, 265-269. NORDLADH, J. (1978) Images as Messages in Society. Prolegomena to the Study of Scandinavian Petroglyphs and Semiotics. IN KRISTIANSEN, K. & PALUDANMULLER, C. (Eds.) New Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology. Odense, The National Museum of Denmark. NORTH, O. H. (1932) The Roman Station at Watercrook. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 32, 116-23. NORTH, O. H. (1934) Finds from the Roman Station at Watercrook. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 34, 35-40. NORTH, O. H. (1936) Roman Finds from Voreda. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 36, 132-141. NORTH, O. H. & HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1945) Excavations at the Roman fort of Watercrook, 1944. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 45, 148-162. NORTH, O. H. & HILDYARD, E. J. W. (1948) Trial trenching at Burrow in Lonsdale, 1947. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 48, 23-41. O’BRIEN, L. & ROBERTS, B. K. (2005) Excavations on Roman Ermine Street at New Restaurant Facility, GlaxoSmithKline,Ware. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 14, 3-39. OAKLEY, R. H. (1955) Excavations on Ryknield Street near Chesterfield 1953 and 1954. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 75, 144-149. OLIVIER, A.C.H. (1979a) Brooches. IN POTTER, T. W. Romans in north-west England: excavations at the Roman forts of Ravenglass, Watercrook, and Bowness on Solway, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 65-69. OLIVIER, A.C.H. (1979b) Brooches. IN POTTER, T. W. Romans in north-west England: excavations at the Roman forts of Ravenglass, Watercrook, and Bowness on Solway, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 206-221. OLIVIER, A.C.H. (1996) Brooches of silver, copper alloy and iron from Dragonby. IN MAY, J. Dragonby: Report on the excavations at an Iron Age and RomanoBritish Settlement in North Lincolnshire. Oxford, Oxbow monograph 61, 231-263.

OLIVIER, A.C.H. (2000) Brooches. IN BUXTON, K. & HOWARD-DAVIS, C. Bremetenacum: Excavations at Roman Ribchester, 1980, 1989-1990., Lancaster, Lancaster Imprints, 234-240. ORROM, M. H. (1971) A settlement on the Hawk, Broughton Mills. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 71, 12-16. OTTAWAY, P. (1984a) The colonia at York, past, present and future. IN WILSON, P., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) Settlement and society in the Roman north. Bradford, School of Archaeological Science. OTTAWAY, P. (1984b) Colonia Eburacensis: a Review of Recent Work. IN ADDYMAN, P. V. & BLACK, E. W. (Eds.) Archaeological Papers from York presented to M W Barley. York, York Archaeological Trust. OTTAWAY, P. (1996) Excavations and Observations on the Defences and Adjacent sites, 1871-90, York, York Archaeological Trust. OTTAWAY, P. (2001) Excavations on the site of the Roman signal station at Carr Naze, Filey 1993-94. The Archaeological Journal, 157, 79-199. OTTAWAY, P., MANBY, T. G. & MOORHOUSE, S. (2003) The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the Beginning of the 21st century, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. PADLEY, T. G. (1991) The metalwork, Glass and Stone objects from Castle Street, Carlisle: excavation 1981, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Research Series 5. PALMIÉ, S. (2006) Creolization and its discontent. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 433-456 PARTRIDGE, C. (1977) Excavations and Fieldwork at Braughing 1968-73. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 5, 22108. PARTRIDGE, C. (1979) Excavations at Puckeridge and Braughing 1975-79. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 7, 28132. PASSMORE, D., O’BRIEN, C. F. & DORE, J. (1991) Roman Period Riverside Deposits at Castle Stairs, Sandhill. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 19, 17-25. PATTEN, T. (1974) The Roman cemetery on London Road, Carlisle. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 73, 8-13. PETCH, J. A. (1949) The Date of Melandra Castle: Evidence of the Pottery. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 69, 1-40. PETCH, J. A. (1958) Melandra Castle Excavations 1958. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 78, 1-8. PETCH, J. A. (1959) Melandra Castle Excavations 1959. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 79, 122-124. PETCH, J. A. (1960) Melandra Castle Excavations, 1960. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 80, 105-108. PETCH, J. A. (1963) Melandra Castle. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 83, 1-9.

208

REFERENCES PETRIE, W. M. F. (1913) The Hawara Portfolio: Paintings of the Roman Age, London, School of Archaeology in Egypt. PHELPS, J.J. (1909) The Ellesmere Collection of Roman Antiquities found in Manchester. IN BRUTON, F. A. (Ed.) (1909) The Roman Fort at Manchester, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 144-179. PHILLIPS, D. & HEYWOOD, B. (1995) Excavations at York Minster: volume I; from Roman fortress to Norman cathedral, part 1 - the site and part 2 - the finds, HMSO. PHILLIPS, E. J. (1976) A Workshop of Roman sculptors at Carlisle. Britannia, 7, 101-108. PHILPOTT, R. A. (1991) Burial Practices in Roman Britain: A survey of grave treatment and furnishing A.D. 43-410, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports British Series. PHILPOTT, R. A. (1994) The implications of Irby. IN CARRINGTON, P. (Ed.) From Flints to Flower Pots: Current Research in the Dee-Mersey Region. Papers from a seminar held at Chester. Chester, Cheshire County Council. PIGGOTT, S. (1958) Native Economies and the Roman Occupation of North Britain. IN RICHMOND, I. A. (Ed.) Roman and Native in North Britain. Edinburgh, Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD. POHL, W. (2006) Telling the difference: signs of ethnic identity. IN NOBLE, T. (Ed.) From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms. New York, Routledge. POKORNOWSKI, I. (1979) Beads and personal ornamentation. IN CORDWELL, J. & SCHWARZ, R. (Eds.) The Fabrics of Culture: The anthropology of clothing and adornment. The Hague, Mouton. POTTER, T. W. (1976) Excavations at Watercrook 1974: An interim report. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 76, 6-66. POTTER, T. W. (1977) Excavations at the Roman fort of Watercrook, 1975: a second interim report. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 77, 49-52. POTTER, T. W. (1979) Romans in north-west England: excavations at the Roman forts of Ravenglass, Watercrook, and Bowness on Solway, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. POTTER, T. W. & JOHNS, C. (2002) Roman Britain, London, British Museum Press. POULTER, A. (1982) Old Penrith: excavations 1977 and 1979. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 82, 51-66. POWLESLAND, D., HAUGHTON, C. A. & HANSON, J. H. (1986) Excavations at Heslerton, North Yorkshire 1978-82. The Archaeological Journal, 143, 53-173. PRESTON, F. L. (1954) The hill-forts of the Peak. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 74, 1-31.

