Landscapes of Imperialism: Roman and native interaction in the East Anglian Fenland 9781841714257, 9781407319766

Citation preview

BAR 338 2002  FINCHAM  LANDSCAPES OF IMPERIALISM

Landscapes of Imperialism Roman and native interaction in the East Anglian Fenland

Garrick Fincham

BAR British Series 338 9 781841 714257

B A R

2002

Landscapes of Imperialism Roman and native interaction in the East Anglian Fenland

Garricl( Fincham

BAR British Series 338 2002

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 338 Landscapes of Imperialism © G Fincham and the Publisher 2002 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 9781841714257 paperback ISBN 9781407319766 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841714257 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 2002. 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

Contents

Acknowledgments List of Figures

11

List of Tables

V

Chapter 1:

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Chapter 2:

2.1 2.2

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

2.7 2.8 2.9 Chapter 3:

3.1 3.2 3.3

3.4 3.5

3.6

3.7

Chapter 4:

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

Theoretical Frameworks Introduction Defining and Using Post-Colonial Theory General Theories oflmperialism Romanisation and Post-Colonial Theory

1 1 1 2 4

A Post-Colonial Review of Past Scholarship Introduction A Brief History of Fenland Scholarship The Romans in Fenland- Early Models The Car Dyke: Transport or Catch-Water? The Roman Occupation of Central Fenland The Fenland Survey Orton Hall Farm Stonea Conclusions

7 7 7

Modelling the Fens Introduction A Note on Approaches to Data Methods of Analysis 3 .3 .1 The Data Base 3 .3 .2 The Chronology 3.3.3 Environment 3 .3 .4 Status 3.3.5 Settlement Size Analytical Framework The Aggregate Statistics 3.5.1 Aggregate Chronology 3.5.2 Chronology and Environment 3.5.3 The Status of Sites A Complex Model 3.6.1 Chronology 3.6.2 Chronology and Environment 3.6.3 Complex Status Summary

17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19

Interpreting the Model Introduction An Environmental Overview A Chronologically Based Interpretation of the Revised Model Status Artefact Distribution Summary of a Fenland Macro Model

8 10 11

12 14 15 16

21 21 22

22 22 22 23

23 23 25 26

27 27 27 28 31 32

34

The Silt Fens -A Landscape of Domination? A Social Unit of Analysis Predictive Models of Settlement Pattern Stability Profiling the Silt Fen Communities 5.3.1 Analysis of Community One 5.3.2 Analysis of Community Two 5.3.3 Analysis of Community Three 5.3.4 Analysis of Community Four 5.3.5 Analysis of Community Five 5.3.6 Summary 5.3.7 Spalding 5.3.8 Silt Fen sites outside the community structure A Comparative Analysis between Silt Fen Communities 5.4.1 A Comparison of Status Cores 5.4.2 The Nature of Settlements 5.4.3 Salt Production and Agriculture 5.4.4 Undated Sites and the Economic Calendar Communications, Administration and Markets in the Silt Fens

36 36 37 38 38 40 42 43 44 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 49 49

Chapter 6: 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

The Central Fens: A Landscape of Continuity The Late Pre-Roman Iron Age in Central Fenland Defining the Central Fens A Statistical Analysis of Community 6 An Overview of Roman Settlement in Community 6 A Discussion of Status in Community 6 The Economy of Community 6 A Landscape of Control

52 52 54 55 56 56 57 58

Chapter 7: 7.1 7.2 7.3

Fen Edge and Upland: The Fens in Context Defining the Fen Edge Some Basic Landscape Structures Fen Edge 'Communities' 7.3.1 Community 7: Durobrivae and the Fen Edge 7.3.2 Community 8: Godmanchester and Cambridge 7.3.3 Community 9: Mildenhall to Hockwold cum Wilton Summary

61 61 61 63 63 67 68 69

Interpreting the Regional Landscape Introduction From a National to a Regional Model 8.2.1 The Late Pre-Roman Iron Age: AD 1- 46 8.2.2 From the Conquest to the Icenian Revolt: AD 47 - 60 8.2.3 After the Icenian Revolt: AD 60-100 8.2.4 The Mid-Roman Period: Second and Third Centuries 8.2.5 Late Roman Fenland: The Fourth Century 8.2.6 The End of Roman Fenland: The Early Fifth Century 8.2.7 Summary Lived Experience in the Roman Fens 8.3.1 Life on the Silts 8.3.2 Life in the Central Fens Conclusion

70 70 70 71 71

Chapter 5: 5.1 5.2 5.3

5.4

5.5

7.4 Chapter 8: 8.1 8.2

8.3

8.4

72

73 77 77

78 78 79 81 83

The Fens in Context Introduction The Fens as Wetland 9.2.1 Comparison One: The Somerset and Gwent Levels 9.2.2 Comparison Two: Romney Marsh 9.2.3 Comparison Three: Coastal Wetlands of Gallia Belgica 9.2.4 Comparison Four: Italy 9.2.5 The Exploitation of Wetland Landscapes Opportunity, Resistance and Landscapes of Imperialism In Conclusion

84 84 84 84 88 89 90 91 94 96

Chapter 10: 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6

Future Work Introduction Excavation Durobrivae and its Hinterland Methodologies Roman Imperialism Summary

97 97 97 97 98

Appendix 1:

Gazetteer of Sites

100

Chapter 9: 9.1 9.2

9.3

9.4

99

99

Illustrations

184

Bibliography

307

Acknowledgements This monograph is derived from research for my doctoral thesis (at the University of Leicester), which was funded by the AHRB, and I gratefully acknowledge their support. My thanks also go to my supervisors during the thesis, Professor David Mattingly, Professor Marilyn Palmer, and Dr Jane Webster for their guidance, encouragement and support. I also wish to offer a special thanks to the late Dr Timothy Potter, who was always so generous with his time and ideas. As with any project of this size there are many people who assisted along the way. Principal amongst these are the staff of the School of Archaeological Studies, Leicester, for creating a friendly and open environment in which to study, but in particular I would like to thank Dr Jeremy Taylor for our many constructive discussions. I would also like to thank my fellow post-graduate students, especially Dr Roger Kipling, Dr Mark Monaghan and Paul Newson, for all the coffee drunk together over three long years. Finally, I want to say thank you to my parents, Ray and Lynne Fincham, without whose financial support and general encouragement this project would never even have begun, and most of all to Gillian Hawkes, my partner, for living with Roman Fenland as an uninvited part of her life with such patience.

Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

1.1: 2.1: 3.1: 3.2: 3.3: 3.4: 3.5: 3.6: 3.7: 3.8: 3.9: 3.10: 3.11: 3.12: 3.13: 4.1: 4.2: 4.3: 4.4: 4.5: 4.6: 4.7: 4.8: 4.9: 4.10: 4.11: 4.12: 4.13: 4.14: 4.15: 4.16: 4.17: 4.18: 5.1: 5.2: 5.3: 5.4: 5.5: 5.6: 5.7: 5.8: 5.9: 5.10: 5.11: 5.12: 5.13: 5.14: 5.15: 5.16: 5.17: 5.18: 5.19: 6.1: 6.2: 6.3: 6.4: 6.5: 6.6: 6.7: 6.8: 6.9: 6.10: 6.11 7.1: 7.2: 7.3: 7.4: 7.5: 7.6: 7.7:

Hypothetical discursive sites under slavery. The Fenlaud laudscape. Site numbers in the study area over time. Number of sites by period per environment. Sites in the study area in period one. Sites in the study area in period two. Sites in the study area in period three. Sites in the study area in period four. Sites in the study area in period five. Traditional status sites by environment. Sites by chronological group. Settlement stability on the fen edge. Settlement stability on the fen islauds. Settlement stability on the silt fens. Status trends over time by chronological period. Iron Age coast around the Wash c. 200 B.C. Romau coast around the Wash c. AD. 200. Fenlaud environment inc. 1800 B.P. Post Romau (Medieval) Fenlaud environment. Percentage foundation rates by period on the fen edge. Percentage foundation rates by period on the fen islauds. Percentage foundation rates by period on the peat fen. Percentage foundation rates by period on silt fen. Calibration curve for dating Romauo-British pottery. Pottery distribution in the southwest Lincolnshire fens. Comparative densities of Samiau aud NVWCC in the southwest Lincolnshire fens. Examples of girdle pattern settlement on the silt fens. Division oflow status sites into undatable (Group 0) aud datable (Group 1). Percentages of sites by chronological group which display status indicators. Per-cent of settlement pattern showing status by environment. Distribution of portable wealth and building material in the central aud silt fens. Iron Age sites in the central fens. Regional traditions of prestige object deposition in the Iron Age. Fenlaud communities. Site density on the silt fens in period one. Site density on the silt fens in period two. Site density on the silt fens in period three. Site density on the silt fens in period four. Site density on the silt fens in period five. Laudscape development: the traditional predictive model. Laudscape development: The 'constaut chauge' predictive model. Map of community one. Development trends for community one. Map of community two. Development trends for community two. Map of community three. Development trends for community three. Map of community four. Development trends for community four. Map of community five. Schematic model of a silt fen community. Fenlaud communications aud market catchment areas. Site plau of Stonea Camp. Map of community six - the central fens. Site plau of Stonea Grauge. Site plau of Graudford. Development trends for community six. Site density in the central fens in period one. Site density in the central fens in period two. Site density in the central fens in period three. Site density in the central fens in period four. Site density in the central fens in period five. The Romau conquest: methods of exercising military control. Plau ofDurobrivae. Map of community seven. Site density on the western fen edge in period one. Site density on the western fen edge in period two. Site density on the western fen edge in period three. Site density on the western fen edge in period four. Site density on the western fen edge in period five. 11

185 186 187 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 193 193 194 194 194 195 196 197 198 199 199 200 200 201 202 203 204 205 205 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

212 213 214 215 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

7.8: 7.9: 7.10: 7.11: 7.12: 7.13: 7.14: 7.15: 7.16: 7.17: 7.18: 7.19: 7.20: 7.21: 7.22: 7.23: 7.24: 7.25: 7.26: 7.27: 7.28: 7.29: 8.1: 8.2: 8.3: 8.4: 8.5: 8.6: 8.7: 9.1: 9.2: 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7: 9.8 9.9 9.10: 9.11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7

Development trends for community seven. Status trends for community seven. Plan ofFengate, Cats Water subsite. Plan of Maxey. Plan of Haddon. Plan of Orton Hall Farm. Map of community eight. Site density on the southern fen edge in period one. Site density on the southern fen edge in period two. Site density on the southern fen edge in period three. Site density on the southern fen edge in period four. Site density on the southern fen edge in period five. Development trends for community eight. Status trends for community 8. Map of community nine. Site density on the eastern fen edge in period one. Site density on the eastern fen edge in period two. Site density on the eastern fen edge in period three. Site density on the eastern fen edge in period four. Site density on the eastern fen edge in period five. Development trends for community nine. Status trends for community 9. Power structures on the western fen edge and in the central fens in the LPRIA period. Power structures on the western fen edge and in the central fens, AD 4 7 - 60. Power structures on the western fen edge and in the central fens, Boudiccan revolt to AD 100. Power structures on the western fen edge and in the central fens, second and third centuries. The Nene Valley villas and Durobrivae. Possible model of the developed economy ofDurobrivae and the fens, second and third centuries. Power structures on the western fen edge and in the central fens, post Roman period. Map of UK wetlands. The Somerset Levels. The Somerset Levels, showing the relationship of villas to local urban centres. Salt production in the levels. Wimberham Villa and surrounding area. Possible ritual activity in the Somerset Levels. Romney Marsh. Local communications and distribution of iron making sites in the weald. General map of western Gallia Belgica. Distribution of building types in Gallia Belgica. The Tiber and Pontine wetlands in their Italian context. General plan ofLongthorpe. Settlement morphology. Settlement morphology. Settlement morphology. Settlement morphology. Settlement morphology. Settlement morphology.

111

245 245 246 24 7 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288

Tables Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

3.1: 3.2: 3.3: 3.4: 3.5: 3.6: 3.7: 3.8: 3.9: 3.10: 3.11: 3.12: 3.13: 3.14: 3.15: 3.16: 4.1: 5.1: 5.2: 5.3: 5.4: 5.5: 5.6: 5.7: 5.8: 5.9: 6.1: 6.2: 7.1: 7.2: 7.3: 7.4: 7.5: 7.6: 7.7: 7.8: 7.9: 7.10: 7.11: 7.12: 7.13:

Sample gazetteer entries. Clnonological periods. Clnonological groups. Status ranks. A matrix table for generating status groups. Number of sites by period across the study area. Sites per environment by period. Sites on the fen islands in period one. Traditional status sites by environment. Clnonological groups in numerical and percentage form. Number of sites per chronological group by environment. Settlement stability on the fen edge. Settlement stability on the fen islands. Settlement stability on the silt fen. Status groups by environment. Status trends by chronological period. Status sites in the fens. Sites in community one. Sites in community two. Sites in community three. Sites in community four. Sites in community five. Scoring of status ranks. Comparative values of status cores. Statistical break down of saltem sites in the silt fens. Economic calendar. Status sites in community six. Non-status sites in community six. Status sites with building material in community seven. Status sites with building material and portable wealth in community seven. Status sites with portable wealth in community seven. Non-status sites in community seven. Status trends in communities 7-9. Status sites with building material in community eight. Status sites with building material and portable wealth in community eight. Status sites with portable wealth in community eight. Non-status sites in community eight. Status sites with building material in community nine. Status sites with building material and portable wealth in community nine. Status sites with portable wealth in community nine. Non-status sites in community nine.

IV

289 289 289 290 290 290 290 291 291 291 291 292 292 292 292 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 298 298 298 299 299 300 301 302 302 303 303 304 304 304 305 305 306 306 306

Chapter 1: Theoretical Frameworks 1.1

Roman Empire (Mattingly 1997a), and it is sufficient here to note that this work has emerged from post-colonial theory. As will be seen, this has relevance not only for the creation of our theoretical model per se, but also for how we engage with past (and some present) scholarship on the subject. British archaeology in general, and the archaeology of Roman Britain in particular, has been conducted in the context of European colonialism (Ringley 1994), and much of the work currently being undertaken is still located within the same outdated intellectual framework. The paradigms that informed 'colonial' archaeology have outlived the colonial era itself, and even recent texts are susceptible to postcolonial deconstruction.

Introduction

This project is ostensibly a study of the archaeology and history of a single Roman landscape - the F enlands of East Anglia. However, from the outset it was also my intention to consider the issues raised by the application of post-colonial theory to landscape archaeology. The aims are thus two fold: to explore the nature of imperialism as practised in the Roman Empire from a post-colonial perspective and, secondly, to test a series of models generated in relation to the Roman Fenlands. The first of these aims entails a study of power: crucially, how the exercise of power might manifest itself in the archaeological record. The second aim is to test the practical value of such theoretical models in the study of Roman landscapes when applied to a real archaeological problem, in this case the Roman Fens. This thesis therefore is as much concerned with an examination of Roman imperialism as it is with the detail of a particular case study.

The development of post-colonial theory has been heavily influenced by the work ofE. W. Said (Orienta/ism, 1978 and Culture and Imperialism, 1993). Perhaps the most significant contribution of his work for our purposes is the concept of 'discrepant experience' (Said 1993: 35-50). This simple concept, profound in its implications, asserts that different people experience the human condition in different ways. For example, the viewpoint of a Frenchman involved in the Napoleonic conquest of Egypt will be different from that of an Egyptian being conquered by the French (Said 1993: 37). Thus 'experience' is not fixed truth; rather, it is personal perception. This has clear implications for our understanding of ancient empires in that it is no longer sufficient to consider the process by which the Roman state absorbed 'barbarian' peoples. Instead we must begin writing the archaeology of those natives who became enmeshed in unequal power relations with the Roman authorities. In this way we can evolve a theoretical approach which models the reality of Roman imperialism and that allows room for a native response to the imposition of dominion over them.

In this chapter, I will explore post-colonial theory, defining it and illustrating its application to archaeology. I will also consider Roman imperialism more generally, a discussion which will conclude with specific consideration of the impact of post-colonialism upon the dominant discourse in this area, that of Romanisation. This will be followed in Chapter Two by a literary review of the principal texts of relevance to the Fens, which will be based around a re-consideration of this work conducted from a post-colonial standpoint. Chapters Three and Four re-model and re-interpret the data available for the Fenland case study, and Chapters Five to Seven provide detailed discussion of sub-zones within the study area, the silt fens, the central fens and the fen edge respectively. The study area is considered in its regional context in Chapter Eight, and Chapter Nine discusses the wider relationship between Rome and wetland areas, both in Britain, the low-countries, and in Italy itself, as well as considering the implications of the study for the ongoing debate about the nature of Roman imperialism. The final chapter indicates possible future directions in which the current research could be developed.

1.2

Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin (1998: 186) defme postcolonialism as dealing 'with the effects of colonisation on cultures and societies'. However, as Said makes clear in the very act of being specific about his defmition of such words, it is not enough to assume that we know what is meant by 'colonisation'. In considering the meaning of this word we are also forced to defme the related term 'imperialism', and Said (1993: 8) draws an important distinction between the two often mutually exchanged terms:

Defining and Using Post-Colonial Theory

Recent work on the Roman Empire has begun to develop a new approach to both the construction of theoretical models and to a lesser extent their application. This approach is exemplified by two volumes Roman Imperialism: Post-Colonial Perspectives (Webster & Cooper 1996) and Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, discourse and discrepant experience in the

' ... 'imperialism' means the practice, the theory, and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory; 'colonialism', which is almost always a consequence of imperialism, is the implanting of settlements on distant territory.'