PRICE, J. (1976) Glass. IN JARRETT, M. G. Maryport, Cumbria: A Roman fort and its Garrison, Kendal, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 49-53. PRICE, J. (1986a) The Roman Glass. IN BRYANT, S., MORRIS, M. & WALKER, J. S. F. Roman Manchester: A Frontier Settlement, Manchester, Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit, 70-76. PRICE, J. (1986b) Roman Glass. IN RAHTZ, P., HAYFIELD, C. & BATEMAN, J. Two Roman Villas at Wharram-Le-Street, York, York University Archaeological Publications, 26.12. PRICE, J. (1987) Glass. IN ZEEPVAT, R. J., WILLIAMS, R. J. & MYNARD, D. C. Roman Milton Keynes: excavations and fieldwork, 1971-1982, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society, 147-157. PRICE, J. (1988) Romano-British Glass Bangles from East Yorkshire. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series 193. PRICE, J. (1991) The Glass. IN WRATHMELL, S. & NICHOLSON, A. (Eds.) (1991) Dalton Parlours: Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 99-105. PRICE, J. (1995) Roman Glass. IN PHILLIPS, D. & HEYWOOD, B. Excavations at York Minster: volume I; from Roman fortress to Norman cathedral, part 1 the site and part 2 - the finds, HMSO. PRICE, J. & COOL, H.E.M. (1998) The Glass and Frit Objects. IN COOL, H. E. M. & PHILO, C. (Eds.) Roman Castleford Excavations 1974-85. Volume I: the small finds, Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 181-194. PRICE, J. & COTTAM, S. (1996) The Glass. IN NEAL, D. S. Excavations on the Roman Villa at Beadlam, Yorkshire., Leeds, Archaeological Report No. 2, 93108. PRICE, J. & COTTAM, S. (1997) Roman glass. IN WENHAM, L. P. & HEYWOOD, B. The 1968 to 1970 excavations in the vicus at Malton, North Yorkshire, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 118-131. PRICE, J., COTTAM, S. & SUMMERFIELD, J. (2002) Beads from Thornbrough Farm (Site 452). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 262. PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (1988) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire, Oxford, BAR British Series. PURDY, J. G. & MANBY, T. G. (1973) Excavations at the Roman tilery at Grimescar, Huddersfield, 1964. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 45, 96-107. PUTTOCK, S. (2002) Ritual Significance of Personal Ornamentation in Roman Britain., Oxford, BAR British Series. QUINN, J. C. (2002) Roman Africa? IN MERRYWEATHER, A. D. & PRAG, J. R. W. (Eds.)

209

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Romanization. Institute of Archaeology, University of London, Digressus. RADLEY, J. (1972) Excavations in the defences of the city of York: an early medieval stone tower and the successive earth ramparts. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 44, 38-65. RAHTZ, P., HAYFIELD, C. & BATEMAN, J. (1986) Two Roman Villas at Wharram-Le-Street, York, York University Archaeological Publications. RAINBIRD, J. S. (1971) Recent excavations at Chester-leStreet. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 49, 101-108. RAISTRICK, A. (1965) The Romans in Yorkshire, Clapham, Dalesman Publishing Company Ltd. RALSTON, I. (1988) Central Gaul at the Roman Conquest: conceptions and misconceptions. Antiquity, 62, 786794. RAMM, H. G. (1956) Roman York: Excavations in 1955. Journal of Roman Studies, 46, 76-90. RAMM, H. G. (1980) Native settlements east of the Pennines. IN BRANIGAN, K. (Ed.) Rome and the Brigantes: the Impact of Rome on Northern England. Sheffield, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology. RAMM, H. G. (1988) Aspects of the Roman Countryside in East Yorkshire. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. RANKOV, N. B., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1982) Roman Britain in 1981. Britannia, 13, 328422. RCHM (1962) Ebvracvm: Roman York, London, HMSO. REDHEAD, N. (1999) Edge of the Empire: extra-mural settlement in a marginal context: Roman Castleshaw. IN NEVELL, M. (Ed.) Living on the edge of Empire: models, methodology and marginality. Manchester, Council for British Archaeology North West. REECE, R. (1984) Mints, Markets and the Military. IN BLAGG, T. F. C. & KING, A. C. (Eds.) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Province. Oxford, BAR British Series. REECE, R. (1991) Money in Roman Britain: a review. IN JONES, R. F. J. (Ed.) Britain in the Roman period: recent trends. Sheffield, J.R. Collis Publications. REED, A., HARPER, R. & DODDS, W. (1964) Excavations at Ebchester in 1962-3. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 42, 173-186. RENFREW, C. & ZUBROW, E. (Eds.) (1993) The Ancient Mind, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. RENFREW, C. A. & BAHN, P. (2004) Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, London, Thames and Hudson Ltd. RICHARDSON, C. (1998) A catalogue of recent acquisitions to Tullie House museum and reported finds from the Cumbrian area, 1990-1996. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 98, 1-60. RICHARDSON, G. G. S. (1973) The Roman Tilery, Scalesceugh 1970-1971. Transactions of the

Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 73, 79-89. RICHARDSON, G. G. S. (1977) A Romano-British farmstead at Fingland. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 77, 53-60. RICHARDSON, G. G. S. & FELL, C. I. (1975) Unpublished excavations by the late Miss K.S. Hodgson. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 75, 17-28. RICHARDSON, K. M. (1959) Excavations in Hungate, York. The Archaeological Journal, 116, 51-114. RICHMOND, I. A. (1924a) Excavations at Meltham, near Huddersfield. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 27, 319-320. RICHMOND, I. A. (1924b) A Fourth-Century Disturbance in the Pennines. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 27, 211-218. RICHMOND, I. A. (1925) Huddersfield in Roman Times, Huddersfield, Tolson Museum Publications. RICHMOND, I. A. (1926a) The Roman Camps at Cawthorn, near Pickering. Interim Reports, First interim summary, 1924. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 28, 332-339. RICHMOND, I. A. (1926b) The Roman Camps at Cawthorn, Near Pickering. Second interim summary, 1925. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 28, 421-426. RICHMOND, I. A. (1932) The Four Roman Camps at Cawthorn, in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The Archaeological Journal, 89, 17-78. RICHMOND, I. A. (1934) The Roman fort at South Shields. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 11, 83-102. RICHMOND, I. A. (1938) Interim report on excavations at the Roman fort at Brough, Derbyshire. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 59, 53-65. RICHMOND, I. A. (1940) Ancient Rome and Northern England. Antiquity, 14, 292-300. RICHMOND, I. A. (Ed.) (1958a) Roman and Native in North Britain, Edinburgh, Thomas Nelson and Sons. RICHMOND, I. A. (1958b) Roman and Native in the Fourth Century AD. IN RICHMOND, I. A. (Ed.) Roman and Native in North Britain. Edinburgh, Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD. RICHMOND, I. A. (1960) Roman Britain, 1910-1960. Journal of Roman Studies, 1, 173-191. RICHMOND, I. A. & BIRLEY, E. (1940) Excavations at Corbridge 1938-9. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 17, 152-201. RICHMOND, I. A. & KEENEY, G. S. (1937) The Roman works at Chew Green, Coquetdalehead. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series:14, 129-150. RICHMOND, I. A. & MCINTYRE, J. (1934) The Roman Camps at Reycross and Crackenthorpe. Transactions

210

REFERENCES of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 34, 50-61. RICHMOND, I. A., ROMANS, T. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1944) A civilian bath-house of the Roman period at Old Durham. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 22, 1-21. RIEU, E. V. (Ed.) (1948) Tacitus on Britain and Germany, Bungay, Penguin Books Ltd. RILEY, D. N. (1977) Air Reconnaissance in Central and Southern Yorkshire in 1976. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 49, 19-33. RILEY, D. N. (1978) Air Reconnaissance in 1977. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 50, 21-24. RILEY, D. N. (1980) Early Landscape from the Air: Studies of Crop Marks in South Yorkshire and North Nottinghamshire, Sheffield, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology. RIVET, A. L. F. (1964) Town and Country in Roman Britain, London, Hutchinson University Library. RIVET, A. L. F. (1975) Summing it up: The classification of minor Towns and related settlements. IN RODWELL, W. & ROWLEY, T. (Eds.) Small Towns of Roman Britain. Oxford, BAR British Series. RIVET, A. L. F. & SMITH, C. (1979) The Place-Names of Roman Britain, London, B.T. Batsford Ltd. ROACH, M. E. & EICHER, J. B. (1979) The Language of Personal Adornment. IN CORDWELL, J. & SCHWARZ, R. (Eds.) The Fabrics of Culture: The Anthropology of Clothing and Adornment. The Hague, Mouton. ROBERTS, I. (1995) Excavation of a D-shaped enclosure at Upton, West Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 67, 7-22. ROBERTS, I., BURGESS, A. & BERG, D. (2001) A New Link to the Past: The archaeological landscape of the M1-A1 link road., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service. ROBERTSON, A. (1970) More Caledonian Drift. Britannia, 1, 198-226. ROBINSON, J. F. (1978) The Archaeology of Malton and Norton, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. RODWELL, W. & ROWLEY, T. (1975) Small Towns of Roman Britain, Oxford, BAR British Series. ROOK, A. G. (1968) Investigation of a Belgic Occupation site at Crookhams Welwyn Garden City. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 1, 51-65. ROOK, A. G. (1970) Investigation of a Belgic Site at Grubs Barn, Welwyn Garden City. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 2, 31-36. ROOK, T. (1987) The Roman Villa Site at Dicket Mead, Lockleys, Welwyn. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 9, 79175. ROOKE, H. (1789) Account of Roman Building and Camp lately discovered at Buxton, in the County of Derby. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 9, 137-140. ROSCOE, P. (2002) Culture. IN HART, J. P. & TERRELL, J. (Eds.) Darwin and Archaeology: a handbook of key concepts. Westport, Bergin & Garey.