1

Chapter 1: Theoretical Frameworks

This is only one of a range of such distinctions available between the two terms, though many definitions are specific to the modem post-war period (see Webster 1996a: 2 - 6). A second defmition worth citing in full, by way of comparison with that offered by Said, is that of Bernstein et al (cited by Webster 1996a: 2):

that carry the biases and expectations of their authors. As such, they exist within the historical context in which they were written, and say as much about that time as they do about the archaeology that they address. The first task in writing a post-colonial archaeology is to disentangle the politics of archaeological research from the archaeological record itself by conducting a post-colonial reading of interpretative texts and reports. Such a reading can be defined as:

'Whereas colonialism means direct rule of a people by a foreign state, imperialism refers to a general system of domination by a state (or states) of other states, regions or the whole world. Thus political subjugation through colonialism is only one form this domination might take: imperialism also encompasses different kinds of indirect control' Bernstein et al (1992: 179)

'A way of reading and rereading texts of both metropolitan and colonial cultures to draw deliberate attention to the profound and inescapable effects of colonization on literary production; anthropological accounts: historical records; adruinistrative and scientific writing.' Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin 1998: 192

In both defmitions 'imperialism' may be understood as

the social, cultural and political attitudes which lead to the creation of a series of power relations, which in tum result in a situation of domination. The practice of implanting colonies on those areas dominated, or more generally the physical mechanisms of control by one state of another, may be regarded as 'colonisation'. This therefore constitutes one mechanism, but only one, used to articulate the impetus to dominate which arises from the wider phenomenon of imperialism.

Thus, what we are in effect examining is the effect of our own imperial history upon the way in which we write the history of ourselves and others. We must specifically investigate the way that our experience of being the dominant imperial partner affects the way in which we conceptualise the relationships of power in historical colonial/imperial situations.

1.3

Post-colonial theory clearly deals with issues related to the effects of 'imperialism' as well as simply 'colonialism', and the defmition advanced by Ashcroft (et al) needs to be modified. We must reflect the fact that in its developed form post-colonialism is not specific to the study of 'colonialism' per se; but addresses the unequal power relations between various cultures/societies, and is in fact the study of the effects of imperialism. We then reach the position that post-colonialism defmes not what is studied, but is a chronological statement which locates the mode of studying imperialism with relation to a specific period of history. We may then defme postcolonialism as: the study of the effects of imperialism and colonialism on cultures and societies, both the dominated and the dominant, from a perspective which has evolved out of the retrospective deconstruction of the European colonial project. As Young (1990: 119 - 20) and Webster (1996a: 6) point out, the deconstruction of the effects of colonialism from the perspective of the colonised was crystallised by Fanon (1961). This built upon his other works, like his critique of colonialism in the specific context of the Algerian revolution, considering, amongst other things, the role of Radio as both a tool of French oppression, and of anti-French revolution (1959). This approach has been developed by numerous authors ( see Webster 1996a: 6 - 7), of which Said is one of the most recent.

General Theories of Imperialism

The focus of this project is the study of Roman imperialism: to attempt to reach a deeper understanding of the unequal power relations that permeated the Empire and allowed it to continue in being. Such a study must consider the way in which these relations effected the condition of life for both elite and subordinate, and the way in which relations were maintained, negotiated and resisted, if we are to form a working theoretical model of Roman imperialism. However, study of Roman imperialism can be seen to take place on multiple levels. The first is the investigation of the general nature of imperialism in the Roman Empire as a whole, or perhaps a particular province. It is this scale of imperialism that makes the functioning of the Roman Empire a historically located process distinct from, for example, the functioning of the British Empire. Yet, if the understanding of experience is dependant on perspective, imperialism will be viewed discrepantly by those in differing social circumstances (Ringley 1996: 44). Thus we may envisage many individual actions and situations, each historically situated and each contributing to the meta-process of imperialism. However, before we consider detail, we must construct a more generalised framework within which to situate this discussion. Any consideration of imperialism at a provincial, or perhaps empire wide, level is bound to involve a discussion of 'Romanisation'. Romanisation in its most developed form is probably best exemplified by Millet (1990a: 38) when he states that:

Having decided what post-colonial theory is we must consider its specific application to archaeology. In this context 'archaeology' consists of two elements: the primary data and the way we write 'archaeology' as archaeologists. This second element, archaeological site reports and synthesis, are texts in themselves. Regardless of the data upon which they report, they are constructs

'Progressive emulation of this symbolism further dowu the social hierarchy was self generating, encouraging others within society to aspire to things Roman, thereby spreading the culture'.

2

Chapter 1: Theoretical Frameworks

This has become a contentious term, and its meaning has been much debated, particularly within the forum of the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Coriference (e.g. see Forcey 1996, Terrenato 1997). As a concept it may be attacked on the grounds that it is essentially a model of one way acculturation which leaves little room for native influence over their own lives (Webster 1996a: 11 -13), and as a single 'meta-process', with a similar character across the empire, rather than something experienced in different ways according to social and geographical location (Mattingly 1997b: 9). Modification of the concept has been offered by Reece (1988: 11), who suggests that 'Romanising' be defined as:

Roman imperialism. This de-centralisation of the empire achieves two things; it allows the creation of differing regional models for the functioning of imperialism, but it also allows us to begin characterising the experience of the Roman Empire from the point of view of the differing groups of which it was formed. Where does this leave the hegemonic view of both the Roman Empire and imperialism? This is conditional upon how we understand the concept of 'hegemony'. Ashcroft et al (1998: 116) defme hegemony as a term useful to refer to the domination by an imperial power of those 'whose desire for self-determination has been suppressed by a hegemonic notion of the greater good', which effectively amounts to a naturalisation of the power of the elite amongst subordinate groups. However, hegemony as a concept is more nuanced. Mattingly (1997b: 10-11) accepts Gramsci's (1971) suggestion that hegemony amounts to an 'asymmetric empowered negotiation' which results in consensual rule that is still disputed. It is from this understanding that Forcey (1996: 18-19) proceeds to discuss the relationship between hegemony and domination. Some level of consent to be ruled is necessary even if such rule is resisted, and this dynamic condition makes hegemony an ongoing process rather than an event. Scott (1990: 82-90) argues that those who are dominated recognise that it is in their own interest to wear a 'mask' in front of those that dominate them. Thus they publicly acquiesce in the elite's 'policy' of hegemony whilst, at the same time, privately resisting it. What appears to be acceptance of the elite's power is simply camouflage for resistance which lurks beneath the surface, and it is this which accounts for the speed with which apparent 'hegemonies' can be swept away when the moment ofrebellion arrives (Scott 1990: 77 - 82). The lowest orders of the social hierarchy are unlikely to have any vested interest in their own domination, which will involve the appropriation of their labour, taxes, and symbolic/social subservience. This leads Scott (1990: 91) to the conclusion that subordinate groups are more constrained at the level of action than thought, and hegemony as we observe it in various case studies is in fact a tactic on the part of resistant lower orders to protect themselves in front of 'power'. Thus hegemony may amount to no more than reluctant obedience in the face of domination. In Scott's analysis, the two groups face each other across a social space in which power is contested, and a line can be drawn between those who are subservient, and those who dominate. Where do the native elites within the Roman Empire fit into this dualistic model? Are they amongst the subservient, or are they part of the group holding 'power'? According to Millett (1990a: 38) they have formed a community of interest with the imperial authorities, and they face the subordinate population across the divide between dominated and dominant. For Forcey (1996: 18) the elite occupied only a partial place in the 'ruling bloc', and they were not wholly of the dominating group in Roman society.

' ... a tendency to homogenize the material culture of the island of Britain, or parts of it, with the material culture of the nearby provinces of the Roman Empire.'

As Reece himself points out (1988: 11), this underlines the fact that the process of Romanisation involved a two way flow of material culture - by bringing Britain into the Empire it was made more 'Gallic', but Gaul was made a little more 'British'. Recently consideration has been given to the individual contexts in which contact and culture change occurred (see Ringley 1997, Mattingly 1997c and Alcock 1997 for examples of provincial wide studies, and Clarke 1996 and Fincham 1999a for examples of studies conducted at a local/regional scale). There has also been interest in life under Roman rule from a specifically native perspective (Wells 1999, Woolf 1998), and the problematisation of the construction of identity (Jones 1997). Many of these studies build upon the work of Edward Said the importance of which is underlined by its wides~read impact (see Pearson et al 1997 for a complete volume of papers dedicated to the influence of his thinking upon a range of disciplines). Said introduces the concept of discrepant experience (1993:35-50) which, although acknowledging a basic underlying 'core to human experience', asserts that this core is subjective: it is not exhausted by 'totalising theories', and is open to academic investigation. As established earlier, 'experience' is perception not absolute truth, therefore different perceptions equate to different lived experiences. If we are to attempt to interpret the lived experience of the past we must recognise that different groups may well have radically different 'versions' of the same situation. What this means in relation to the Ancient World is that we must begin thinking of the Roman Empire not as a single unified hegemonic entity, but as a mosaic of social components and individual communities of interest. The adoption of this approach is beginning to have a positive effect upon the way that we conceive of the experience of Empire in different provinces. The work of Mattingly ( 1997 c) and Alcock (1997), already mentioned above, provide a good comparative study that illustrates how provincial landscapes responded both positively and negatively to

3

Chapter 1: Theoretical Frameworks

The perception of a given group will differ depending upon, amongst other things, the social and political position occupied by that group. To a member of the 'imperial' elite both the native elite and the general native populace were subordinate, although the first group was used as a tool to help control the second. To a RomanoBritish farmer the native elite would have been part of the power that ruled them, the day-to-day manifestation of the functioning of an otherwise distant empire. The native elite themselves had to look both ways, dominating their followers, and being dominated in their turn by imperial officials. To address the interrelations between these groups we may consider the concept of the 'transcript' (Scott 1990: 4-5), which may be hidden, or take place on the public stage. The hidden transcript is the expression of an identity, emotion, thought or even action, which is not within the sight of the dominant elite. What happens on the public stage in the full sight of 'power' is a performance from the subordinate group that is extracted by the elite. Their performance cannot be described as 'false', but it is shaped heavily by the context in which it occurs. It conforms, except in moments of open resistance, to the elite's conceptualisation of themselves.

and: ' ...most ruling groups take great pains to foster a public image of cohesion and shared belief. Disagreements, informal discussions, offguard commentary are kept to a minimum and, whenever possible, sequestered out of sight. .. ' (55)

Thus, both acculturation and dualistic models of dominant verses dominated are simplistic approaches; clearly the internal dynamics of such groups are as important as their relationships with the elite for the study of power relations within the Roman Empire.

1.4

Romanisation and Post-Colonial Theory

In the previous section it was demonstrated that in the environment created by Said's concept of discrepant experience (1993: 35-50), and the analysis of the behaviour of subordinate groups by Scott (1990), we now have the opportunity and the tools to explore both the Roman and the native perspective. We may do this with a realistic understanding of the ongoing process of colonial negotiation, making it possible transcend the dualistic formula of 'conqueror and conquered'.

These transcripts are not monolithic: they take place in different 'discursive sites' (Scott, 1990, 25-28). Scott envisages a continuum of audiences for a black slave that range from a harsh master/overseer down to the slave's immediate family (see Scott 1990: 26, reproduced here as Figure 1.1). This is not as simple as lying to the master and telling truth to the family; such a continuum expresses the range of relationships in which the slaves are progressively more empowered, and in which they may play a role more shaped by the way they perceive themselves. The role played by the slave in society, the power that he has over his social encounters and the self determination that he may publicly exercise over his identity, all change in accordance to that slave's social location, and their 'performance' for the elite is quite distinct from behaviour in a sequestered domestic setting. The hidden transcript is thus a way of theoretically conceptualising the discrepant experience described by Said (1993: 35-50), and the possible archaeological implications of this approach are outlined by Mattingly (1997b: 14-15). There are problems, principally the lack of texts originating from the subordinate groups of the Roman Empire, but the archaeological record may be viewed as a text of sorts, and the problem is certainly not insurmountable.

Firstly, we must note both the breakdown of the 'hegemonic' interpretation of the Roman Empire, and the increased interest in the native experience. These trends run counter to the creation of any grand theory that functions at an empire wide level: in establishing 'discrepant perspectives' for various native groups we are, by definition, arguing for a variation in the native condition within the empire that cannot be explained by totalising models. By creating such models we not only fail to recognise this, but also deny the possibility that power might be flexible, imposed in different ways in different times and places. We also withhold from imperial officials the ability to act in any way not conditioned by their exercise of power over others. They become mere ciphers of an abstract concept of Empire and cease to be individuals: this is clearly as false as denying different native groups the right to their own voice. All archaeologists agree that consideration of 'context' is vital on the small scale of an individual site, but in adopting a 'universalised' approach we eradicate 'context' from the consideration of Romanisation. A more sophisticated view, when encountering material culture, is to consider the individual circumstances that lead to the deposition of that material.

Like the transcripts themselves, the groups that engage in them are not unified entities. Scott also discusses discuss the fact that within both groups there are hidden internal politics, making clear the complexity of the situation:

We must conceive of the uniqueness of the native experience in terms of time, as well geography, by recognising the fact that actions and responses are historically situated, and that they cannot be dislocated from their historical context any more than they can be divorced from their spatial context. Webster (1996b: 114115) makes this point when considering classical accounts of 'Celtic warrior societies' and the way in which these

'Members of a dissident subordinate subculture can act informally to foster a high degree of conformity to standards that violate dominant norms' (129)

4

Chapter 1: Theoretical Frameworks

across the whole Empire that were considered 'Roman'? How do we explain why an item of material culture in one area (e.g. samian) was a 'native' product near the locality of its manufacture but became 'Roman' once it had been transported elsewhere?

accounts have been used by modem archaeologists. The ahistorical approach to Celtic warfare, that combat was somehow endemic to the unruly Celts and an integral part of their culture, denies the historical place of the conflicts under consideration; individual conflicts have been merged to create a 'pastiche' of Celtic warfare. The images upon which this pastiche draws upon are, however, provided by Roman authors at a time when Rome was engaged in the reduction of large parts of the 'Celtic' world. Much of the warfare described was warfare with Rome or increased militarisation sparked by Roman aggression. This has been used to create what Webster describes as the concept of the 'timeless primitive' (1996b: 111). However, Celtic militarism in the period of military contact with Rome cannot be properly understood unless that warfare is placed firmly in its historical context. It is therefore clear that any empire wide grand theory will fail to take account of the historical context of individual acts of resistance. This is, in effect, to say that we should aim to create a history for these people, and not just constitute them as 'being', with no power of action.

Reece (1988: 11), and his modification of Romanisation to a general tendency towards regional homogeneity within the empire, was considered earlier. The problem with this definition is two fold. Firstly, whilst the homogenising effect described might be visible in the archaeology it does not actually go any way towards telling us what this homogenising might mean. It describes a symptom of something without explaining the cause, which may be a question of preference, availability or politics. Secondly, it does not address the social context of material culture. It is the action of moving an object across enough distance to divorce it from its area of primary production, thus allowing it to enter a new social context, which creates it as being 'Roman'. To pursue our earlier example, what imparts 'Romaness' to samian in Britain is, at least in part, its location in a new social context. An artefact has no intrinsic social meaning, thus no artefact is intrinsically 'Roman', but the context creates the meaning, and the fact that samian was moved into Britain as a result of the conditions created by the Empire is what creates it as 'Roman'. From this it is clear that we are not engaged in an attempt to defme 'Roman' material culture, as in things from Rome, but those things that are of the Empire, created so by removal from the local economy where they were manufactured. Imperial material culture is thus not a range of items that are instantly recognisable in any context, but it is a shifting range of artefacts in different situations. Therefore, we should examine the way in which local goods become imperial culture by moving long distances, and identify the different ways in which imperial culture may be used, once it has 'arrived'.

To reach a new understanding we must first consider what 'Roman' might have meant, given our discussion of discrepant perspective. If we move away from the narrow defmition of this word as someone who originated from the city of Rome (something which Reece (1988: 11) identifies as a key issue), then to be 'Roman' in Britain meant nothing more than being perceived to be involved with the Roman Empire in an official capacity. Thus a 'Roman' might have been an Egyptian, a Gaul, or any other provincial, even a Briton, as long as that individual was dealing with a community of which he was not naturally a member (e.g. a Romano-Briton from the civitas of the Atrebates in, for example the civitas of the Silures buying food for the army would have been as 'Roman' to the natives of Roman Wales as ifhe had been from Gaul, or indeed Rome). This usage of the word 'Roman' might be found in contexts lilrn 'Roman officials', 'Roman soldiers', etc. It might also be abstracted to describe the 'Roman authorities', meaning not necessarily that this had anything to do with the City of Rome, but representing the power of the Empire. To be more precise this term is perhaps better redefmed as 'imperial'.

One model available to assist in the study of interaction between different social groups on the level of material culture is creolisation, developed within American historical archaeology. This concept has recently been applied to varying aspects of Romano-British archaeology, pioneered in the study of Romano-Celtic religion (Webster forthcoming), and subsequently expanded in the context of landscape archaeology and art (Webster at al, forthcoming), as well as to food (Hawkes 1999). Creolisation is best defined by Leyland Ferguson (1992: xli-xlv). Simply put, it is the process by which 'mixing' takes place when two cultures meet, and in which elements of both source cultures combine to create a new hybrid entity. Ferguson (1992: xli) asserts that, as it is the process that is under consideration, the cultures to which the concept is applied need not be the original 'creole cultures' themselves, and that the 'process' has a wider applicability. It enables us to conceptualise possible ways in which subordinate groups may empower themselves through the manipulation of material culture,

We reach a similar problem when we begin to consider 'Roman material culture'. As Freeman (1993) points out we run into considerable difficulty when we try to define what we mean by the term. Are we talking about 'Roman' in the literal sense of the material culture of those people who are intimately connected with the city of Rome, or do we mean the culture of the Empire? Is samian made in Gaul 'Roman material culture'? Clearly in a British context it would be considered to be so, but how do we take account of the fact that various elements of culture were 'regional' within the Empire, and that there was no single homogenised group of objects commonly available

5

Chapter 1: Theoretical Frameworks

and so helps us to locate Said's 'subjective core' of human experience.

deviate from native usage and become more 'Roman' would become highly dangerous to native survival, subverting any sense of 'non-Roman' identity.