ROSTEN, J. (2007a) Identities in life and death in Roman Britain: The case of Baldock. IN CROXFORD, B. (Ed.) TRAC 2006: proceedings of the sixteenth annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, which took place at the University of Cambridge, 24-25 March 2006. Oxford, Oxbow. ROSTEN, J. (2007b) Personal adornment and the expression of identity in Roman Britain: a study of the material culture of appearance. University of Leicester. ROTH, R. (2002) Towards a ceramic approach to social identity in the Roman world: some theoretical considerations. IN MERRYWEATHER, A. D. & PRAG, J. R. W. (Eds.) ‘Romanization’. London, Institute of Classical Studies. ROYAL COMMISSION ON HISTORICAL MONUMENTS. (1962) An inventory of the historical monuments in the city of York, [London], [H.M. Stationery Office]. ROYMANS, N. (1983) The North Belgic tribes in the 1st Century B.C.: A historical-anthropological perspective. IN BRANDT, R. & SLOFSTRA, J. (Eds.) Roman and Native in the Low Countries: Spheres of Interaction. Oxford, BAR International Series. ROYMANS, N. (1995) Romanization, cultural identity and ethnic discussion: the integration of the lower Rhine populations in the Roman Empire. IN METZLER, J., MILLETT., M., ROYMANS, N. & SLOFSTRA, J. (Eds.) Integrating in the early Roman west: the role of culture and ideology. Luxembourg, Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée National d’Histore et d’Art IV. ROYMANS, N. (1996) From Sword to the Plough: Three studies on the Earliest Romanisation of Northern Gaul, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. ROYMANS, N. (2004) Ethnic identity and imperial power. The Batavians in the Early Roman Empire, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Archaeological Studies. RUTTER, J. G. & DUKE, G. (1958) Excavations at Crossgates near Scarborough 1947-1956, Scarborough, Scarborough and District Archaeological Survey. SALWAY, P. (1958) Civilians in the Roman frontier region. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 36, 227-244. SALWAY, P. (1980) The vici: urbanisation in the north. IN BRANIGAN, K. (Ed.) Rome and the Brigantes: the Impact of Rome on Northern England. Sheffield, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology. SAMUELS, J. R. (1977) Archaeology on the M180., Humberside County, Humberside County Leisure Service on Behalf of the M180 Joint Archaeological Committee. SAMUELS, J. R. & BUCKLAND, P. C. (1978) A RomanoBritish settlement at Sandtoft, South Humberside. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 50, 65-75. SAUNDERS, C. & HAVERCROFT, A. B. (1978) Excavations in the City and District of St. Albans 1974-76. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 6, 1-77.

211

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH SAUNDERS, C. & HAVERCROFT, A. B. (1982) Excavations on the line of the Wheathampstead bypass 1974 and 1977; with some thoughts on the oppida at Wheathampstead and Verulamium. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 8, 11-31. SCHIFFER, M. B. (1987) Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, Utah, University of Utah Press. SCHWARZ, R. (1979) Uncovering the secret vice: toward an anthropology of Clothing and adornment. IN CORDWELL, J. & SCHWARZ, R. (Eds.) The Fabrics of Culture: The Anthropology of Clothing and Adornment. The Hague, Mouton. SCOTT, I.R. (1998) The Iron Artefacts. IN COOL, H. E. M. & PHILO, C. (Eds.) Roman Castleford Excavations 1974-85. Volume I: the small finds, Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service, 128-139. SEBESTA, J. L. (1994) Symbolism in the Costume of the Roman Woman. IN SEBESTA, J. L. & BONFANTE, L. (Eds.) The World of Roman Costume. Madison, University of Wisconsin. SEBESTA, J. L. & BONFANTE, L. (Eds.) (1994) The World of Roman Costume, Madison, University of Wisconsin. SERGENT, A. (2002) The north-south divide revisited: thoughts on the character of Roman Britain. Britannia, 33, 219-226. SHAW, R. C. (1924) Romano-British Carlisle: its structural remains. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 24, 95-119. SHEPPARD, T. (1904) Discoveries at the Roman Villa at Harpham. Hull Museum Publications, Quarter Records of Additions, 11, 3-9. SHEPPARD, T. (1920) Roman Bronze Ornaments. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 23. SHEPPARD, T. (1923a) Ancient Mazes at Harpham and Pompeii. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 24, 68-72. SHEPPARD, T. (1923b) Roman Remains at Middleton-onthe Wolds. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 24, 80-84. SHEPPARD, T. (1924) Roman kilns and pottery near Holme-on-Spalding. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 27, 1-5. SHEPPARD, T. (1938) Excavations at Eastburn, East Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 34, 3547. SHEPPARD, T. (1939) Roman Remains at North Ferriby. Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 28, 166-168. SHOTTER, D. (1973) Romans in Lancashire, Keighley, Dalesman Books. SHOTTER, D. (1995) Romans in South Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 95, 73-78.

SHOTTER, D. (2000) The Roman Conquest of the North-West. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 100, 33-54. SHOTTER, D. (2002) Roman Britain and ‘the year of four emperors’. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, Third Series: 2, 67-78. SHOTTER, D. (2004) Roman Britain, New York, Routledge. SHOTTER, D. & WHITE, A. (1995) The Romans in Lunesdale, Lancaster, Centre for North-West Regional Studies. SHOTTER, D. C. A. (1994) Rome and the Brigantes: Early Hostilities. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 94, 21-34. SIMPSON, F. G. (1926) The Roman Camps at Cawthorn, near Pickering, Preliminary Report 1923. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 28, 25-33. SIMPSON, G. (1973) Roman Manchester and Templebrough: the forts and dates reviewed. IN HAWKES, C. & HAWKES, H. (Eds.) Greeks, Celts, and Romans: Studies in Venture and Resistance. London, J.M. Dent and sons LTD. SLOFSTRA, J. (1983) An anthropological approach to the study of Romanization processes. IN BRANDT, R. & SLOFSTRA, J. (Eds.) Roman and Native in the Low Countries. Oxford, BAR International Series. SLOFSTRA, J. (1995) The villa in the Roman West. Space, decoration and ideology. IN METZLER, J., MILLETT, M., ROYMANS, N. & SLOFSTRA, J. (Eds.) Integrating in the Early Roman West: The Role of Culture and Ideology. Luxembourg, Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée National d’Histore et d’Art IV. SMITH, A. G. (1966) Communication and culture: readings in the codes of human interaction, London, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc. SMITH, D. J. (2000) The wall paintings of the town-house in the vicus outside the Roman fort of Malton, north Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 72, 7-17. SMITH, R. F. (1987) Roadside Settlement in Lowland Roman Britain: A Gazetteer and Study of their Origins, Growth and Decline, Property Boundaries and Cemeteries, Oxford, BAR British Series. SMYTH, W. H. (1846) On some Roman vestigia recently found at Kirkby Thore, in Westmorlands. Archaeologia or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, 31, 279288. SNAPE, M. (1993) Roman brooches from North Britain: a classification and a catalogue of brooches from sites in the Stanegate, Oxford, BAR British Series. SNAPE, M. (1994) An excavation in the Roman cemetery at South Shields. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 22, 43-66. SNAPE, M., BIDWELL, P. & CROOM, A. (2002) Aldborough Roman town: excavations by Miss D.

212

REFERENCES Chadwick 1961-1973 and by RCHME 1959-60. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 74, 29-111. SOMMER, C. S. (1984) The Military Vici in Roman Britain: Aspects of their Origins, their Location and Layout, Administration Function and End., Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, British Series. SOMMER, C. S. (2006) Military vici in Roman Britain revisited. IN WILSON, R. J. A. (Ed.) Romanitas: essays on Roman archaeology in honour of Sheppard Frere on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday. Oxford, Oxbow. SOUTHERN, P. (2004) The Army in Late Roman Britain. IN TODD, M. (Ed.) A Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing ltd. SPENCE, J. E. (1933) Preliminary Report on the Petteril Green Camp. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 33, 227-232. SPENCE, J. E. (1937) Bolton Wood Enclosure. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 37, 43-48. SPRATT, D. A. & COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. (1993) Prehistoric and Roman archaeology of North-East Yorkshire, London, Council for British Archaeology. ST JOSEPH, J. K. (1936) The Roman fort at Brancaster. Antiquaries Journal, 16, 444-60. ST JOSEPH, J. K. (1955) Air reconnaissance in Britain 1951-55. Journal of Roman Studies, 45, 82-91. ST JOSEPH, J. K. (1965) Air reconnaissance in Britain 1961-64. Journal of Roman Studies, 55, 74-89. ST JOSEPH, J. K. (1969) Air reconnaissance in Britain in 1965-68. Journal of Roman Studies, 59, 104-28. ST JOSEPH, J. K. (1973) Air reconnaissance in Britain 1969-1972. Journal of Roman Studies, 63, 214-246. ST JOSEPH, J. K. (1977) Air Reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1973-1976. Journal of Roman Studies, 67, 125-161. STALLIBRASS, S. (2000) Cattle, culture, soldiers and status. IN FINCHAM, G., HARRISON, G., RODGERS HOLLAND, R. & REVELL, L. (Eds.) TRAC 1999 (Proceedings of the ninth annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference. Oxford, Oxbow Books. STEAD, I. M. (1958) Excavations at the south corner tower of the Roman fortress at York 1956. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 39, 515-538. STEAD, I. M. (1971) Excavation at King’s Square York, 1957. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 151-155. STEAD, I.M. (1976a) Small Finds. IN STEAD, I. M. & CHARLESWORTH, D. (1976) Excavations at Winterton Roman Villa and other Roman sites in North Lincolnshire, London, HMSO, 195-233. STEAD, I. M. (1976b) Winterton Roman Villa. Antiquaries Journal, 40, 72-84. STEAD, I. M. (1980) Rudston Roman Villa, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society.

STEAD, I. M. & CHARLESWORTH, D. (1976) Excavations at Winterton Roman Villa and other Roman sites in North Lincolnshire, London, HMSO. STEAD, I. M., LIVERSIDGE, J. & SMITH, D. J. (1973) Brantingham Roman Villa: Discoveries in 1962. Britannia, 4, 84-106. STEAD, I. M. & PACILTO, A.L. (1980) Small finds. IN STEAD, I. M. (1980) Rudston Roman Villa, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. STEAD, I.M. & RIGBY, V. (1989) Verulamium: The King Harry Lane Site. London, HMSO STEAD, I.M. & RIGBY, V. (1989b) Brooches. IN STEAD, I.M. & RIGBY, V. Verulamium: The King Harry Lane Site. London, HMSO, 14-20 STEER, K. A. (1958) Roman and Native in North Britain: The Severan Reorganization. IN RICHMOND, I. A. (Ed.) Roman and Native in North Britain. Edinburgh, Thomas Nelson and Sons LTD. STERN, E. M. (1995) Roman Mold-blown Glass: The first through sixth centuries. Toledo, The Toledo Museum of Art. STEVENSON, R. B. K. (1956) Native Bangles and Roman Glass. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 88, 208-221. STEVENSON, R. B. K. (1976) Romano-British glass bangles. Glasgow Archaeological Journal, 4, 45-54. STOERTZ, C. (1997) Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds: Aerial Photographic Transcription and Analysis, London, RCHME. STOUT, A. M. (1994) Jewellery [sic] as a symbol of status in the Roman Empire. IN SEBESTA, J. L. & BONFANTE, L. (Eds.) The World of Roman Costume. Madison, University of Wisconsin. STOW, S. (1982a)Bronze brooches. .IN FRERE, S. S., STOW, S. & BENNETT, B. A. (Eds) Excavations on the Roman and Medieval Defences of Canterbury. Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society, 143-144. STOW, S. (1982b) Other objects of Bronze. .IN FRERE, S. S., STOW, S. & BENNETT, B. A. (Eds) Excavations on the Roman and Medieval Defences of Canterbury. Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society, 121-124. STOW, S. (1982c) Other objects of bone. .IN FRERE, S. S., STOW, S. & BENNETT, B. A. (Eds) Excavations on the Roman and Medieval Defences of Canterbury. Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society, 124-126. SUMMERFIELD, J. & THOMPSON A. (2002a) CopperAlloy objects from Thornbrough Farm (sites 452 and 482). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 139-140. SUMMERFIELD, J. & THOMPSON A. (2002b) Bone objects from Thornbrough Farm (site 452). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 197.