Joyner (1984: xx-xxii) deploys a linguistic analogy to establish the nature of creolisation in which the 'objects' of material culture are conceptualised as a 'lexicon' of words. In the case of the American South that Joyner is considering, this lexicon is principally European, but the way these objects are used, the 'grammar' of Joyner's language of material culture, is African. Thus a European bowl may be used to serve an African meal in an African way: the adoption of the European bowl may not affect the way in which bowls as a class of objects are used. Like the samian bowl, and our discussion of its 'Romaness', the social power of an object is determined by its context, and not by the object per se. The 'Europeaness' of the bowl may have no greater significance than the availability of European bowls to support a continued African practice. Thus, in an archaeological application of creolisation we can see that what is posited is the existence of a language of material culture, but the working of that language is not defmed. That defmition must be based upon the specific historic context of the 'lexicon' of objects and their attendant 'grammar'. The role of creolisation in archaeological theory is to conceptualise the existence of a nonacculturative mode of material culture use, not to define it.

Here we can conclude that acculturative Romanisation is no longer a useful concept, but there was a realm within which cultural contact took place as a result of the Roman conquest. In this realm influence may flow both ways: there are hidden transcripts, discrepant perspectives and negotiated power relations. It is a highly complex place, and not all of it can be approached using large-scale social theories or objectively defined frameworks. However, it was this domain where the 'Empire', in the form of its individual agents, exerted its power to dominate those it had conquered. Both the form this process took, and the outcome, were different according to local circumstance. In effect, we have abandoned any notion of a meta-process of 'Romanisation' as a simplistic construct: the reality functioned at a much smaller scale, and was highly varied in character. It is this local variation that we must pursue.

We may relate creolisation to our earlier discussion of Scott's transcripts and to Said's concept of the discrepant discourse. All three are, to an extent, facets of the same idea. A system of 'material culture grammar' is a way of using objects, no matter where they come from or what they are, in a way that is consistent with one's own (discrepant) perspective. It is also partially an articulation of Scott's hidden transcript through the medium of material culture; the hidden transcript is what is exchanged between members of a dominated group that defmes their identity in a situation of constricted freedom. It is not necessarily the case that the grammar of a subordinate group need be 'hidden', but under certain circumstances a subordinate group's use of the material culture of the dominant might be construed as resistance in two ways. Firstly, by absorbing objects that originate with the elite into their own lexicon, and turning them to their own use, the subordinate group 'tames' the dominant culture, adjusting to its presence. But secondly, in doing so the subordinate's way of life and their view of the world are internally re-stated and re-enforced. This is simultaneously an act of resistance and survival. The reaffirmation within the subordinate group of their own identity becomes an act of internal policing against nonnormative modes of behaviour that might be damaging to that subordinate group's chances of successful resistance (Scott 1990: 128-134). For example, in a native community dominated by the Roman Empire the use of imperial material culture in a native way may constitute a very strong statement of resistance, but any attempt to

6

Chapter 2 A Post-Colonial Review of Past Scholarship

2.1

Introduction

Although there was some early work in the region, notably that of Sir William Dugdale (1772) and W. M. Stukeley (1776), the publication of 'The Fenland in Roman Times' (hereafter referred to as FRT), edited by C.W. Phillips and appearing in 1970, marked the first cohesive modem effort to address the issues raised by the nature of Roman occupation with an attempt to set the archaeology in an environmental context. FRT was a product of the work of the Fenland Research Committee, and both its scope and its effect upon the work that followed it were monumental. It is thus the starting point of any desk-based investigation of Roman Fenland, as most later work has built substantially on the foundations laid down by this book.

In the previous chapter post-colonial theory was used to establish a framework for the study of interaction between native and 'Roman' in a landscape setting. The case study chosen to test this framework is that of the East Anglian Fens. In this chapter I shall summarise previous academic work on this area to provide an overview of our current state of knowledge. These texts will be subjected to a post-colonial reading, as argued in Chapter One, a vital first step in writing a post-colonial archaeology. If archaeological writings constitute historically situated texts in their own right, then by deconstructing them we will become more aware of the intellectual framework within which they were produced. Exploring the texts available in this way will allow us to reconsider many of the apparent orthodoxies of Fenland archaeology that have become established on the basis of consensus, rather than actual evidence.

2.2

The work of Simmons (1979), although principally concerned with the nature of the Lincolnshire Car Dyke (the northern portion of the exceptionally large earthwork which runs in disjointed sections down much of the western fen edge), is of broad relevance. The function of the Car Dyke, though disputed, is potentially of key importance to the understanding of the Fens, and Simmons investigates the possibility that this feature was part of a complex water management system.

A Brief History of Fenland Scholarship

The East Anglian Fens, comprising part of the counties of Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Lincolnshire, have a history that is greatly complicated by major changes in the physical landscape over time. The low lying nature of the Fens leave them vulnerable not only to inundation from the sea, but also to fresh water flooding from rivers that flow into the fen drainage basin. Thus both marine and fresh water influences upon the region have combined to make the area prone to large-scale silt deposition and peat formation (Waller 1994: 1). These two basic formation processes occur in different zones, and on this basis the Fens may be divided roughly in two by a line running diagonally from the northwest to the southeast. Southwest of this line are the peat fens, stretching to the southern fen edge (see Figure 2.1). Northeast of this line are the silt fens, running to the Wash coast. On the coastal edge of these deposits post-Roman silt deposition masks any possible Roman activity, but on the silts abutting the peat fens there are great concentrations of settlement debris and crop marks. Scattered throughout this landscape are the fen 'islands', areas of slightly higher ground that were more secure for habitation in changing wetland surroundings. The study of the Roman Fens has been shaped by this environmental context, and it is the history of this work that will now be examined. To this end, rather than attempting a complete bibliographical review, I will first pick out the major milestones in the published research on the Fens, and use these to explore the way in which that research has developed over the last three decades, before going on to examine the major regional models in more detail.

The work of T.W. Potter is the next notable milestone in research on Roman Fenland. Although his work spans many years, of particular importance is his article 'Roman Occupation of Central Fenland' (Potter 1981). This gathered together evidence that related specifically to the central fen islands of March, and Stonea, and the extraordinarily heavy occupation of this area in the Roman period. Major sites were singled out for particular attention: the fort and vicus settlement at Grandford, the possible industrial site of Flaggrass, and the Stonea Grange complex (see further, below). The work of the Fenland Project, published in the East Anglian Archaeology series, and commencing with Volume 1 (EEA 27), 'The Lower Welland Valley' in 1985, represented a great leap forward in the amount of data available in the Fenland. An important element of this project was the Fen Survey (hereafter referred to as FS), which entailed the systematic, parish-by-parish, field wall(ing of the region. The resulting 'parish essays' are invaluable to any examination of the area, providing large amounts of high quality data and reconstructing in detail settlement patterns, changing drainage and major environmental shifts. Much of this work has been summarised in the volume Fenland Survey - An essay in Landscape Persistence (Hall and Coles 1994). The summary volume, presenting a period-by-period overview, goes a large way towards incorporating the survey data into a fresher regional model.

7

Chapter 2: A Post-Colonial Review of Past Scholarship

In recent years the publication of two excavation reports

was considered (Salway 1970: 4) to be only of possible Iron Age date. Salway thus concluded that a dry period had begun at some point in the late Iron Age, but that the Fens had remained uninhabitable until about AD 50 when, not only were the southern peat fens drying out, but, the silt fens were turning themselves into 'virgin lands ripe for settlement' (Salway 1970: 9). The Romans encountered in the Fens an environmental opportunity, rather than a problem, and we shall refer to this model of the initial Roman occupation as the 'virgin lands' thesis, after Salway's wording.

has added greatly to the data available for the Fenland region and its margins. The first, the Orton Hall Farm site (Mackreth 1996), gives a detailed view of a Roman and early Anglo-Saxon farmstead, and whilst not a fen site, its location a couple of miles from the fen edge in the Nene Valley clearly makes it important to the understanding of the relationship between these two different environments. In addition, in the process of considering the site in its setting, Mackreth discusses much of interest to the wider picture. The second report, that on the British Museum excavation of the Stonea site (Jackson & Potter 1996), in large part follows up Potter's earlier work in the central fens (Potter 1981), and represents a major advance for Fenland archaeology. The general lack of high quality published excavation data for other Fen sites makes the publication of a modem and detailed study doubly valuable, but the site is of great significance in itself, with a large stone structure which may have been an administrative centre for the region. In evaluating the site in its context Potter has provided the most up-to-date model of Roman Fenland that we currently have.

2.3

From AD 50 to AD 100 occupation of the silt fens was small scale. Scattered farms appear to have been the rule, with settlement becoming more nucleated and concentrated on canals, roads and droves from about AD 120 onwards (Salway 1970: 7). The region underwent significant development in the period AD 100 - 150, with land already available added to by the drainage of new areas. The bulk of this expansion occurred on the silt fens near the Wash, rather than the more inland peat fens that would have been too wet and unstable to be colonised. Salway considered much of the Fens, certainly any newly drained land and perhaps the bulk of the region, to be part of a vast imperial estate, with contracts for the growing salt industry let out by the estate authorities, possibly to private contractors. The shadow of 'imperial involvement' may also be seen, if one wants to see it, in the construction of large linear works such as roads and canals, and in the lack of villas, though Salway himself described his comments as 'tentative inferences' (1970: 10). The economy of the area was, in this view, harnessed to imperial needs in the form of two complimentary activities aimed at supplying the armies of the North: the rearing of livestock and the production of salt. Supplies of salt meat would ha ve been transported along a canal system, of which the Car Dyke formed an arterial route, a refinement of Stukeley's original thesis of 1776 that the Car Dyke had been used to transport cereals (though, as we shall see in section 2.4, the function of the Car Dyke is open to debate).

The Romans in Fenland - Early Models

Dugdale and Stukeley were the first to study the Roman occupation of the Fens, but as C. W. Philips (1970: iiv) states, this was only a start, and the serious investigation that began between the wars only came to fruition with the publication of FRT. With that publication much diverse work was brought together under the umbrella of one volume. This work will be repeatedly referred to in this project as it marks the essential foundation of modem work on Roman Fenland. However, in this initial consideration of the work to date, I will concentrate on the synthesis chapter 'The Roman Fenland' by P. Salway as being representative of the approach advanced in FRT. It must be emphasised at the outset that 'The Roman

Fenland' established a model for the region which was the most sophisticated effort available at that time, and which in large part still holds basically true. It was supported by the other contributions to FRT, which included the collection of a great deal of surface data, aerial photographs and the gazetteer of sites provided with the volume, as well as a detailed archaeological examination of the settlement patterns, pottery and topographical development of much of the region. As this model is what, to greater or lesser extent, all later interpretations of the subject build and draw upon, an outline of Salway's treatment of the region is recounted here. One of the major starting points of Salway's argument was that the Fens were virtually, if not totally, uninhabited at the time of the Roman conquest. A major marine transgression had occurred into the Fenland between 1300 and 300 BC, a Bronze Age - Iron Age date range. Little Iron Age occupation was known from the Fens, and the one major earthwork of the central fens, Stonea Camp,

Salway considered it probable that the decline of the Fens began as early as the second century (1970: 14-5). Imperial hold over land had probably been strengthened under the reign of Severus by the confiscation of estates belonging to those who had been on the losing side during the civil wars of the 190s, but by this time Fenland sites on lower lying ground were being abandoned. Serious floods in the third century, attributed again to the effects of the civil war (Salway 1970: 16), exacerbated an already deteriorating situation. With the artificial drainage system failing the populace had no real choice but to leave the Fens, and a hiatus of about 50 years between approximately 225 - 250, Salway's '3rd century gap' (1970: 15), was observed on many sites. Reconstruction and re-occupation did not come until the early 4th century when, it is suggested, the problem of the agri deserti in

8

Chapter 2: A Post-Colonial Review of Past Scholarship

Fenland was at least in part solved by a possible 'flight of capital from investment in Gallic landed property into Britain' (Salway 1970: 17). Fen edge villas observed to the east were perhaps the homes of bailiffs, the silt fens around the Wash coast themselves worked by vicani, peasants registered by village.

published by the Royal Geographical Society. Implicit in the title of the work is the assumption that 'the Fenland' is an entity that can be studied in its own right, but that entity is a physical rather than a social one, and there is no evidence that the Fens ever formed a socially meaningful unit (Evans 1992). Rather, it is made up of many such units, each forming part of a wider social landscape (Fincham 2000). This is not, of course, to deny any relationship between people and their environment, but where the landscape is subtle and shifting, as is the case in Fenland, an understanding of human interaction with their surroundings is bound to be even harder to arrive at.

The Fens declined very quickly at the close of the Roman occupation. In the Salway model this region, being part of an imperial estate, lay largely outside the civitas structure of Britain. Consequently, the Fens were left without an effective administration after c.410. With no administration and no functioning authority to even attempt to maintain the artificial drainage systems the ghost of Roman occupation rapidly departed, making it unlikely that many people remained. The Anglo Saxons were not attracted to such a derelict landscape.

The human response to changing environmental conditions is more complex than simple environmental determinism will allow: environmental change may well have a powerful effect upon what people do, but it cannot be conceptualised as a simple motor which powers human activity. To adopt such an approach is to miss the true complexity of human interaction with the world, and fails to understand the way in which people may use environmental shifts to their advantage, may fight against them, accept them, or even simply ignore them: people still have choices to make. As Tilley (1991: 214-215) points out, even the most intensive 'scientific' recovery of preserved environmental data, and artefacts unique to wetland contexts fails to produce an interpretation of the social context within which wetland archaeological deposits were formed.

Having summarised Salway's position (which is itself an overview of the various contributions to FRT), we may engage in a more detailed consideration of the wider influence of this model, and how it evolved. We may begin with the first sentence of Salway's contribution: 'This introduction is a classical archaeologist's view of a problem which is at the same time geographical, historical, and archaeological, and has ramifications which extend into many other fields, especially that of Quaternary studies.' Salway 1970: 1 Consideration of this sentence allows us to make two broad points about the intellectual context within which FRT was produced. Firstly, FRT was quintessentially a work of 'classical' archaeology, and the explicit case was made for approaching the problem of the Fenland from a 'classical standpoint'. Quite what this means we shall return to, but in outline this means that FRT approached the Fenland as part of the Roman Empire, and did not attempt to quantify the effect of empire on Fenland from a native point of view. Thus FRT's outline of the Fenland's history as a region of the Empire was a Rome-centred view, and most of the events of this history were driven by extra regional occurrences like civil wars and imperial politics. Little of what was believed to be occurring in the Fens in this model was 'home grown', and little scope was allowed to the inhabitants of Roman Fenland to have influenced what was happening in their lives. The academic agenda of 'The Roman Fenland', and FRT generally, was essentially a (self-proclaimed) classicalarchaeological one, and had no interest in connecting with the lives of the people who inhabited the area, or in giving them a historically situated voice. This is not in itself an illegitimate mode of study, but it does only provide us with a partial picture.

Therefore, although general environmental data may provide us with a landscape backdrop, it cannot address the social structure of the society that lived in that environment, and these two elements cannot even be tied directly to each other, especially when dating evidence for the archaeology is poor and the environment is shifting. In the same way that colonial archaeology underestimates the contribution of the native and the uniqueness of their situation, environmental determinism universalises the effect of the environment upon its human population. If the effect of environmental change upon a human group is the same in one circumstance as it is in another, then the historical location of that event is denied and we are, in effect, claiming that it does not matter who you are or how you wish to respond to your environment: human behaviour will be determined by overriding external factors. This clearly runs counter to any attempt to conceptualise historically specific 'discrepant perspectives', and whilst it is surly correct to suggest that broad limits may be set upon human behaviour by the environment, it must be recognised that these limits merely defme the context within which individual human choice is exercised. These two main themes, defining and studying 'the Fens' as geographical rather than social entity, and the study of the inhabitants of the region from a Romano-centric perspective, are the twin principal elements that defme the

Secondly, we may note that at a very fundamental level the study area of FRT was defined by geography, not archaeology, perhaps unsurprising in a research volume

9

Chapter 2: A Post-Colonial Review of Past Scholarship

paradigm within which FRT was written. This allows us not only to re-assess FRT itself, but also to consider the impact of this framework upon the work that followed, and enables us to conduct a post-colonial reading of Salway's model. Underlying Salway's consideration of structures of land ownership, settlement patterns and economy is the assumed existence of an imperial estate ( an idea again originally advanced by Stukeley in 1776), for which evidence is at best inconclusive. What we will term the 'imperial estate' thesis, that is to say the suggestion that the Fens were a single monolithic stretch of land that had been incorporated into the res privata and was the personal property of the Emperor, is a recurring and powerful influence. In origin, it grows out of the 'virgin lands' thesis, the proposition being that as new land was created by drainage it would automatically become imperial property. However, as recent work has made clear (Jackson & Potter 1997: 675-677 and Hall & Coles 1994: 92-104) the 'virgin lands' thesis is now not considered viable, and although it is clear that occupation in the region expanded, it is by no means certain that this expansion was due to artificial drainage (Hall & Coles 194: 108-109). Many assumptions, therefore, about the nature of the Fenland landscape have been made on a debatable basis, and we must seriously question the form, or even the very existence, of this 'estate'. The implications of according Fenland the status of (in Salway's words) 'Crown Land' are significant. The lack of villas, the Stonea Grange building, the Sawtry inscription (RIB 230), which simply says 'public[um'(translated by RIB as 'Public Property'), the linear works of canals and roads, the salt industry, and the incidence of artificial drainage, are perhaps not enough, and this question will be revisited later in this study. In summary, Salway provided a model that was superior to any which had previously been proposed. The chronology offered remams useful, and the interdisciplinary approach of FRT, blending archaeological and geographical data, was a significant advance. A framework was established and the academic agenda was set, within which further work could continue. However, as we have begun to explore, it is no longer possible to accept this framework without criticism and modification. The study area adopted was defined on geographical grounds, with no reference to the ancient social structures that once occupied the landscape, thus ensuring that the basic frame of reference was defined by environmental factors, rather than human ones. In that context there was little attempt to address the occupation of the Fens from a native perspective; its history was conceived in terms of its role as a small and poor part of the Roman Empire, and not as a place in its own right.