213

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH SUMPTER, A. (1988) Iron Age and Roman at Dalton Parlours. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. SUMPTER, A. & COLL, S. (1977) Interval Tower SW5 and the South-west Defences: Excavations 1972-75, York, York Archaeological Trust. SUMPTER, T. (1984) The vicus of the Roman fort at Castleford. IN WILSON, P., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) Settlement and society in the Roman North. Bradford, School of Archaeological Science. SWANN, V. G. (1984) The Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain, London, Royal Commission of Historic Monuments Supplementary Series 5. TANNER, V., RENDALL, S. & RYAN, R. (1986) Small Finds. IN BRYANT, S., MORRIS, M. & WALKER, J. S. F. Roman Manchester: A Frontier Settlement, Manchester, Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit, 66-69. TAYLOR, J. (2001) Rural Society in Roman Britain. IN JAMES, S. & MILLETT, M. (Eds.) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. CBA Research Reports. TAYLOR, J. (2007) An atlas of Roman rural settlement in England, Council of British Archaeology Research Report. TAYLOR, T. (1999) Envaluing metal: theorizing the Eneolithic ‘hiatus’. IN YOUNG, S. M. M., POLLARD, M., BUDD, P. & IXER, R. A. (Eds.) Metals in Antiquity. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports British Series. TAYLOR, D. & MAY, J. (1996) Shale and Jet Artifacts. IN MAY, J. Dragonby: Report on the excavations at an Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement in North Lincolnshire., Oxford, Oxbow monograph 61, 276277. THOMPSON, A. (2002a) Catterick Bridge (Site 240). IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 180. THOMPSON, A. (2002b) Beads from other sites and find spots. IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 263. THOMPSON, A. (2002c) Brooches from other sites and find spots. IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 161172. THOMPSON, A. (2002d) Cadbury-Schweppes Factory Sites IN WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland.

Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology, 146, 199. TILLEY, C. (1990) Reading material culture: structuralism, hermeneutics and post-structuralism, Oxford, Basil Blackwell. TINSLEY, H. M. & SMITH, R. T. (1974) Ecological investigation at a Romano-British earthwork in the Yorkshire Pennines. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 46, 23-33. TODD, M. (1970) Small Towns of Roman Britain. Britannia, 1, 114-130. TODD, M. (2004a) The Claudian Conquest and its Consequences. IN TODD, M. (Ed.) A Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. TODD, M. (Ed.) (2004b) A Companion to Roman Britain, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1973) The Roman aqueduct at Bowes, Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 45, 181185. TOYNBEE, J. M. C. (1987) The Intaglio. IN MEATES, G. W. The Roman Villa at Lullingstone, Kent. Maidstone, Kent Archaeological Society,54. TRISTRAM, E. (1916) Roman Buxton. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 38, 84-104. TROW, S. (2003) Ploughing through History, Green Futures. TURNER, R. C. (1990) A Romano-British Cemetery at Lanchester, Durham. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fifth Series: 18, 63-78. TWEEDLE, D. (1986) Finds from Parliament Street and Other Sites in the City Centre, York, York Archaeological Trust. TYERS, P. A. (1996) Roman Pottery in Britain, London, B.T. Batsford Ltd. VAN DER LEEUW, S. E. (1983) Acculturation as information processing. IN BRANDT, R. & SLOFSTRA, J. (Eds.) Roman and Native in the Low Countries: Spheres of Interaction. Oxford, BAR International Series. VAN DER VEEN, M. (2008) Food as embodied material culture: diversity and change in plant food consumption in Roman Britain. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 21, 83-110. VAN DRIEL-MURRAY, C. (1985) The production and supply of military leatherwork in the first and second centuries A.D.; a review of the archaeological evidence. IN BISHOP, M. C. (Ed.) The Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment. Oxford, BAR international Series. VAN DRIEL-MURRAY, C. (1995) Gender in question. IN RUSH, P. (Ed.) Theoretical Roman archaeology: second conference proceedings. Avebury, Aldershot. VAN DRIEL-MURRAY, C. (1998) Women in forts? Geselleschaft Pro Vindonissa, Jahresbericht, 55-61. VAN DRIEL-MURRAY, C. (2001) Vindolanda and the dating of Roman footwear. Britannia, 32, 185-197.

214

REFERENCES VILLY, F. (1923) A Note on the Position of the Roman Site near Adel. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 27, 320-321. VINER, L. (1982) The objects of copper alloy. IN WACHER, J., MCWHIRR, A. & CIRENCESTER EXCAVATION COMMITTEE. (1982) Early Roman occupation at Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 93-99. VINER, L. (1986a) Objects of Silver. IN MCWHIRR, A. Houses in Roman Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 106. VINER, L. (1986b) Objects of Copper Alloy. IN MCWHIRR, A. Houses in Roman Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 106111. VINER, L. (1986c) Objects of Shale and Jet. IN MCWHIRR, A. Houses in Roman Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 116. VINER, L. (1986d) Finds. IN MCWHIRR, A. Houses in Roman Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 220. VINER, L. (1986e) Finds. IN MCWHIRR, A. Houses in Roman Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 203-205. VINER, L. (1986f) Finds. IN MCWHIRR, A. Houses in Roman Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 230. VYNER, B. E. & DANIELS, R. (1989) Further Investigation of the Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement Site of Catcote. Durham Archaeological Journal: Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, 5, 11-35. WACHER, J. (1960) Petuaria: New Evidence for the Roman town and its earlier fort. Antiquaries Journal, 40, 58-64. WACHER, J. (1969) Excavations at Brough-on-Humber, Leeds, Reports on the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London No. XXV. WACHER, J. (1975) Village Fortification. IN RODWELL, W. & ROWLEY, T. (Eds.) Small Towns of Roman Britain. Oxford, BAR British Series. WACHER, J. (1997) The Towns of Roman Britain, London, Routledge. WACHER, J., MCWHIRR, A. & CIRENCESTER EXCAVATION COMMITTEE. (1982) Early Roman occupation at Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee. WALKER, D. (2001) The dates of human impacts on the environment at Ehenside Tarn, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, Third Series: 1, 1-20. WALLERSTEIN, I. (1974) The Modern World-system: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, New York, Academic Press. WALTER, D. (2005) Roman and Germanic eating habits on both sides of the Taunus- and Wetterau- Limes. IN VISY, Z. (Ed.) Limes XIX: Proceedings of the XIXth