2.4

The Car Dyke: Transport or Catch-Water?

Although the function of the Car Dyke is a single issue, rather than a general model, the Dyke (and the reason for its construction) is a major component of most of the wider ranging interpretations of the Fenland landscape. For example, readings of the Fens as a major supplier of agricultural produce to the army are based largely upon the interpretation of the Dyke as a transport feature. Different interpretations, like that of the Dyke as a catchwater, can therefore significantly influence consideration of the landscape as a whole. Thus, although the use of the Dyke is only a single issue, it is an unusually important one and a topic around which much has been said. The Car Dyke is discussed in this section in order to clarify and inform our consideration of wider interpretative issues. As touched upon earlier, William Stukeley first advanced the interpretation of the Car Dyke as a supply route for shipping grain from the Fens in 1776. Both Richmond (1963: 102-3) and Frere (1967: 313) largely followed this view, considering the Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire sections of the Car Dyke to be parts of a unified canal system which acted as a main transport artery, but with a secondary function as a catch-water drain for the Fens. Salway (1970: 11-13) also subscribed to this interpretation, with the slight modification that the cargoes carried on the canal were likely to be animal products rather than grain. Salway also noted (1970: 13) that although he considered it likely that the Car Dyke was a continuous feature, some sections of the canal between the Cam and the Nene 'still lack convincing proof'. Simmons (1979: 191-192) highlighted the fact that the Dyke was neither continuous nor as uniform as had previously been suggested, questioning the need for a canal at all, considering that a coastal route for military supply shipping was more likely. This being so, he suggested that the Car Dyke had been constructed to intercept upland water flowing from the west which would otherwise pass straight down into the Fens, overwhelming the natural drainage to the sea and flooding reclaimed and low-lying areas. The water would be stored in the Car Dyke until it could be released in a controlled fashion, flowing into a second north/south dyke, east of the Lincolnshire Fens, that would have run behind a putative sea wall. This feature is called the Midfendyke, and it is here that the water would be stored until the ebb tide when it could be released into the sea. Such a system would have controlled the flow of fresh water into the Fens, allowing to it be periodically carried beyond the saltem sites on the silts. The saltems relied upon brine to function, and the system that Simmons proposed would prevent upland runoff from diluting the salt content of the ground water, thus allowing the salt producing industry to maintain, and perhaps expand, its operations. This suggestion also has the merit of explaining why the Car

Chapter 2: A Post-Colonial Review of Past Scholarship

Dyke was discontinuous, and had many undug sections (Simmons 1979: 190-192). As a catch-water drain it did not need to be continuous, whereas the many breaks in the Dyke, often allowing a road to cross, would be a serious obstacle to its use as a long distance canal.

The chronology for the central fens advanced by Potter matched the Salway chronology well, with a few interesting additions. Firstly, was the development of the region in the late Neronian and Flavian periods. Grandford, a large nucleated settlement on the northwest tip of March Island, was occupied in perhaps AD 65-75, and is both unusually rich and early for the area. Potter suggests that it began life as a Roman fort, perhaps briefly occupied in the years immediately after the Boudiccan revolt, and early military activity on this site has recently been proven by aerial photography, which demonstrated the existence of two early forts at Grandford, one overlain by another (Potter & Robinson 2000). Potter points out that in general there was a considerable density of occupation on the central fen islands, consisting of large 'village' settlements, possibly surrounded by dependant hamlets. Flaggrass, on the opposite site of March Island to Grandford, rapidly became an 'emporium' site located at a crucial point on the developing communications system of canals and roads. Potter considered it possible that a special effort had been made to encourage settlement in the second half of the first century, with an expansion of the region's economy in AD 100 to 150, a suggestion supported by patterns of coin loss over time.

The principal objections to Simmons' theory are its complexity (the manning and operation of the many sluice gates required), and the fact that it does not extend south of Bourne. These points are raised by Mackreth (1996), when he proposes that the Dyke is principally a boundary between two types of administration. In this model the Dyke divides the huge imperial estate that Mackreth considers to exist in the Fens to east - though as we have seen this is a problematic issue - and a native civitas to the west. Mackreth suggests that the Dyke's relationship to local topography reduces its effectiveness as a drainage feature (1996: 234) and that the monumental nature of the Dyke make it principally political, rather than functional. Hall and Coles (1994: 109) adhere to the 'Car Dyke as supply route' thesis, with minimal discussion of other interpretations. As Mattingly (1997d: 500) suggests, their rather slim consideration of the issues surrounding the Car Dyke is not sufficient to convincingly re-establish the older interpretation. The function, or functions of the Car Dyke thus remain obscure, but it is clear that the discussion still centres on Stukeley's original suggestion of 1776, transmitted into the modem debate, albeit with modification by Salway. Although challenged by Simmons and Mackreth the interpretation of the Car Dyke as a transportation canal continues to exercise a powerful influence.

2.5

All of these central fen sites were affected by the midthird century flood, being either completely abandoned, or suffering a hiatus in their occupation at this time. Thick flood deposits across the Fen Causeway may also be ascribed to this period (Fincham 1999b: 25 & 28). Potter suggested that some elements of the canal system, traditionally ascribed an early Roman date, might belong to this later period, interpreting them as works designed to assist reclamation once reconstruction was under way after Salway's 'third century gap'.

The Roman Occupation of Central Fenland In general the fourth century was a boom period for this

The next major contribution to the interpretation of the regions archaeology is 'The Roman Occupation of Central Fenland' by T.W. Potter (1981). As a general statement it is fair to say that Potter's 1981 model amplifies, advances, and supports the earlier work of Salway: Potter views the history of the region in similar terms, with a few modifications. One important difference, however, is Potter's treatment of the LPRIA in the central fens. By the time of Potter's article there were already the first indications that there was more to the Iron Age in the Fens than had previously been thought. A short section on the Iron Age (with D. N. Hall) in Potter's article ascribes such Iron Age activity to the period before the marine incursions that cleared the Fens at some point in the middle Iron Age. It was therefore considered that re-settlement began slowly in the early Roman period, with Stonea Camp being the earliest post flood (late) Iron Age site in the central fens. Thus, although there were hints of Iron Age activity, in 1981 the case was still being made for the 'virgin lands' model of the early Fenland.

central region, with the late reconstruction of Grandford in imported stone to create well-appointed buildings. However, a gradual degeneration began in the mid-fourth century (the artefact record declining from c. 350) that culminated in a large-scale evacuation occurring at some point following AD 400. Potter's study concluded that there was at least a small Anglo Saxon presence, but, with the region reverting to waterlogged fen, little survived. Potter's work in the central fens allowed him to refine the economic sketch presented by Salway from a general statement concerning pastoral farming: ' ...I am now fairly convinced that the major agricultural products of the Fenland were animal...' (Salway 1970: 14), to a picture of a specifically sheep-orientated economy. Bone assemblages recovered from the area supported the suggestion that sheep were the primary animal farmed in the Fens, with cattle a secondary concern and the presence of both pigs and horse being minimal. This contrasts with most Romano-British sites outside Fenland, which have a bias towards cattle (King 1978). Furthermore, the age profiles of the sheep bone

11

Chapter 2: A Post-Colonial Review of Past Scholarship

assemblages examined from the central fens may be indicative of wool production, rather than meat. This, combined with the large numbers of loom weights recovered from central fen sites, strongly suggested to Potter that the wool industry was an important component of the regional economy. Along with the salt industry, the importance of wool production (large-scale wool production being linked to imperial mills) was taken as further supporting evidence for imperial ownership of land in the Fens. However, cattle were still numerous, and Potter adds meat, hides and cheese to the list of important Fenland produce. This economic activity 'readily explain[ s] the affluence that is well attested in the archaeological record, especially for the later Roman period' (Potter 1981: 131), though we might note the relative nature of affluence, particularly with regard to the Fens. In a region where the standard of Roman period material culture is generally regarded as 'poor' what is regarded as 'affluence' would be unremarkable elsewhere.

Survey (FS), summarised in Fenland Survey - an essay in landscape persistence (Hall & Coles, 1994) and in more popular format in Changing Landscapes: The Ancient Fenland (Coles & Hall 1998). It is the summary volume of FS (Hall & Coles 1994), rather than the detail of the various aspects of the Fen Survey, which is dealt with here, as it is the overall picture created by the studies carried out under the project umbrella that concern us at the present. Much of the Fenland Project's more detailed work will be considered in depth later. FS made four significant contributions to Fenland archaeology that are of interest to our current discussion. Firstly, FS greatly increased the number of known sites. Secondly, was the detailed examination of the LPRlA and early Roman salt producing industry in the southwestern Lincolnshire Fens. This is a specific element of the settlement and industrial landscape, and not of direct interest to an investigation of the wider Fenland context, but it is linlrnd to the third main contribution of the Fenland Survey: the demonstration of significant LPRlA activity in the region. Indeed it might be said that it was the work of the survey that turned the Iron Age in Fenland from a period of void into one of activity and settlement. The fmal contribution of FS was the detailed consideration of environmental change, though as discussed bellow, the linlrnge of the refined environmental framework to the archaeological data is problematic.

The underlying themes of Potters 1981 interpretation of the Fenland landscape may thus be summarised in the following way. A hierarchy of settlements was created either by the presence of a fort (Grandford) or by some other form of deliberate official encouragement. The paucity of Iron Age activity creates a situation where the Fenland must have been an 'artificial' landscape, structured by a linear, and very 'Roman', system of communication; this clearly relied upon the continued applicability of the 'virgin lands' thesis. The driving factor behind all development is the 'government': Roman authority indulging in building programmes, importing and evacuating populations, structuring settlement patterns and generally dominating the economy. The Roman authorities did this both through land ownership in the form of imperial estates, and through direct economic control in the shape of the production of salt, wool, hides and meat. Thus Potter's vision of the Fens, while perhaps less prone to environmental determinism than pervious interpretations, fails to give the 'native' population any influence over what was happening to them. It presupposes no native involvement in the development of the region, allowing the Roman authorities to create a landscape from scratch with no pre-existing social structures to contend with. From a post-colonial perspective we can suggest that such an approach not only rules out any consideration of the power relations in Fenland by accepting an uncontested Roman hegemony, but also in so doing hinders consideration of the historically situated experience of both the authorities and the natives.

2.6

Of these advances, it is the increasing knowledge of LPRlA Fenland that had the greatest impact on our understanding of the history of the region. The principal implication of the Iron Age evidence collected by FS was that the mid Iron Age inundation, which in previous models had been disastrous enough to preclude any late Iron Age activity at all in the Fens, had not been as all encompassing as had been previously suggested. There was probably continuous occupation in Lincolnshire, with the salt industry of the Roman period being founded on pre-Roman activity. In the south, although many lowlying sites were drowned, the fen islands were still occupied, and the density of population in the southern Fenland approached that of the same area in the Roman period (Hall and Coles 1994: 92). However, dating of sites in the Fenland with reference to the marine incursion is difficult, and for several reasons it is thought that late Iron Age sites may be under represented in the ceramic evidence of the region (Hall & Coles 1994: 103). This may be because of an isolated and conservative population clinging to middle Iron Age pottery designs well into the late Iron Age, a possibility supported by the fact that 'middle Iron Age' pottery occurs on some sites with early Roman wares. This being so, the dating of sites within the Iron Age is problematic, but what is certain is that at least some of the earthworks of this general period were of LPRlA date. Stonea Camp has been dated to the mid-first century AD by Potter & Jackson (1982), with a later Iron Age phase also suggested by finds of Icenian coins. Wardy Hill, Coveney, a small ringwork on the Isle

The Fenland Survey

The Fenland Project was published as part of the extensive East Anglian Archaeology Series from 1985 onwards. The principal element of the project is the Fen

12

Chapter 2: A Post-Colonial Review of Past Scholarship

of Ely, was also shown to be late Iron Age. Thus, largely as a result of the work of FS, the picture of the Iron Age Fens, even if still chronologically imprecise, has been radically altered. This has importance for our understanding of early Roman settlement because the existence of even small numbers of LPRIA sites casts serious doubt on the 'virgin lands' thesis, which as we have seen, underpins much of what has become orthodoxy in the Fens. The possibility that sites, which are in fact late Iron Age, have been misdated on the basis of pottery evidence, only accentuates this difficulty.

medieval parish boundaries had no relevance. At the very level of the raw data FS thus obscures the structure of Roman period communities by breaking up the landscape in an inappropriate way. The format of the 'Parish essay' is meaningless for the Roman period, and constitutes a major weakness of this work. Finally, we must question the intimate linking of archaeological and environmental data provided by FS. This may be done on both general and specific grounds. The more general problems lie in the nature of 'wetland' archaeology. The somewhat artificial division between wetland and dry land archaeology is essentially based upon a geographical, rather than social distinction, and in studying 'wetlands', we are considering certain types of landscapes where evidence survives which is not available elsewhere (Wainwright 1989: 1). This has lead to a focus upon the extraordinary preservation of certain types of data in wetland contexts and upon data recovery, rather than generating socially informed interpretations of this data. Tilley (1991) identifies this as a specific failing of People of the Wetlands (Coles & Coles 1990), but this is also true of individual wetland sites like Flag Fen ( e.g. Pryor 1989; 1992). This can be observed in wetland archaeology as a whole, which tends to focus on methodological (see the various volumes produced by the Wetland Archaeological Research Project, e.g. Coles, Coles & Dobson 1990 and Coles & Goodburn 1991), preservational (Coles & Coles 1989) or environmental (Cox, Straker & Taylor 1994) concerns, rather than broader interpretative issues. This manifests itself in the case of FS in the basic paradigm of the project - the intimate linking of environmental re-constructions to archaeological data.

For the Roman period the general picture painted by FS is of a landscape developing very much along the lines of the updated Salway model presented by Potter (1981). The widespread and large-scale adaptation of the landscape occurred for the first time. Salt making was a major industry, and was positioned along the landward edge of the silt fens to take advantage not only of brackish water, but also of peat for fuel. The other major element of the economy was animal husbandry, driving animals down onto the unstable peat fens for pasture during the summer. Activity in the central fens included the construction of the stone tower, market place, and settlement at Stonea (Jackson & Potter 1997). The settlement was laid out in regular blocks, and was the nearest thing to an 'urban' centre in the Fens at this period. The structure was advanced by Hall & Coles (1994: 121) as a possible administrative centre for the Fenland imperial estate. It was also suggested that parts of the Fenland might have belonged to private upland estates, and rented out to 'fenmen' who were content to live a simpler life style than those elsewhere. This was a significant statement as it is one of the few occasions that the natives of the Roman Fens have been allowed a part in determining the structure of the landscape which they inhabited, and an admission that landholding in the Fens might be more complex than the idea of a monolithic imperial estate allows (Hall & Coles 1994: 121). Even so, it was left simply as an afterthought and not pursued.

The broad chronological understanding of environmental change is a poorly refmed structure for the division of archaeological data. Although it is possible on this basis to create a crude synthesis between the environment and settlement, inevitably the resolution of settlement chronology will be lost. This is so with FS: the broad categorisation of landscapes as 'Roman' or 'Pre-historic' are driven more by the need to fit the known archaeology into the available environmental framework, than by lack of dating evidence for settlement. The result is a chronology composed of great periods of time that mask the detail of social change, and settlement patterns which appear to alter radically from period to period in line with significant environmental changes. The overall effect is to stress settlement discontinuity and environmental change, giving the impression that the environment was the most important cause of change in the social landscapes of the region. Thus, the FS model is more susceptible to the charge of environmental determinism than the model advanced by Potter in 1981, at least in part because it was constructed within an emerging tradition of environmentally deterministic wetland archaeology.

When subjected to a post-colonial reading it can be seen that FS provided a great deal of new data, but that this was simply slotted into the established model of the Fens, and used to flesh out, rather than challenge, the status quo. It is a significant symptom of this that Chapter Seven (Hall & Coles 1994: 105-121) of the FS summary volume, dealing with the Roman period, was entitled 'The Colonisation of New Lands'. This effectively re-stated the 'virgin lands' theory, whilst at the same time presenting data that begin to undermine such a view. We must also note that the actual collection and presentation of data on a parish-by-parish basis, although appropriate for the medieval landscape, was wholly inappropriate for that of Roman period for which

13

Chapter 2: A Post-Colonial Review of Past Scholarship

2.7

Orton Hall Farm

was the logical place to have acted as the urban base for a Procurator and his staff, charged with the administration of this vast imperial territory. This Procurator - a purely speculative official for whom we have no evidence - may have been based at a large 'palatial' structure which has been detected under the church of the village of Castor, to the north of the old Roman town.

Two site reports, Orton Hall Farm (Mackreth 1996) and Stonea (Jackson & Potter 1997), not only add greatly to the limited amount of modem excavation data available in the region, but also between them provide the fmal modifications to the regional model which need to be considered before we are in a position to move forward. Firstly, we need to consider the site of Orton Hall, a fen edge site to the west of the Fens proper. It began as a small pre-historic farm, and underwent several wholesale rebuildings before becoming a recognisably more 'Roman' establishment in the second century. It was suggested by the excavator that at some point in its history the farm fell into imperial ownership, and that events on the farm echoed those in the surrounding region. It was suggested that the farm was used to house 'refugees' from the floods of the third century, when many settlements were abandoned. Intense flour production in the fourth century was ascribed to official demand, and the passing of the site from Roman to Anglo-Saxon hands, which seems to have been comparatively early, occurred through the official settlement of immigrant populace in the manner of foederati.