International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. Pecs, Hungary, Oxbow. WALTHAM, A. C. (Ed.) (1974) The Limestones and Caves of North-West England, David and Charles Newton Abbot. WARD, J. (1894) Romano-British objects from Deep Dale, Autumn 1891. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 16, 185-189. WATKINS, W. T. (1886) The Roman minor settlements, camps, discoveries of coins, etc. and roads in Derbyshire. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 8, 190-215. WATTS, L., JONES, A. & RAHTZ, P. (2003) The Roman Villa at Blansby Park, Pickering: Excavations at the Park Gate Roman Site in 2000. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 75, 15-56. WATTS, L. & RAHTZ, P. (1984) Cowlam Wold Barrows, York, Ebor Press. WAUGH, H. & GOODBURN, R. (1972) Non-ferrous Objects. IN FRERE, S. S. Verulamium Excavation volume 1, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 115-162. WEBSTER, G. (1969) The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD, London, Adam & Charles Black. WEBSTER, G. (1975) Small towns without defences. IN RODWELL, W. & ROWLEY, T. (Eds.) Small Towns of Roman Britain. Oxford, BAR British Series. WEBSTER, J. (1992a) The Bronze Objects. IN HINCHLIFFE, J., WILLIAMS, J. H. & WILLIAMS, F. Roman Warrington: Excavations at Wilderspool, 1966-1969 and 1976, Manchester, University of Manchester, 90-94. WEBSTER, J. (1992b) The Bronze Objects. IN HINCHLIFFE, J., WILLIAMS, J. H. & WILLIAMS, F. Roman Warrington: Excavations at Wilderspool, 1966-1969 and 1976, Manchester, University of Manchester, 94-96. WEBSTER, J. (2001) Creolizing the Roman Provinces. American Journal of Archaeology, 105, 209-225. WEBSTER, P. V. (1967) Melandra Castle excavations, 1966. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 87, 161-162. WEBSTER, P. V. (1970) Excavations at Melandra Castle, Derbyshire, 1969. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 89, 85-110. WEBSTER, P. V. (1971) Melandra Castle Roman Fort: excavations in the civil settlement 1966-69. Journal of Derbyshire Archaeological Society and Natural History Society, 91, 58-118. WEBSTER, R. A. (1972) Excavation of a Romano-British Settlement at Waitby. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 72, 66-73. WEBSTER, P.V. (1974) The Small Finds. IN JONES, G. B. D. & GREALEY, S. (1974) Roman Manchester, Altrincham, Manchester Excavation committee. WEBSTER, P.V. (1988) The Small Finds. IN JONES, G. B. D., SHOTTER, D. & ARTHUR, D. C. Roman

215

PERSONAL ORNAMENTATION AS AN INDICATOR OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN THE ROMAN NORTH Lancaster: rescue archaeology in an historic city, 1970-75, Manchester, Department of Manchester: Brigantia Monograph, 146-153. WELFARE, H. G., TOPPINGS, P., BLOOD, K. & RAMM, H. G. (1991) Stanwick, North Yorkshire, part 2: a summary description of the earthworks. The Archaeological Journal, 147, 16-36. WENHAM, L. P. (1962a) Excavations and discoveries adjoining the south-west wall of the Roman legionary fortress in Feasegate, York 1955-57. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 40, 329-351. WENHAM, L. P. (1962b) Excavations and discoveries within the legionary fortress in Davygate, York, 19558. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 1955-8, 40, 507588. WENHAM, L. P. (1966) Blossom Street Excavations, 1953-5. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 524590. WENHAM, L. P. (1968a) Discoveries at King’s Square, York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 165-169. WENHAM, L. P. (1968b) Romano-British Cemetery: Trentholme Drive, York, London, HMSO. WENHAM, L. P. (1972) Excavations at Low Petergate, York. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 42, 65-113. WENHAM, L. P. (1988) Roman gold ring from York. IN MANBY, T. G. (Ed.) Archaeology in Eastern Yorkshire: Essays in honour of T.C.M. Brewster. Gainsborough, John R. Collies. WENHAM, L. P. (1989) Cliffe House Farm, near Crambe North Riding. IN WILSON, P. R. (Ed.) Crambeck Roman Pottery Industry. Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WENHAM, L. P. & HEYWOOD, B. (1997) The 1968 to 1970 excavations in the vicus at Malton, North Yorkshire, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WHEELER, R. E. M. & WHEELER, T. V. (1936) Verulamium: A Belgic and two Roman Cities, Oxford, The Society of Antiquaries. WHITE, R. F. (1988) A Pennine Gap? The Roman period in the north Yorkshire Dales. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. WHITING, C. E. (1943) Excavations at Stancil 19381939. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 35, 261-269. WHITTAKER, D. (1995) Integration of the early Roman West: The Example of Africa. IN METZLER, J., MILLETT, M., ROYMANS, N. & SLOFSTRA, J. (Eds.) Integrating in the Early Roman West: The Role of Culture and Ideology. Luxembourg, Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée National d’Histore et d’Art IV. WHITWELL, B. (1988) Late Roman settlement on the Humber and Anglican beginnings. IN PRICE, J. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Oxford, BAR British Series. WHITWELL, J. B. (1976) The Church Street Sewer and an Adjacent Building, York, York Archaeological Trust. WILD, J. P. (1985) The clothing of Britannia, Gallia Belgica and Germania Inferior. IN HILDEGARD,