Orton Hall Farm is interpreted as a site to which 'evacuees' from the third century Fenland floods (the cause of Salway's 'third century gap') were moved, along with their livestock. The increased nucleation of settlement after the floods, noted by Hallem (1970: 58), is seen as a possible result of the 'different distribution of usable land once the worst of the flooding had gone' (Mackreth 1996: 235). As already noted, the central fens experienced prosperity following the post-flood recovery (Potter 1981: 131). However, the fourth century was a time of lessening activity at Durobrivae, despite the importance placed (in the 'Orton Hall Farm' view) on the rebuilding of the palatial structure beneath Castor church. Larger in its fourth century version than it had previously been, this structure is interpreted as a possible candidate for the headquarters of the Comes of the Saxon Shore. During the fourth century Mackreth (1996: 236) suggests that increased production and extra accommodation at Orton Hall indicates a change of ownership, the farm passing into the Res Privata. This is important, because the Anglo-Saxon population at Orton Hall had the social integrity needed to produce goods for themselves, and they did so at a time when significant amounts of Roman material was still in circulation. This is a fact that has relevance for the farm's possible status as imperial property, as it suggests that Orton Hall was handed over 'largely intact' to a group of Anglo-Saxons, settled on the farm as foederati (Mackreth 1996: 237). Although evidence for the early Anglo-Saxon period is thin in the region, both Orton Hall Farm and Stonea have such remains, though, as we shall see when we discuss the latter site, each report presents a different picture of the end of Roman control.

The regional context constructed for this site was, in part, a modified model of the Fenland region, and merits closer examination. Some consideration was given to the effect of Iron Age settlement on later patterns, at least on the fen edge; it was suggested that the communications system used under the Romans owed at least something to that which had gone before (Mackreth 1996: 232). On the upland fringes of the Fens large ditches were cut, and these were interpreted as the division, on an economic basis, of the landscape in the first century AD. A reorganisation of the uplands occurred in perhaps 150 - 200 AD, after which larger tracts of land were controlled from fewer sites. Orton Hall farm was one such site, and it continued to be occupied, perhaps with increased land attached to it, to serve the growing market of the local town of Durobrivae. The re-organisation of the landscape in 150 - 200 was synchronous with, and considered to be probably part of the same process as, the major developments in the Fens at that time.

The principal difficulty with the view of Fenland offered by Mackreth is its heavy reliance on conceptualising the Fens as a monolithic imperial estate. There is, as Taylor (forthcoming) has argued, no archaeological evidence for this view, ownership of land being a difficult question to address with little in the way of inscriptions recovered from the region. However, it is from this basic assumption, already shown to be seriously flawed by the presence of a LPRIA population in the area, that much of Mackreth's thesis proceeds. This is not to state that no territory was owned by the res privata in the region, but simply to suggest that we cannot assume that all the land between the Car Dyke and the Norfolk fen edge was held in this way. Indeed, even on the basis of Mackreth's model for the Orton Hall Farm site we can question his wider interpretation of the Fens. He envisages a single

The Fens are interpreted in the Orton Hall Farm report as an imperial estate, and, as discussed earlier in section 2.4, the Car Dyke is considered to be a boundary ditch which marks the line between the authority of the local civitas (to the west) and direct imperial authority (to the east). Durobrivae expanded significantly at this time, and it is this growing town, with its associated industries of pottery and iron smelting, that Mackreth considered to be the logical administrative centre of the Fens (contra Jackson & Potter (1997) who argue that this function was performed by the Stonea site). In tum, the developing Fenland provided a market that craftsmen located at Durobrivae could exploit. Thus, it is argued, Durobrivae

14

Chapter 2: A Post-Colonial Review of Past Scholarship

property, the farm, passing into imperial ownership. This indicates that 'imperial property' may have been on the scale of individual holdings, rather than whole landscapes.

2.8

site is not a particularly wealthy one when set in a wider provincial context. The Rl structure, a possible market on possible imperial land, and perhaps the base of the Fenland administration, was demolished in AD 220 for reasons that are not clear. However, the site itself continued and its basic economy (principally that of jointed meat production), persisted with little change. There was no third century gap on the site, and so it appears to have been unaffected by the supposed flooding of the time. Here we must reconsider Mackreth's contention that refugees from the third century floods were moved to Orton Hall (Mackreth 1996: 235). One of the reasons given for this choice of destination was that the farm was imperially owned land. However, if Stonea was also imperially owned, we might ask why Stonea would not have been a more obvious location for at least some of Mackreth's putative evacuees? Of this we see no sign, a fact that perhaps undermines any thought of a widespread third century 'evacuation'.

Stonea

Stonea Camp, close to the later Roman site of Stonea Grange, is the largest earthwork known in the Fens. The most recent work on this site (Jackson & Potter 1997) suggests that its period of principal activity was during the client state of the Iceni. Coinage finds from the site clearly indicate that the central fens were in the Icenian sphere of influence: 88% of all Iron Age coinage found at Stonea Camp was Icenian (Jackson & Potter 1997: 677). The Camp seems to have fallen out of use sometime after the Boudiccan revolt, and it is suggested (Jackson & Potter 1997: 689) that the Stonea area was added to the private property of the Emperor at the time of the death of Prasutagus, King of the Iceni. In the period 130 - 150 a planned settlement, laid out on a

The fourth century upturn brought the reconstruction of a stone structure on the Rl site - though the nature of this badly plough-damaged building is unclear, it seems certain that it was architecturally substantial. Thus Stonea witnessed renewed importance at a time when the Fens were (according to Mackreth's scenario) being run by the Comes of the Saxon Shore, or his staff, from the Palace at Castor. It is a major weakness of Mackreth's interpretation of the Fenland that he fails to accommodate the structure at Stonea into his picture: it was known of at the time of his writing, even if not fully published, but the only consideration given by him to this unusual and architecturally elaborate structure is to deny its importance (Mackreth 1997: 234).

regular grid, was constructed. At its heart was a large structure, the 'Rl building', equipped with an associated market place. It is suggested by Potter that the founding of the Stonea settlement was an attempt to create a market in the central fens, and it is possible that the Rl structure was the base for the administration of the region. In his 1981 article Potter suggested the existence of a fort at Grandford, immediately post-dating the Boudiccan revolt, a conjecture since proven by aerial photography, which, as mentioned earlier, revealed two forts, one on top of the other (Potter & Robinson 2000). Potter & Jackson suggest that military rule of the area after the Boudiccan revolt might have been based upon a fort in this location (1997: 677), which would certainly explain that settlement's early origin, and its wealth compared to neighbouring settlements. By the time of the establishment of the Rl structure administration of the Fens may have been conducted by a centurion based in this building, making the site at Stonea Grange the effective imperial 'headquarters' of the region. This contrasts with the Orton Hall picture (Mackreth 1996) of a Fenland governed from Durobrivae or Castor, and Mackreth goes so far as to deny explicitly any need to see Stonea as the important administrative site that Potter wishes to make it (Mackreth 1996: 234).

Anglo-Saxon remains were discovered at Stonea and Potter & Jackson argue for continuity in the population. The early Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of the site were thus the direct descendants of the Roman occupants, an interpretation markedly different to that at Orton Hall where the Anglo-Saxons were considered incomers. Late Roman/early Anglo-Saxon ceramic use is complex, and it is simplistic to assume that pottery styles indicate the ethnicity of a site's occupants (Cooper 1996: 92-93), something that should lead us to treat Mackreth's claims for a group of Anglo-Saxon settlers at Orton Hall with caution. If Orton Hall Farm does indeed represent a site where migrants settled it is virtually unique, and it does not present us with a model that is widely applicable. As Cooper (1996: 93) stresses, such a step would leave us with the problem of explaining the sudden disappearance of the Romano-British population. From a post-colonial perspective such an interpretation is, in any case, flawed, in that it assumes a direct and unchanging link between stylistic factors like pottery design, and identity: it allows the native no room to exercise choice.

The economy of the site at Stonea was at variance with other central fen sites in that it seemed to be a centre for the processing of lamb, the animals butchered and sent on as joints, as opposed to the wool producing economy suggested for Grandford and other sites (Potter 1981: 13). It is also a peculiarity of the site at Stonea that although it has a proposed political importance, its material culture does not, at first sight, appear to support this high status interpretation. Although there is a significant body of material of a high status nature by Fenland standards, the

15

Chapter 2: A Post-Colonial Review of Past Scholarship

We perhaps possess too little information to generalise about the end of the Roman occupation of the Fens, but it must at least be a possibility, given the fact that AngloSaxon remains have been recovered on both modem excavations we have in the region, that there is more to the first few decades of the fifth century than has yet been accepted. The identification and dating of sites relies heavily on pottery, and in an area such as the Fens, already in decline by the end of the Roman period and materially poor by the standards of much of the surrounding region, an aceramic period after the Roman departure (Cooper 1996: 93-94) may be a concept of particular relevance. Rather than the sudden decline envisaged by Salway (1970: 18-19) it is perfectly possible that an aceramic phase in the fifth century rendered a dwindling post-Roman population archaeologically invisible. The site at Stonea Grange survived (roughly) until the mid-seventh century, and it seems illogical to assume that it survived in total isolation, particularly given the poor quality of our data.

2.9

population. Neither report offers a comprehensive model of the end of this period, though this is not surprising: evidence for the early Anglo-Saxons period is thin. Whatever the important differences between Mackreth's interpretation of the region, and that of Jackson and Potter, an important area of common ground remains. Both views still address the agenda of Salway, and all discussion remains rooted in a Rome-centred view (Fincham 1999c). For Potter (1997: 690) the failure of Stonea as a putative urban centre and the subsequent dismantling of the Rl structure is demonstrative of a 'wafer thin' sense of Romanitas amongst the inhabitants of the region, leading to the failure of the local inhabitants to take on the running of alien institutions inserted into their landscape. In his view this is the failure of overoptimistic Roman expectations. No consideration is offered of how the failure of Stonea may even have been seen from a native perspective: the possibility, for example, that it may actually have been a victory for passive resistance, and the struggle to retain elements of a non-Roman identity, is not entertained. For Mackreth the important issue is the re-construction of the imperial administration, the lands administered and the palaces built. These are not unimportant issues, but they are considered without reference to a social context. Orton Hall Farm itself may have been imperial property, but identification of this possibility masks any consideration of what this may have meant to the occupants of the site.

Conclusions

We can summarise the history of scholarship on the Roman Fens in the following way. The publication of FRT in 1970 gathered together a great quantity of information and forcefully advanced a multi disciplinary model of the history of the Fens during the Roman period. In many ways this work continues to set the academic agenda, not least through the continued view of the Fenland as an area 'created' by Rome from scratch, despite accumulating evidence to the contrary.

No commentator to date has advanced the thought that the 'poverty' of the fens following the Boudiccan revolt, and the failure to wholly 'Romanise', might be something more dynamic than a simple economic malaise brought on by the aftermath of the first century rebellion. It is simplistic to consider the less than exuberant participation of Fenland in the Roman Empire as a hang-over from a somewhat messy Roman imposition of direct rule: a sickly economic backwater not responding properly to the treatment prescribed to it. It is perhaps time to challenge this agenda, and to look at the Fens through the eyes of the natives who lived there. In doing so we can make them more than merely people to whom the Empire 'happened'. However, if such a theoretical approach is to be more than a superficial gloss, it must be applied in such a way that it structures the manipulation of the available data at a fundamental level, and that is the theme of the next chapter.

This model, and the academic agenda that has evolved from it, was taken up by others who followed. Potter in 1981 refined Salway's interpretation, providing detail on the central fens. The rolling publication of the Fenland Project volumes continued to augment the framework established in 1970, and the publication of the FS summary volume (Hall & Coles 1994) provided a precis of the survey results; one of the main achievements of this work was to demonstrate the existence of a greater level of Iron Age activity in the Fens than had previously been recognised. Relative consensus on the development of the Fens, however, has been recently undermined, firstly by the publication of Orton Hall Farm (Mackreth 1996), and then by the publication of the report on the excavations at Stonea (Jackson & Potter 1997). These two reports present visions of the Fens that, as we have seen, are greatly at variance on issues like the nature of imperial involvement in the region, the administration of any such involvement, and the nature of events at the end of the Roman occupation. At Orton Hall Farm it is felt that an imperially owned site was given over to foederati, where at Stonea, which is also considered to be imperial property, there was continuity from the original native

16

Chapter 3 Modelling the Fens

3.1

Such inconsistencies between survey data sets of the same area thus make the integration of such information highly problematic.

Introduction

The critical re-evaluation of past scholarship on Roman Fenland in the previous chapter has illustrated important flaws in the way in which the available archaeological data was organised and interpreted. That deconstructive exercise will now act as the basis for the development of a theoretically informed methodology for the re-analysis of the information contained in the gazetteer of FS and FRT. The application of that methodology will allow the re-modelling of the Fenland landscape, and a comparison with more traditional interpretations.

3.2

the current project such difficulties manifested themselves at the level of creating a database; with two separate surveys it was necessary to merge the two sources of information, each collected in a different way. FRT provided a collation of chance finds, small scale excavation, and field walking evidence in its gazetteer, a comprehensive, if eclectic and variable source of pre1970 information. The FS, however, collected data in a systematic fashion, with a relatively standardised project methodology, outlined in each individual volume ( e.g. Hall 1992: 10 - 12 & Hall 1987: 14 - 17). In summary this methodology consisted of traversing available areas of the landscape in 'strips' 30m apart, focusing down to a Sm separation where debris was discovered (Hall 1987: 12). Clearly this provides a different kind of data to areas of the FRT study zone that were not intensively studied (i.e. the area covered by S.J. Hallam), and thus creates extra ambiguity in attempting to reconcile the two surveys. As FS had not attempted to systematically correlate its results with those of the earlier FRT, an initial step was to identify where the same site was identified in both surveys. Thus the published site coordinates from each survey had to be compared, and the matching sites recorded. During this process, however, it became clear that many published co-ordinates were not exact. Where FS (on occasion) explicitly linked sites with sites recorded in FRT, it was not uncommon for the coordinates to be different in the two gazetteers. Thus even co-ordinate data is occasionally 'interpretative'. In

A Note on Approaches to the Data

One of the most notable aspects of the published material available on the Roman Fenland is the almost total lack of modem excavated data, the principal exceptions being Stonea Grange (Jackson & Potter 1997), and Grandford (Potter & Potter 1980, Potter & Potter 1982). The rest is either patchy excavation of considerable vintage or the sketchy outlines of sites recovered in amateur excavations (e.g. the Welney House, see Salway, Bromwich and Hallam 1970: 231 - 233). In terms of throwing light on the general patterns of settlement in the region the excavated data is wholly inadequate, and the majority of evidence available is in the form of published surveys. Therefore, an important issue to address before moving on to examine the specifics of the Fenland data is that of creating an integrated database from different surveys. Witcher (1999: 47 - 49) considers survey comparison in detail, and the basis of his study of Italy, like that of Alcock's of Greece (Alcock 1993) is built around comparison of surveys of different regions, though Green (1995: 221 - 222) expresses doubts about Alcock's synthesis. Much of the available literature focuses on this broad area of debate ( e.g. Cherry 1983 and Alcock 1993), and Thomas (1972: 6) goes as far as to include the ability to use survey data 'in conjunction with comparable work from different regions compiled at different times' as part of his basic definition of what 'survey' is. However, the merging of survey data sets throws up different, but related methodological problems. One of the principal problems faced in this current project is the fact that the Fens has been covered by two surveys, each producing different data sets, with no attempt by the latter (FS) to refer in a systematic fashion to the former (FRT). This is emphasised in Witcher's (1999: 60 - 61) brief examination of 'resurvey', in a cited example from Barker, Coccia & Jones (1986: 301), in which a threeaisled building with a visible plan could not be identified just a few years later. The same resurveying operation also demonstrated that small sites increased in number each time an area was investigated (Barker 1991: 5).

Due to the styles adopted by both surveys there is very little quantitative data available, and the distributions of most classes of artefact are recorded in the form of 'presence or absence'. Given these limitations it was necessary to adopt an approach which focused upon the strengths of the available data set, principally the wide area of coverage provided by survey techniques, but which acknowledged the main weakness of survey data: its lack of detail. For example, it was not possible to construct a typology for structures based upon excavated ground plans, there having been only a handful of ground plans published, but sites could be categorised according to the presence/absence of classes of material culture regularly recovered during survey like pottery or roof tile. In essence we are required to think in a way which recognises the form of the data that we are working with, rather than attempting to function within paradigms derived from other forms of evidence. This might determine what we can realistically say about the interpretation of a single site, or it may operate at the level of a regional agenda: whether or not the Fens were an imperial estate is, as argued earlier, largely a question 17

Chapter 3: Modelling the Fens

unanswerable by survey data. 3.3

Methods of Analysis

3.3.1

The Data Base

dates for samian and NVWCC assemblages refined the dating of some sites published in either survey. This was not often the case, however, and where no more detail than simple presence of samian or NVWCC was available, samian was categorised as belonging to period two, and NVWCC to period three. It was outside the scope of this project to generate more accurate dates from a re-analysis of the original collected assemblages.

The results of merging the data available from FRT and FS are presented as a full site gazetteer in Appendix One. Sample gazetteer entries are presented on Table 3.1. All sites were allocated a distinct site code, then recorded under various database headings: Co-ordinates, Environment, Community Number, Status Rank, FRT Designation, FS Designation, Description and Principal References. Careful consideration was needed to combine the two sets of survey data without losing any of the detail. FRT presented its findings as a series of letter codes, indicating the presence/absence of particular classes of material. This coding system was easily extended to the FS microfiche gazetteer, allowing direct comparison. Conversely, the Lincolnshire portion of FS adopted a more detailed system for recording the types of pottery present in the survey area than either other parts of the FS or FRT. Generally pottery types were recorded only on a spasmodic basis, though the recording of the occurrence of samian, Nene Valley Ware Colour Coat (NVWCC) and the generalised class of 'grey ware' was relatively consistent in the FRT Gazetteer. It was thus possible, at least in part, to extend the Lincolnshire FS pottery recording system to the rest of the data available. Although the results obtained outside the Lincolnshire survey area can only be considered reliable for the classes of pottery mentioned above, both Samian and NVWCC are key diagnostic ceramics for the dating of sites, one being principally early, the other late. Other less significant sources of data added to this basic body of information.

A five period chronology was adopted, as laid out in Table 3.2. Period one spans the years 0-100 AD, period two 101-250, period three 251-350, period four 351-450, and period five contains all sites which are 'Roman', but cannot be dated with any greater precision. The period based chronology is traditional in its approach in that it presents a single, unified picture of chronological development, with little room for sub-regional variation, and has been used to create an aggregate chronology. It must be noted that not all past treatments of chronology in the Fens have lacked complexity and detail. The work of Hallam (1970) and Hayes et al. (1992) treated the available data in a detailed and sophisticated way, but both of these studies were conducted in a limited area of the Lincolnshire Fens, and neither was located within a broad social context. Their results will be looked at in more detail, and integrated into this study, in Chapter Five. As Table 3.2 illustrates, the dated periods one to four run from the LPRIA to the early Saxon period. Period one covers three phases of activity, the LPRIA, the client state of the Iceni, and from the Boudiccan revolt to the end of the first century. Sites of this period are difficult to date specifically: the difference between LPRIA and client state sites is especially problematic, and it was considered more realistic to treat this period of early Fenland development as a single 'archaeological phase' in the landscape, rather than attempting to impose unrealistically precise historical divisions. Period two covers the height of the Fenland landscape, the great expansion of the second century to the 'third century gap'. Period three is essentially the period of fourth century recovery to the effective end of large scale Roman occupation. Period four nominally begins in AD 351, but it is probable that many period three sites were actually abandoned sometime after this date. However, the specific late fourth century ceramic evidence has not been recovered or recognised to demonstrate this, and it should be acknowledged that the chronological framework for ceramic use at the end of the Roman period is problematic (Cooper 1996). The boundary between periods three and four should not, therefore, be conceived of as a fixed point in time, but rather a fuzzy boundary, the end of period three overlapping with the start of period four. The function of period four is to isolate only sites that are confirmed as existing in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.

In considering the analysis of settlement data it is first necessary to consider how that data is encoded and processed. Presented here are two principal sets of statistics: aggregate and complex. The aggregate figures, whilst not grounded directly in previous methodology, have been devised to model the traditional picture of development in Roman Fenland. Specifically, the chronology is period based, and the analysis of status is orientated to Roman style wealth display. The second presentation of the data is more complex, designed to address issues raised by post-colonial theory. Analysis of the Fenland settlement data was conducted in terms of 'Chronology', 'Environment' and 'Status', and the methods used to codify the raw data to address each of these areas of enquiry are presented in the next three sections. In each, the definition of the aggregate statistics is followed by the development of the complex analysis.

3.3.2

Chronology

Some sites were ascribed dates by FS and FRT ( dates retained in the Gazetteer produced here), on a basis that was not apparent. The majority of sites were, however, dated on the basis of recovered pottery, with accurate

When categorising sites chronologically it was considered too simplistic to remain with aggregate totals for the number of sites extant in each period across the study area, and this lead to the development of 18

Chapter 3: Modelling the Fens

chronological groups. The aggregate approach could not reflect the possibility that there were distinct subpopulations of sites that were behaving in ways contrary to observed general trends, and would thus mask any variation from the 'norm' of the average pattern. However, by categorising each site with a two digit chronological code, individual populations of sites could be examined. The first digit of the code represents the period in which the site is first visible, the second digit the last, and this range of chronological groups is listed on Table 3.3. This system allows detailed consideration of the limited available dating evidence, and breaks down monolithic statistics that tend to obscure more subtle patterns.

3.3.3

Hall Farm, are located on this fringe. The second category is that of the fen islands, gravely islands of solid ground out in the Fens. Thirdly, there is the peat fen, inland and wetter than surrounding environments. The fourth area, the silt fens, separates the peat fen from the Wash. These seaward silts were extensively settled in the Roman period, being slightly higher and dryer than the peat to the south and west. This traditional 'environmental reconstruction' is schematic, and has clear problems. Most obviously it is a generalised static picture of what in reality would have been a dynamic environment, and does not reflect general changes in that environment over time. It may be argued that large changes would have occurred slowly, and probably been beyond the perception of the individual. However, such a static model also fails to take account of the smaller changes like annual floods, which would occur on in a more human time scale, and thus may well have shaped human response to the Fens far more than long term environmental trends. Also, the environmental categories are what have been termed as 'crisp' (Eastman 1997: 9, 24), i.e. that they are too rigid to accurately reflect the uncertainties of a Fenland landscape.

Environment

Understanding archaeology within the context of a dynamic environment is a task with its own particular problems, and it is an area of study with is fast developing (Gillings 1998). The significance of the Fenland environment to the development of the settlement pattern is something which will be considered in more depth later on, however, a brief consideration of how sites have been categorised by environment is necessary here. Although the Fenland environment is notoriously complex - as stressed by FS - it is not always the case that this complexity can be closely tied to settlement history. It is exceedingly difficult to date features like shifting fen creeks with any reliability or precision, and in an environment where there is so much change even the chance finds of pottery or other datable material in creeks are more probably re-deposited from sites which have been eroded out, rather than in situ finds which can be used for dating purposes. FS presents broad correlations between environment and settlement pattern, but there is little explanation of how these correlations were achieved, and although the phases of environmental activity claimed are plausible, they span centuries rather than decades. As a result, the chronology adopted by FS for archaeological remains is also broad, functioning at the level of, for example, 'Roman' or 'Medieval'. In this way much resolution in the settlement pattern is lost. It is clear that FS has made a large contribution in linking site distribution to environment, but only at the expense of the detailed settlement history of the Fens. This project aims to address social rather than environmental issues, and it has thus been necessary to adopt a much-simplified environmental scheme. Environmental data clearly has to be taken into account, but dealt with in such a way that we do not allow it to dominate all aspects of analysis, or create a false sense of integration between maps of creek systems, and maps of settlement.

The problem of conceptualising environmental change in human terms has been addressed in relation to the Tisza flood plain of north eastern Hungary (Gillings 1998: 122). Gillings (1998, 128-132) adopts a 'fuzzy' approach to dynamic flood environments that allows him to 'embrace [environmental] uncertainty'. In this approach environmental boundaries are envisaged not as hard lines with no area, but as transitional zones that occupy a volume of physical space within which we must envisage a variable 'transitional' environment. An example might be a fen island where, instead of conceiving of the boundary between wet peat and dry gravel as a fixed line, either side of which the environmental conditions are different, we think of the island as being surrounded by a band of ground in which the transition from wet peat to dry island is gradual. This is a zone where we might expect frequent flooding or partial peat development, an area used only intermittently, perhaps on a seasonal basis. Such zones are, however, difficult to define without extensive fieldwork outside the scope of the current study. A complex interpretation of the environmental context of sites, without allowing that context to dominate the analysis, is thus difficult to achieve, and the basic four fold environmental scheme is retained.

3.3.4

Status

A traditional hierarchy of sites in the Roman landscape is illustrated by survey work on the lower Nene valley (Wild 1974: 150-157). In Wild's analysis of the agricultural landscape to the east of Durobrivae the basis of discussion is the 'villa estate': villa buildings are considered in terms of the nature of their architecture, with no corresponding discussion of alternative forms of wealth display, or any consideration of low status settlement at all. In this model there is only room for

The Fens have traditionally been divided into four main environments (Salway 1970): the fen edge, the fen islands, the peat fen and the silt fen (see Figure 2.1). The fen edge marks the point at which 'dry land' rises out of the low-lying Fenland regions, and also includes an upland fringe. Sites that may be connected with the Fens, but are not directly in, or on the edge of them, like Orton 19

Chapter 3: Modelling the Fens

'Romanised' structures like villas to occupy any position of status in the settlement hierarchy. The application of such a hierarchy to the Fens is evidenced by characterisations of the area as a poor (Potter & Jackson 1997: 690, Hall & Coles: 121). This view is based upon the lack of substantial stone structures, which in tum has been considered to support the idea of the Fens as an imperial estate (Salway 1970: 10). This traditional approach leads to the identification of only stone buildings as status sites, and that is the basis for the generation of the traditional status model used above.

wealth and building material - were examined separately. The evidence for each indicator type from each site was given a numerical rank between one and three, as displayed on Table 3.4. These three ranks for each status indicator relate to the potential level of that material on any given site. If we were to consider, for example, the gazetteer entries for sites 67 33 01, and 77 50 04 (see sample gazetteer entries on Table 3.1) we see that the first site has brick and tile, but no portable wealth, and the second site had bronze work, but no sign of substantial architecture. On the 'building material' scale 67 33 01 scores two, but site 77 50 04 only scores one. On the portable wealth scale 67 33 01 scores one, but 77 50 04 three. A site like 78 22 01, from which bronze, building stone, and tile was recovered clearly scores three on both scales.

More sophisticated approaches are available, however. Taylor (1996: 209-210) broke down the crude architectural division of 'villa' /'non-villa' by considering what evidence was actually available from sites in Northamptonshire. A three-class scale was established on the basis of the presence of stone and tile indicating one level of status, with a higher status level being signalled by the presence of indicators such as tessera, and specialised tile, like box flue. What this still does not allow is the identification of sites where status is exhibited in none architectural ways. If, for example, the population of an area displayed social status through portable wealth (coinage or metal artefacts) this would be completely missed by an architectural hierarchy. Portable wealth, by its very nature, belonged to a person or group of people and unlike architecture can be transported to new locations; such a situation would not allow the easy identification of 'status sites'. Therefore, an area rich in portable wealth, but where architectural elaboration plays a lesser role in status display, is unlikely to provide us with a neat settlement hierarchy. If occasional finds of portable wealth were not identified for what they were, an area may even be characterised as poor, simply because it lacked architecturally elaborate sites. This has obvious implications for the Fens, a traditionally 'poor' landscape that, at least in parts, has produced a significant number of precious artefacts.

This allows us to construct a gradation of status within each status indicator: whether a particular settlement has more or less building material or portable wealth than neighbouring sites. To record the balance between portable wealth and building material the three categories of each group were used to form the axes of a simple matrix chart (see Table 3.5). This matrix was then used to generate a digit between one and nine. These in no way reflect a progressive numerical encoding of status, but are simply a way in which the different combinations of status display can be identified and numerically tagged. This figure is referred to as a site's 'status group'. If we take site 78 22 01 as an example, we see that it belongs to status group nine. In this way we can ascribe a code to a site that describes its level of status as defined by a range of indicators, and this allows for a more complex conceptualisation of status that does not rely upon a ranked scale of 'Romanised' building forms. However, discussion of status on the basis of the nine status groups leads to a fragmented picture. This is avoided by the development of a less complex model created by the considered re-amalgamation of status groups into 'trends'. Thus sites display status in terms of portable wealth (groups two and three), building material (groups four and seven), or a mixture between the two (groups five, six, eight, and nine). It must be noted that only status groups seven, eight and nine would be considered as status sites in the traditional model.

A principal aim of this project is to explore the archaeology of the Roman Fenland in a manner informed by post-colonial theory. The theory is well established, but actually applying it to the data is problematic, the central problem being the structuring of the data to allow the recovery of some form of native perspective. As was seen in Chapter Two, much previous work in the Fens has been underpinned by an essentially Romano-centric viewpoint, and this is particularly true with regard to the wealth (and by implication the social status) of sites. The identification of the Fens as a 'poor landscape', and the use of poverty as mechanism for explaining the regions failure to 'Romanise' (Potter & Jackson 1997: 690, Hall & Coles: 121) ignores the fact that failure to use Romanstyle material culture may have been a conscious choice, and that 'poverty' may actually equate to a cultural form of resistance (Fincham 1999a). Thus, a theoretically aware approach is particularly important when we are dealing with the concepts of 'wealth' and 'poverty'.

Pottery was not considered particularly significant on sites exhibiting high values in the other material categories: it makes no sense to ignore the status implications of stone walling or multiple coin finds on the strength of, for example, the failure to find samian. Also, pottery was not thought to be a particularly accurate guide to status, given issues of choice and availability that might affect its use (Cooper 1996). Pottery was thought to be of most use in considering the lower end of the status scale, i.e. sites with no portable wealth or architectural elaboration. In this situation ceramic use forms the only possible indicator of differing patterns in the use of material culture, and provides a measure by which to begin considering the vast majority of sites that would otherwise be lumped together as 'low status'.

To address these issues, and to generate a more complex status model, the principal 'status indicators' - portable 20

Chapter 3: Modelling the Fens

Using the coding system for portable wealth, building material and pottery proposed above allows us to consider status in a manner informed by post-colonial theory. The development of three status trends allows the identification of differing traditions of status display in the landscape, giving us the opportunity to consider the possibility of divergence from the 'Roman' norm. As will be seen when we consider the Fenland landscape, these differing methods of status display can contribute to our understanding of wider cultural affiliations, and have a direct bearing on the question of colonial negotiation between conquered and conqueror.

the broadest level.

3.3.5

At sub-regional level we face the problem of defming sub-regional units. The traditional approach is to subdivide settlement by the environment within which sites existed, e.g. analysing all sites on fen islands as a group. There are, however, obvious problems with this. There is no reason to suppose that social structures that defmed the type and degree of settlement were themselves determined by the environment: it places environmental factors back at the centre of our analysis, at the expense of the social context. The main advantage of such a scheme is the easy defmition of such areas, and thus environmentally based sub-regional patterns do provide some basis for the break down of the regional picture. The regional and sub-regional patterns outlined above will be established in the rest of this chapter, first on the basis of the traditional 'aggregate' statistics, and then on the basis of a more complex analysis.

It is clear, of course, that such a level of analysis lacks any regional detail. The application of post-colonial theory to archaeology is leading to an increasing realisation that many aspects of life are determined at smaller scales than simply that of 'being within the Roman Empire'. One level of analysis may therefore be a regional view. This provides us with some variation, but this is still a 'macro level'. A purely regional analysis, although providing an outline of activity, will gloss over all detail. We must conduct our analysis at a smaller scale than this.

Settlement Size

Size was originally intended to be a category of analysis when considering the settlement pattern. However, in both FRT and FS the size of sites was only occasionally recorded and then in anecdotal fashion. The available data would not support the application of a size category in a systematic fashion. The FS parish maps do portray settlement areas, but most of these sites have been ploughed for many years. The surface evidence for sites that is detected during field walking has thus been 'smeared', and the site areas presented by FS were not considered reliable enough to merit complex analysis. Hallam (1970) did conduct some research into the size of settlements in the Fens, and did so before the most serious damage by ploughing had occurred. Consequently, her research, although limited to South Lincolnshire, probably cannot be improved upon, and will be returned to in detail in later chapters.

3.4

The second approach, conducted in detail in Chapters Five to Eight, is socially based, and involves the identification of ancient communities, and their analysis as units within a broader social landscape. This has the advantage of being directly relevant to the lives lived in that ancient landscape, rather than being an analytical abstraction distant from the native experience. In this way we may apply post-colonial theory to survey data and recreate a genuine sense of discrepant experience within the landscape. The principal disadvantage, as will be seen when this analysis is conducted, is that the identification of an ancient community is an interpretative act, the units of analysis being based upon subjective judgement, rather than something that has been objectively defined. However, if we are to get closer to the native experience, we must accept this limitation.

Analytical Framework

Section 3 .3 of this chapter outlined various aspects of the data that can be used for the generation of broad statistics ( e.g. 'chronology'), and discussed how the data was to be converted into a numerical form to allow such treatment. The first problem that we encounter when trying to refine this picture is that of defming a unit of analysis within the landscape; at what level is our analysis to be conducted? This issue is of some importance, as it relates not simply to the size of a given study area, but, if we are attempting to work within a historically meaningful framework, must relate to the scales of social interaction in the past (Champion 1994). For the Fens this difficulty has been addressed elsewhere (Fincham 2000), but the answer leads to a high degree of complexity. Any given settlement will interact with neighbouring sites at many different scales, and all of these scales require investigation to reach an understanding of the relationship between that site and the landscape within which it exists. At the broadest level, a small farm in the Fens is part of a province within the Roman Empire. Although interaction at this scale will be such that those living in that settlement may scarcely be aware that they are enmeshed in such a relationship, it will determine many aspects of their lives. Taxation, the presence of the army, urbanism: these are examples of possible areas of life determined at

The remainder of this chapter presents the results of region wide and environmentally based sub-regional analysis, in both their traditional and complex forms. Although what is achieved by regional analysis is by defmition a 'generalisation' the value of these results is that they allow us to understand how, at a regional level, the distribution of settlement through both time and space is structured. Some degree of detail is achieved through a comparative analysis of the distribution of sites by environmental category and site status and the figures generated from this more complex breakdown of the data are compared with the traditional picture. The approach taken in presenting the results of this analysis is to 'layer' 21

Chapter 3: Modelling the Fens

the statistics one category onto another, presenting the results of the chronology first, then examining these results in the light of the environmental breakdown. Finally this combined picture is looked at in the light of the statistics generated by the analysis of status in the settlement pattern.