T. & HAASE, W. (Eds.) Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur roms im Spiegel der neureren forschung II. Berlin, Walter De Gruyter. WILD, J. P. (2004) Textiles and Dress. IN TODD, M. (Ed.) A Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. WILD, J.P. & VINER, L. (1979) Objects of Bone and Antler. IN MCWHIRR, A. Houses in Roman Cirencester, Cirencester, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 114-116. WILLEMS, W. J. H. (1983) Romans and Batavians: Regional Development at the Imperial Frontier. IN BRANDT, R. & SLOFSTRA, J. (Eds.) Roman and Native in the Low Countries: Spheres of Interaction. Oxford, Oxbow. WILLIS, C. (2003) Environmental changes in Roman north-west England: A synoptic overview of events north of the Ribble. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, Third Series: 3, 67-84. WILMOTT, T. (1993) Excavation and survey on the line of Grim’s ditch, West Yorkshire 1977-83. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 65, 55-75. WILMOTT, T. (2002) Research and development in the Birdoswald sector of Hadrian’s Wall. IN FREEMAN, P., BENNETT, J., FIEMA, Z. T. & HOFFMAN, B. (Eds.) Limes XVIII: Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies in Amman Jordon. Oxford, BAR International Series. WILMOTT, T. & WILSON, P. (Eds.) (2000) The Late Roman Transition in the North: papers from the Roman Archaeology Conference, Durham 1999, Durham, Durham University Press. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, J., HASSALL, M. W. C., BOWMAN, A. K. & THOMAS, J. D. (1974) Roman Britain in 1973. Britannia, 5, 397-460. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1970) Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 269-315. WILSON, D. R. & WRIGHT, R. P. (1971) Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 243-288. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P. & HASSALL, M. W. C. (1973) Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 271-337. WILSON, D. R., WRIGHT, R. P., HASSALL, M. W. C. & TOMLIN, R. S. O. (1975) Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. WILSON, P. (1988) North-east Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers by Raymond H. Hayes, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WILSON, P. (Ed.) (1989) Crambeck Roman Pottery Industry, Leeds, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. WILSON, P. R. (2002) Cawthorn Camps-70 years after Richmond. IN FREEMAN, P., BENNETT, J., FIEMA, Z. T. & HOFFMAN, B. (Eds.) Limes XVIII: Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies in Amman Jordon. Oxford, BAR International series. WILSON, P. R., COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY. & ENGLISH HERITAGE. (2002)

216

REFERENCES Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 Parts 1 and 2, Council for British Archaeology. WILSON, P. R., JONES, R. F. J. & EVANS, D. M. (Eds.) (1984) Settlement and society in the Roman north, Bradford, School of Archaeological Sciences WOOD, I. (2004) The Final Phase. IN TODD, M. (Ed.) A Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. WOODFIELD, P. (1966) Barcombe Hill, Thorngrafton. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 44, 71-78. WOODWARD, A. M. (1924) The Roman Forts at Templebrough. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 27, 112-117. WOODWARD, A. M. (1926) The Roman Fort at Ilkley. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 28, 137-320. WOODWARD, A. M. (1933) The Roman Villa at Rudston. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 31, 366-386. WOODWARD, A. M. (1934) The Roman Villa at Rudston. Second Interim Report of the excavations, 1934. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 32, 214-229. WOODWARD, A. M. & STEER, K. A. (1936) The Roman Villa at Rudston. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 33, 81-86. WOOLER, E. (1913) The Roman Station of Lavatrae (Bowes). Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 22, 400410. WOOLER, E. (1915) Roman Piercebridge. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 23, 401-444. WOOLF, G. (1995) The formation of Roman provincial cultures. IN METZLER, J., MILLETT, M., ROYMANS, N. & SLOFSTRA, J. (Eds.) Integrating in the Early Roman West: The Role of Culture and Ideology. Luxembourg, Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée National d’Histore et d’Art IV. WOOLF, G. (1998) Becoming Roman. The Origins of Provincial Civilization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. WOOLISCROFT, D. J. (1994) Signalling and the design of the Cumberland Coast System. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 94, 55-64. WOOLISCROFT, D. J. (1995) The ring ditch above Middleton Hall, Cumbria: surface and resistivity surveys. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series, 95, 61-72. WOOLISCROFT, D. J. & SWAIN, S. A. M. (1991) The Roman “signal” Tower at Johnson’s Plain, Cumbria. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, New Series: 91, 19-30. WOOLLEY, C. L. (1907) Corstopitum: provisional report on the excavations in 1906. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Third Series: 3, 161-186.

WRATHMELL, S. & NICHOLSON, A. (Eds.) (1991) Dalton Parlours: Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa., Exeter, West Yorkshire Archaeological Service. WRIGHT, R. P. & GILLAM, J. P. (1951) Second report on Roman Buildings at Old Durham. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 29, 203-212. WRIGHT, R. P. & GILLAM, J. P. (1953) Third report on the Roman site at Old Durham. Archaeologia Aeliana: or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Fourth Series: 31, 116-126. YORKSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGCAL SOCIETY. ROMAN ANTIQUITIES SECTION. (1909) Excavation of the Roman Forts at Castleshaw (West Riding). Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, XX, 100-103. ZANT, J. M. (2001) An excavation at Brougham Castle. Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, Third Series: I, 31-37. ZEEPVAT, R.J. (1987a) Other bronze objects. IN ZEEPVAT, R. J., WILLIAMS, R. J. & MYNARD, D. C. Roman Milton Keynes: excavations and fieldwork, 1971-1982, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society, 133-141 ZEEPVAT, R.J. (1987b) Worked bone. IN ZEEPVAT, R. J., WILLIAMS, R. J. & MYNARD, D. C. Roman Milton Keynes: excavations and fieldwork, 1971-1982, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society, 141-145 ZEEPVAT, R.J. (1987c) Shale. IN ZEEPVAT, R. J., WILLIAMS, R. J. & MYNARD, D. C. Roman Milton Keynes: excavations and fieldwork, 1971-1982, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society, 145 ZEEPVAT, R. J., WILLIAMS, R. J. & MYNARD, D. C. (1987) Roman Milton Keynes: excavations and fieldwork, 1971-1982, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society.

217