3.5

The Aggregate Statistics

3.5.1

Aggregate Chronology

the settlement figures for period one demonstrates this variance to be statistically significant: there were more period one sites on the fen islands than expected. This is important, as many of these early fen island sites have Iron Age beginnings (see Table 3.8), whilst almost all early silt fen sites were founded during the early part of the Roman period, with the exception of the south Lincolnshire salt production sites. Salt production in south Lincolnshire has a demonstrably Iron Age origin (Hall & Coles, 1994, 115), although individual sites can be difficult to date.

The basic five period chronology that was adopted for this study is outlined in Table 3.1. Although not directly based on Salway's (1970) model, these broad time slices enable us to represent that chronology statistically. The number of sites that occur in each period is plotted on a simple bar chart in Figure 3.1, information that is presented numerically on Table 3.6, and this largely supports the traditional picture presented for the evolution of settlement in the Fens (Salway 1970: 9, 15 and 18).

Figure 3.4 shows the distribution of sites in period two, and we can see the development of the fen edge and an increasing exploitation of the peat fens. The north western group of peat fen sites, located in southern Lincolnshire, indicates the continued pursuit of salt production in this area. Figure 3.5 also shows the marked increase of sites on the silt fens. Compared with the number of sites identified in the study area during period one the increase can be seen to be substantial. In fact the X 2 test for period two demonstrated that there were considerably more sites on the silt fens at this time (341) than was predicted by the null hypothesis (317.4).

In this traditional history, period one was a time of very

low intensity occupation. In period two, however, occupation expanded rapidly, spreading out onto the silt fens. Period three saw some instability in the settlement pattern, with widespread flooding and increased nucleation of settlement. The settlement pattern was refounded in the late Roman period, before the collapse of occupation during period four. This collapse led to the complete abandonment of the Fens by c. AD 410.

3.5.2

Figure 3.5 shows period three, when the distribution of sites was slightly different to early patterns. However, the actual density of settlement was roughly similar to that in period two. Many sites had vanished by this time, but new foundations replaced them. This partial disjuncture in the settlement pattern is traditionally interpreted as the result of significant flooding in the early third century (Salway 1970: 14-15).

Chronology and Environment Figure 3.6, showing only the sites that were definitely still occupied by the end of the fourth century, illustrates a marked retreat in levels of settlement across the whole study area. It is worth noting that the only two sites in the Fens proper to have produced evidence for sunken feature buildings were both located on fen islands (sites 49 14 01 (Stonea), and 29 44 01), perhaps indicating that settlement once again retreated to the fen islands, returning to a similar situation to that which pertained in the LPRIA.

The division of the Fenland into basic environment groups has been discussed above. Figure 3.2 and Table 3.7 present site distribution by environment and period. Distribution by period across the four Fenland environments was subjected to X 2 testing. What the tests aimed to measure was variance by period from the general distribution of the total of all Roman sites by environment. What this can demonstrate is whether the spatial distribution of sites in one period is significantly different from the average distribution of all periods, or whether the difference between observed and expected distribution is simply the result of random fluctuation.

Sites, which were identified as 'Roman', but could not be dated more closely, are displayed on Figure 3.7. These sites are spread fairly evenly throughout the settlement pattern, accounting for roughly half of all sites in each environmental group. As noted above, we cannot simply dismiss these as sites for which we do not happen to have dates - they represent an important class of non-fineware using settlements. The significance of this group will be discussed as part of the detailed discussion of the landscape in Chapters Five to Seven.

What the results of these tests demonstrate is that there is considerable variance over time from the expected distribution of sites. Periods one, two and four vary significantly from the expected distribution, and it is 95% probable that this variation is not random. The distribution of sites is presented pictorially in Figures 3.37. These figures combine two sets of data, showing sites not just within their environmental categories but also by period. Figure 3.3 shows period one, with relatively large numbers of sites on the fen edge (especially in the south of the study area), and a scattering of early settlements on the silt fens. Given that their numbers were always comparatively small, the number of 'fen island' sites in period one is worth noting. The application of a X 2 test to

3.5.3 The Status of Sites The traditional image of a status site is that of a 'substantial structure' (Salway 1970: 10). In essence we are considering stone structures, perhaps with other 22

Chapter 3: Modelling the Fens

features like a mosaic floor, or with accompanying portable wealth. Wild (1974: 150-157) uses this model in his discussion of the 'villa' landscape west ofDurobrivae. The result of the application of this defmition of status to the Fens is displayed on Figure 3.8 and numerically on Table 3.9. The overwhelming impression given by these figures is of a relatively rich fen edge, but of a poverty stricken landscape in the rest of the Fens. With only seven status sites on the silt fen, and five on the fen islands, there would appear to be virtually no status settlement, when compared with the 57 status sites on the fen edge. However, as will be seen during the examination of the more sophisticated statistical model of the Fens presented here, this picture can be challenged strongly by a more nuanced understanding of status display, generated by the application of post-colonial theory.

3.6

A Complex Model

3.6.1

Chronology

Thirdly, the number of undated sites in chronological group 50 is very large, some 47% of the total. This may be expected in a data set comprised mostly of evidence collected during survey, but the absence of either of the principal mediums for dating, NVWCC or samian, is an indication that these sites form a possible socially significant group. Many of these sites may be considered as the 'poorest' sites in Roman Fenland because sites with dates were, by definition, those that used fineware, and therefore seen as richer. This may lead to the assumption that what we in fact have is only a chronology of the richer sites, and that we have ignored the poorer elements of the settlement pattern. As noted earlier, issues of consumer choice and ceramic availability complicate the issue, and we cannot assume that pottery functions as a simple status indicator. Nevertheless, it is clear that the chronology that we can construct on the basis of recovered pottery is only the chronology of fineware using sites, and that 'undated' sites cannot be simplistically dismissed as 'undated'. This would amount to ignoring sites that, for whatever reason, had failed to partake of Roman-style material culture potentially a key group for a post-colonial study.

It has long been recognised that the picture of 'rise and

fall' that appears in the aggregate chronology does not tell the whole story (Salway 1970: 14-15). The use of chronological groups (outlined on Table 3.2) aims to break down the aggregate statistics to establish a more complex historical outline for the region, and the results are plotted on Figure 3.9 and Table 3.10. In this presentation of the chronological behaviour of sites ( as opposed to the traditional picture based upon periods) the complexity of the situation is revealed.

Finally we can also see that period four sites - those which are definitely still in existence by the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries - are not the same as those in existence in period one, i.e., the pattern of settlement at the time of the Roman conquest did not outlive the departure of Roman authority, nor can even be demonstrated to have survived to the end of it. It is principally sites founded in periods, two and three which make up the period four settlement pattern. This is revealed in the fact that of the 100 sites in existence in period one, only ten of them survive to period four.

Four key points, which are worth noting here, emerge from Figure 3.9. Firstly, the total number of sites existing in period one (those sites on Figure 3.9 in chronological groups prefixed with a 1) is larger than might be expected in the light of theories of Fenland colonisation in the second century. This information is displayed in numerical and percentage terms on Table 3.10. Although not as intensive as in later periods, there is considerable early settlement, and the size of chronological group 13 (55 sites) indicates that a core of this period one settlement survived until near the end of the Roman occupation.

Although it is possible to pick out such general trends from the breakdown of sites into chronological groups, it is in comparison with the other statistical groups outlined in section 3.3 that this framework is of most use.

3.6.2 Chronology and Environment

We will now discuss the complex chronology of the Fens with reference to environmental groups. The distribution of sites across all environments is presented on Table 3 .11. On the fen edge, as for the whole region, there are a significant number of early sites, more than half of which last into period three. The numbers of early sites are dwarfed by later occupation, but a core of settlement with its origins in the pre-Roman period does persist. Moving to the second and third centuries, it may be seen (Table 3. 7) that the aggregate figure for fen edge sites is 152 in period two and 167 in period three - relatively static. However, when we break these figures down in terms of chronological groups (see Table 3.9) we see that 42 period two sites (groups 12 and 22) fail, and are replaced by 57 sites (chronological groups 33 and 34) which are not founded until period three. Like the overall regional pattern on the fen edge, aggregate figures suggest a stability not supported by the chronological groups

Secondly, we might note the comparatively high site failure rate in period two, represented by chronological group 22 (7.2 % of the total number of sites). These are sites, which failed before the beginning of period three, but this decline is balanced by the rapid site foundation rate represented by the appearance of chronological group 33 (8.7%). The comparatively large size of these single period groups is an indication that occupation of the Fens, even at its height in periods two and three, was not stable. We should compare this with the impression given of period two and three by the aggregate statistics (Table 3.6). Across the region there were 575 sites in period two, and 587 in period three, and increase of a mere twelve sites. Without the complex breakdown this might be interpreted as a period of stability. 23

Chapter 3: Modelling the Fens

model. Table 3.11 presents chronological groups as a percentage of the total number of sites in each environment, and from this we can see the relatively large size of groups 22 and 33, being 7.6% and 11.6% respectively of fen edge sites. This illustrates the instability in the settlement pattern of the fen edge.

supported by the fact that chronological groups 22 and 33, which indicate the rate of failure/foundation in the mid-Roman period, are insignificant in the fen islands: they are composed of just four sites each. On the silt fens and the fen edge these two chronological groups are sizeable, demonstrating a degree of settlement instability not registered in the aggregate figures.

Table 3.12 presents failure and foundation rates by period on the fen edge, providing an objective measure of settlement stability. The same information is presented pictorially on Figure 3.10. From these representations it appears that settlement was dynamic, with large numbers of sites failing, but large numbers being founded to replace them. The percentage of sites that can be regarded as being 'stable', neither being founded nor failing in the period under consideration, and representing 'continuity' through time, is less than that the of the combined foundation/failure rates. Some of this pattern may be due to the failure to find the correct types of pottery, or other factors distorting the pottery use of a site. However, so many sites exhibit this pattern that it seems unlikely that it should bear no relation to chronological reality.

The type of analysis carried out for the other environmental areas has not been conducted for the peat fen. In this environmental category a very small number of sites is spread across a large geographical area making such figures unreliable. A superficial examination of settlement distribution (see Figures 3.3 to 3.7) shows that settlement and exploitation of the peat fens was always either conducted at the margins of the peat fen (implying that this exploitation was actually the exploitation of peat fen resources by communities based in neighbouring environments), or was associated with artificial features like the Fen Causeway. This being the case the peat fen sites must be analysed in the context of the broader communities of which they were on the fringe. This clearly cannot be done until such community structures have been identified, and thus consideration of the peat fen sites is postponed until Chapters Five to Seven.

The distribution of chronological groups by environment is susceptible to X 2 testing, in a similar way as that for the testing of environmental distribution by period. In examining the phenomenon of sites on the fen edge that failed in period two being replaced by period three foundations, the null hypothesis is rejected for both chronological groups 22 and 33 at a significance level of 5%. Although the fen edge is not a significant source of error for the X 2 test for group 22, it is for group 33. This indicates that the general rate of site foundation on the fen edge was higher in period three than was expected, relative to other environments.

Finally, we must consider the silt fens. The silt fens have more sites in each period than any other environmental group. Looking at period one, we see a relatively small, but not insignificant, number of sites in chronological groups 12 and 13. If we look at Table 3.11, which displays each chronological group in numerical form, we see that although early activity in the silt fens was limited in percentage terms, the actual numbers of sites involved was quite large (a total of 38 sites are known in the silt fens from period one). Once again there is evidence for a significant level of early activity.

Turning to the fen islands, we see that there are proportionally more sites during period one than in any other environmental group (Figure 3.9, and Table 3.11). Of the total of fen island sites 22 % were founded in the LPRIA or late first century: these are listed on Table 3.8. Chronological groups 12, 13, and 14 represent the sites that continued in existence into later periods. Individually these groups were too small to be subject to X 2 testing, but they could be re-combined. Thus a test was conducted on the summed figures of these three chronological groups across the whole study area, and the null hypothesis, that the distribution of sites across all environments would be in consistent proportions through time, was rejected. Although this test was of all period one sites, rather than those simply on the fen islands, the greatest source of error was the persistently high number of sites observed in period one on the islands. The continuity of sites from period one can thus be demonstrated to be a significant factor in the settlement history of this environmental category. This leads us to discussion of the settlement stability figures in Table 3 .13, presented pictorially on Figure 3 .11. The fen island settlement pattern was more stable than that, for example, of the fen edge, an important factor in any consideration of the social structure of this area. This picture is

Silt fen chronological group 23 is the largest dated group of sites from any period from any environment. When the distribution of chronological group 23 across different environments is subjected to X 2 testing the null hypothesis is rejected, and a large source of error is the high number of sites on the silt fens. This illustrates the dramatic increase in settlement density on the silt fens in the early second century. However, it is interesting to note the relatively substantial chronological groups 22 (62 sites) and 33 (63 sites) on the silts. As in other environments, the aggregate figures mask a rapid 'tum over' of sites in the settlement pattern. Although group 22 represents a substantial number of sites which were only short lived, and quickly failed, group 33 replaces them, creating the impression in the aggregate statistics that the number of sites is static ( a difference between 341 sites in period two and 338 in period three). An apparent drop of three sites in the aggregate figures hides the appearance and disappearance of a large number of sites. This level of 'instability' in the settlement pattern (see Table 3.14 and Figure 3.12) is similar to that discussed in the context of the fen edge.

24

Chapter 3: Modelling the Fens

between Longthorpe Fortress and the fen edge. A second concentration lies in an area to the south of the Fens, around Cambridge, and the third is located to the east, in and around the villas of the Norfolk fen edge. This will be considered in detail in Chapter Seven, but for now it is sufficient to note that the clustered nature of this wealth is obscured by the use of the generalised category 'fen edge', illustrating the limitations of the crude subregional scheme provided by dividing sites into environmental groups.

3.6.3 Complex Status

The distribution of sites through time and the development of the landscape within four broad environmental categories has been established; the next step is to examine the question of the status of settlements within this background. The traditional definition of a status site as being one of 'Romanised' stone construction leaves us with a very limited picture of the graduation of status of sites from poor to wealthy. Sites exist in only one of two states: they are either rich or poor. With the more nuanced status categories advanced in section 3.1.4 we may achieve a spectrum of wealth. The results of the application of this status model are shown on Table 3.15, which clearly shows the high numbers of low status sites across the settlement pattern.

A fourth major concentration of portable wealth in the study area is located in the central fens. The fen islands would appear to conform to the general regional pattern of status display, with most status sites of the architectural elaboration type, and lesser numbers of the portable wealth and mixed trends. As with wealth on the fen edge, the behaviour of this cluster in the statistics is masked by the general category 'fen islands', which includes all sites on all fen islands, no matter how far apart they are. The central fen islands (and parts of the silt and peat fens adjacent to them) clearly constitute an entity in the statistics which needs to be considered separately. The definition of this area lies in the distribution of portable wealth and substantial architectural remains, and is considered in Chapter Five. The central fens themselves are considered in detail in Chapter Six.

Turning to look at status (see Table 3.15), groups four and seven, which together comprise the building material trend, account for most of the status sites in the study area. Therefore we can see that there is at least a partial trend in the Fens to construct buildings of varying degrees of architectural elaboration, but which do not necessarily have accompanying portable wealth. The next largest status groups are two and three. These represent the opposite trend - portable wealth, but no architectural elaboration. All remaining categories (five, six, eight and nine) represent sites where material wealth and architectural elaboration are mixed to varying degrees, and contain fewer sites. This suggests that in the Fenland landscape there is a tradition of either architectural elaboration, or the acquisition of portable wealth, but rarely both on the same site.

The proportion of low status to high status sites is highest in the silt fen, and so in terms of the categories used in this study, the silt fen appears to be the poorest element of the study region. This supports the picture provided by the significance testing. In terms of the trends apparent, there are less mixed trend sites (relative to the other two trends) in the silt fens than in any other environment. The silt fens are thus the most polarised of the four environmental groups. A glimpse at the distribution of such wealth illustrates that although there is a significant amount of portable wealth in the silt fens it is concentrated in the south, close to the central fen islands. Clearly, as with the fen edge and the fen islands, a pattern exists within the environmental block of the silts that is not expressed in environmentally determined statistics.

The building material and portable wealth trends were both subjected to X 2 tests, and the null hypothesis, that status sites in both trends were distributed across the study zone evenly, irrespective of environment, was rejected in both cases. For both the architectural elaboration trend, and the portable wealth trend, the most significant source of error was a higher number of status sites than expected on the fen edge, and a correspondingly lower number in the silt fen. The mixed trend sites did not occur in sufficient numbers to allow significance testing using X 2, but this in itself supports the impression that the mixing of status trends on the same site was rare. These tests inform our discussion of status by environment.

The evolution of classes of status by trend over time is presented on Figure 3.13 and Table 3.16. In chronological groups 33 and 34 the percentage of sites showing architectural elaboration is higher relative to the number of sites showing evidence of portable wealth, than in any of the other chronological groups. Group 23 also contains a high proportion of architecturally elaborate sites, as this is the period in which most such sites were in existence. Architectural elaboration thus seems to be a feature of periods two and three, weighted towards period three. This might suggest that architectural elaboration was essentially a feature of the later Roman period.

Moving to examine some detail of the pattern we have demonstrated, it can be seen (Table 3.15) that the fen edge had the richest concentration of wealth in any of the environmental groups, to an extent confirming the regional picture, but this regional picture lacks detail. The fen edge conforms to the general regional trend of a majority of status sites being of the architectural elaboration trend, with some portable wealth sites, and few of mixed tradition. However, the distribution of these sites is not even around the fen edge, but clustered in three major zones. One cluster is around the Nene, where the river enters the fen, and the portable wealth finds are concentrated roughly along the line of the Fen Causeway

In summary we can say that the consideration of the fen edge, fen islands and silt fen point to the inadequacies of using environments to define 'social' boundaries, and undermines the environmentally deterministic approach 25

Chapter 3: Modelling the Fens

which has hitherto dominated Fenland archaeology. We cannot treat the 'fen islands' or even the 'fen edge' or the 'silt fen' as being significant to the settlement pattern at anything but the broadest level. The people of the fen islands simply did not behave as a group - different islands behaved in different ways.

levels, and an acknowledgement of the 'native perspective'. In failing to model ancient communities, we fail to model that perspective. We have, however, achieved the first two levels of analysis, the regional, and the environmentally based sub-regional. These analyses need to be interpreted and understood, before we can proceed to a more refined model. That interpretation is the subject of the next chapter.

3.7 Summary The difficulties of conducting an analysis of survey data, and constructing analytical schemes to examine patterns of chronology, environment and status, have been addressed. It is clear from the comparison between simplistic, generalised 'aggregate' statistics, and a more complex approach, that considerably more can be extracted from survey data by the use of a developed statistical breakdown. Indeed, it can be demonstrated that the aggregate statistics actively mask some features of the settlement data. This is particularly evident when we consider the issues of settlement stability, what constitutes a 'status site', and the influence of the environment upon the settlement pattern. A simple chronology made up of 'period slices' provides a picture of the net increase or decrease in the number of sites in a given area, but fails to chart the rise and fall of different groups of sites within that area, groups which may be behaving in opposite ways, and thus statistically cancelling each other out. In other words, if the rate of the foundation of sites equals the rate at which other sites are failing, an image of stability will result. With regard to status, it has been demonstrated that constructs of 'Romanised' status, i.e. stone buildings with mosaics and prestige objects, conceal sites where status my be displayed in a non-Romanised way, and thus conflates issues of poverty and possible non-violent resistance. Broad characterisation of the settlement pattern by environment does produce some notable results (and is superior to a generalised regional view), but closer examination demonstrates that this sub-regional model suffers from two failings. First, the results are distorted by the attempt to treat environmental areas as unitary entities: some social structures may transcend environmental boundaries. An example of this is the central fen area, including as it does, the central fen islands, some the adjacent peat fen, and the silt fen north of March. But the reverse is also true: many social structures may be contained within the same environmental category. The wealth clusters of the fen edge illustrate this second limitation. They are all fen edge phenomenon, but they are discreet from each other. Analysis has demonstrated general character traits broadly common to sites across particular environments, so at one level environmental categorisation provides a valuable insight into the structure of Fenland settlement. However, one of the major results of this analysis is to demonstrate that the settlement pattern, although influenced by environment, is not wholly determined by it. A post-colonial

approach demands analysis at many

26

Chapter 4 Interpreting the Model

4.1

'a coast free from supratidal barriers ... similar to the present coastline but without the man-made sea defences. As sea-level rose the unconsolidated pre- and early Flandrian sediments of the present offshore zone would have been reworked across a wide, low gradient, intertidal and subtidal zone.' Shennan 1994: 35

Introduction

Having advanced both the traditional and a revised model of the Fens in the previous chapter, and demonstrated the advantage of a detailed analysis of the available data, it is now time to consider the implications of this revised model for our general understanding of the study area. The principal aim of this chapter is, therefore, to create a generalised interpretation of the Fenland, within which a more detailed study of different sectors of that landscape can be conducted.

4.2

This is important, because the nature of the coastal environment has an impact upon how we consider the coastline, and it's location. Salway (1970: 8-9) considers the issue of the ancient coastline, offering a map where the inner limit of the silts were considered to give a rough approximation of the Iron Age shore line. Simmons (1980) uses both environmental data, and the distribution of the regions archaeology to construct an image of the Iron Age (Simmons' figure 32) and Roman coastlines for the area (Simmons' figure 31). Simmons' coastlines are reproduced here as Figures 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. However, as Simmons (1980: 56) himself points out terms like 'coast and 'coastline' infer a fixed boundary between wet and dry. As considered in chapter three (section 3.3.3), such a concept is an artificial construct, and this is particularly so given the 'open coast' model envisaged by Shennan (1986; 1994). In effect, we must consider the coastal belt as a vague zone of shifting marine influence, behind which the Fens proper formed.

An Environmental Overview

The function of this overview is to create a broad context for the division of sites into their environmental groups. Thus this section is designed to sketch the environmental background, not to provide a detailed and exhaustive discussion of all available data. Waller (1994: 60-81) provides the most cohesive and up-to-date picture that we have of the changing Fenland environment, and it is upon his model that the following sketch is largely based, though a good summary is provided by Hall & Coles (1994: 13 - 24). As stressed earlier, it is not the intention of this project to address the landscape of the Roman Fenland in 'environmental' terms, but rather to emphasise the social aspects of settlement. However, in a landscape so vulnerable to change it is impossible to ignore the influence of the environment, and we will begin with a consideration of coastal conditions.

This leads us to a schematic discussion of the Fens themselves. The fen edge, the silts, the peats and the islands are the four basic 'blocks' that form the basis of the Fenland environment. These may be subdivided into various sedimentary and vegetation zones (Hall & Coles 1994: 17 - 23), but as stressed above, the environmental model used in this project is deliberately simplified to allow concentration on social models. The four basic environmental types are this retained as a basis for an environmental 'backdrop'.

There are two issues involved in a consideration of the coastline: firstly, the type of coast which formed, and secondly, where the coastline should be situated. The first of these issues is important, because it is in large part coastal conditions that created the depositional environment within which the Fens formed (Hall & Coles 1994: 17). Shennan (1994: 35 - 36) outlines the three principal hypotheses concerning coastal formation in the Wash. The first, initially propounded by Swinerton (1931), and later advanced by both A.H.W. Robinson (1968) and D.N. Robinson (1975; 1977) is that a barrier of hills or islands protected the Lincolnshire and Wash coast. This theory was evolved to explain the 'quiet water sedimentary environment ... and the obvious change to the present eroding beach and sand dune coastline' (Shennan 1994: 35). The second hypothesis outlined by Shennan is similar to the first, only the barrier would have been a shifting one, though evidence for such a suggestion is limited (Godwin 1940; 1978, Shennan 1994: 35).

However, this does not mean that we should abandon attempts to understand the environment of the Fens in a dynamic fashion. We cannot simply regard the four 'blocks' of the Fenland environment as static entities: the way in which they interacted with each other must be conceptualised as an ongoing process. This creates a certain amount of difficulty - environmental processes, like, for example, the gradual water logging of an area, may be very slow, too slow to be obvious to the people living through them. Or events may be very sudden, like a periodic flood. Thus, accurately linl(ing environmental change to the archaeology is difficult, and it is particularly easy to fall into a circular argument in which the archaeology is used to date environmental change, and then that change is used to explain archaeological trends.

The third hypothesis offered by Shennan was the 'open coast' model (Godwin 1940; 1978 and Shennan 1980; 1981; 1986a), the option that he himself preferred (Shennan 1986b; 1994). This is defmed as:

Waller's figure 5.22, reproduced here as Figure 4.3 27

Chapter 4: Interpreting the Model

demonstrates the landward extent of marine influence (based upon borehole data, Waller 1994: 78). This indicates that marine sedimentation was taking place along the north western fen edge (Billingbourogh/Horbling) after c. 3000 BP, and that North of this, along the Witham valley, it is possible that marine activity was occurring as late as c.2500 to c. 1800 BP. During the Roman period marine activity appears to retreat in some areas, the western silts being dry enough to allow colonisation. There is evidence for continued marine activity in the eastern half of the Norfolk Fens, but not the western.

3.10 and Table 3.11. Previous work (Potter 1981 and Hayes and Lane 1992) has demonstrated a pre-Roman presence in the Fens, and the breakdown presented in Chapter Three demonstrates that there was a core of settlement that was in existence from before the Roman occupation and continued right up to the end of it. It is this continuing occupation from the Iron Age that accounts for the comparatively large number of period one sites, 17 out of a total of 22 on the fen islands, and 18 out of38 on the silt fens. A typical site of this nature is 49 13 02, on the east edge of Stonea Island in the central fens. Late Iron Age pottery was recovered from this site, indicating its pre-Roman foundation. In the Roman period samian ware was used on site, and settlement debris, including querns, indicates that people lived here, probably running the associated saltem. No portable wealth or architectural material was recorded from site 49 13 02, indicating that it remained relatively poor, being abandoned in the late Roman period.

Reliable data for the post c. 1800 BP period ( essentially the later Roman and Anglo-Saxon period) is limited (Waller 1994: 79). However, there is evidence for a rise in the water table across the southern Fens after c. 1900 BP, and a phase of freshwater flooding in the southern and central fens in the third century (Bromwich 1970; Churchill 1970; both of which are placed in a regional context by Salway 1970 and Potter 1981). Waller's figure 5.23 (reproduced here as Figure 4.4) shows the progressive advance of freshwater deposition, and the retreat of marine influence. There is evidence of a regional fall in sea level at 'sometime' during the Roman period (Waller 1994: 79), but Waller points out that the dating of such an event is too broad to attempt to correlate it to the archaeological data.

The environmental distribution of chronological groups was presented on Table 3.11 as both an absolute number of sites, and as a percentage figure. The percentage represents the proportion of sites within an environmental total, which also falls within any given chronological group. The percentage values from Table 3.11 have been used to derive Figures 4.5 to 4.8. These four figures represent foundation rates in the settlement pattern as a percentage of all sites in a given environment that have been founded in a given period. Thus we can see on Figure 4.5 that of all the sites that occur on the fen edge, 28.5% were founded in period two.

This picture is necessarily simplistic, with many gaps, but does provide a basic environmental context for the social aspects of the Fenland landscape that are the focus of this current project.

What do these figures illustrate? As already noted the sites on the fen islands in period one are mostly those that had survived from the late Iron Age. Even on the silt fen, more than half of the period one sites observed were late Iron Age in origin. By contrast, all environments show marked expansion in period two. In the discussion of the dating of sites it was observed that the criteria used were rather broad, and that many 'period two' sites may in fact have been late first century. Thus the period two expansion may well have begun in the latter part of period one. However, it is clear from an examination of period one sites that for a while at least (perhaps roughly corresponding with the period of the Icenian client state and the years immediately following the Boudiccan revolt?), the late Iron Age landscape persisted. When expansion did take place these pre-Roman foundations remained in existence. Turning to period three, the fen edge shows a high level of site foundation, more so than other environments, and his would seem to contradict the idea (Salway 1970: 14-15) that the Fens were substantially resettled in the late period after widespread flooding and abandonment. If this were the case we might expect the greatest number of new site foundations at this point to occur in the Fens proper as the landscape was restored, but this we do not see. Although it is clear that the environment deteriorated in the third century, it is far from clear what effect this deterioration had upon settlement.

4.3 A Chronologically Based Interpretation of the Revised Model

The problems with the traditional model have already been touched upon. The first difficulty is that it obscures the detail of settlement pattern change. As has been noted in Chapter Three an approach to this problem has been developed, but only applied in a small section of the Fens (Hayes et al. 1992), and the data does not exist to extend this method to all areas. The second, and possibly more important, problem is that both the traditional model and the more refmed approach of Hayes, Lane and Samuels (1992) fail to address the settlement pattern in terms of ancient communities, either in their distribution through space and time, or in the way that they engaged with the lived experience of empire. The traditional picture does not, for example, consider any way of displaying status other than the 'Roman' way, or the effect that cultural interaction might have had upon the forms that this took. The approach of Hayes et al. identifies broad shifts in settlement, but does not place these results in a social context. Table 3.7 presented a summary of the traditional chronology. The number of sites in existence in period one is telling, especially when we consider the more complex chronological breakdown of Figure 3.9, Table 28

Chapter 4: Interpreting the Model

The work of C. J. Going (1992) demonstrates that variations in pottery supply may well be responsible for the interpretation of some periods as being times of decline and abandonment. Going (1992: 96, figure 5, reproduced here as Figure 4.9) suggests that the cyclical nature of pottery supply would lead to a 'log and lag' pattern, with 'log' periods of good supply. Such periods would be followed by 'lags' in which a restricted supply would lead to a failure to introduce new forms. This would lead to the pottery dating of 'lag' phase occupation to the previous 'log' phase, thus creating an apparent, but utterly false, period of abandonment. When we consider Going's calibration curve we see that the 'third century gap' falls into a 'log phase'. This means that the failure to date sites to this period of 'flood' could be due to factors more connected to pottery supply than to environmental catastrophe, and indeed 'flood episodes' in the Fens do appear to fall into 'lag' phases of pottery supply. This is not to suggest that the environment had not deteriorated in the later Roman period, it is simply to question the relationship between this environment and the archaeology, and the effect of flooding upon settlement. The picture presented by Hallam for the silts (1970: 75) of gradual abandonment is probably closer to the truth, but perhaps the 'abandonment' of some sites was in part a period of aceramic activity.

pottery chronologies. This difficulty is noted by Hayes and Lane (1992: 235), but then not addressed. How then do we explain the silting up of sites, and link site failure to the available evidence for what was occurring at large in the region, and to the postulated worsening environmental conditions? If, as has been suggested, the rate of site failure and foundation was relatively high in the silt fens, we must envisage a comparatively mobile population, with sites lasting a generation or two before being abandoned. As Hayes et al. suggest (1992: 245) 'mobility and an eye for quick profits may have been the key to a successful life on the marshes.' Whilst we may doubt the importance of the profit motive to low status individuals in the ancient world, mobility may well have been a crucial factor, driven by social as well as environmental factors. This is supported by the limited excavation data from the silt fens. At the site of Throckenholt Farm, Parson Drove (Bray 1994), a small farming settlement was uncovered, with an economy based upon cattle and sheep. According to the excavator, this site was only occupied for 65 years, before abandonment. The description of the lifetime of the site is worth considering. 'Following construction, an additional three intermediary phases can be identified before the site falls out of use. Initial construction is followed by a period of use which seems to culminate in an episode of flooding which largely fills up the ditches and reduces the size and nature of the site. A further, short period of occupation continues before further flooding causes the abandonment of the site'. Bray 1994: 19

Stability figures for the silt fen indicate that the replacement of a substantial proportion of the total number of sites occurred within each chronological period (say every 100-150 years), making the settlement pattern unstable. A limited area of the silt fen (Hayes et al. 1992) has been studied in depth, using detailed pottery identification across the study area to trace a general development of the landscape. The results of this study are presented on Figure 4.10. This figure assumes that pottery classes ought to be distributed equally across the four blocks of the study zone (see inset). If this were the case then each block would contain 25% of each class of pottery. The bar graph illustrates the deviation from this null hypothesis. What this demonstrates is that when the broad dates of pottery assemblages are assessed, the south of the study zone (the site of Iron Age salt industry) is the oldest part of the landscape. Settlement moved over time from south to north. But also, as Figure 4.11 shows, the mapping of the west-east distribution of finewares would appear to indicate that settlement, or at least the finewareusing section of the population, migrated seaward throughout the Roman period. Hayes et al. (1992: 248) see no alternative to environmental deterioration as a motor for this movement, but they also note (235) that a 'deteriorating environment may result in a decline of economic activity and prosperity that falls short of the abandonment of settlements.' In other words people may cling onto a location, despite environmental difficulty exercising choice over their response to the environment, thus complicating the picture. Flooding does not necessarily equate with complete abandonment, and the level of activity on a site is hard to determine, especially if the inhabitants have inconsistent access to pottery. The problem of inconsistent pottery supply (Going 1992) becomes more crucial the more weight that is put upon

Clearly this interpretation of Throckenholt is rooted deeply in the 'flood event' paradigm of Salway's work. However, given a general picture of site failure and creation that is a relatively continuous process, we may reconsider the environmental model of site failure. We might consider the individual flood event, which is used to 'explain' the reduction in the scale of occupation at Throckenholt, as a symptom rather than the cause of a site's decline. The fact that canal systems can be seen to have silted up so easily (Hall & Coles 1994: 105-109) must open the general possibility that silts would accumulate on a site once maintenance had ceased. If the region required minor effort, perhaps on a site by site basis, to keep ground water under control, a decline in activity on the site driven by social, rather than environmental trends, would result in 'flooding' of the nature described at Throckenholt. This would only occur in a marginal landscape, where the risk of inundation was always close, and if the population were relatively mobile in any case, periodic floods, or declining conditions in some areas of the landscape, need not be catastrophic. That occupation was not terminated by this supposed flood event, but continued for a time at reduced scale on this site, is not incompatible with this interpretation. A dwindling site, rather than one destroyed by flooding, would silt up as maintenance decreased. This might explain the lack of evidence for wholesale drainage 29

Chapter 4: Interpreting the Model

efforts in the Fens: regional water management schemes like the Car Dyke and Midfendyke may have provided a broad control over ground water levels, within which local drainage schemes, perhaps on a site by site basis, would have been sufficient. Over time a population which was relatively mobile might be driven by long term environmental change, abandoning areas of the landscape slowly, almost sub-consciously (if the rate of change was slow enough). The fact that change would naturally occur more easily in a landscape where settlement was fairly fluid would ease such landscape shifts, making them less traumatic and allowing their effects to be accommodated within already ongoing processes. This 'gradualist' interpretation of the undoubted water level problems experienced in much of the study area in the latter half of the Roman occupation is supported by the observation that, even without flooding as a mechanism, one-fifth of the early second century sites of the great expansion of Fenland occupation under Hadrian had been abandoned a century later (Salway 1970: 14). This picture is also suggested by the work of Hallam (1970: 57-58), although she characterises it in terms of an over-optimistic second century settlement programme forced into retreat. Salway explains this in terms of economic failure, but in the context of our general picture of instability it seems at least possible that it was the result of the cyclical nature of Fenland settlement. Although Throckenholt is only one small site, it does fit well with the regional picture that can be constructed from a detailed model of the survey data.

occupation is obscure (Lane 1988: 320). As we shall see in more depth in Chapter Five, girdle pattern forms are a way into this problem. In the Fens, framed as they are in Roman terms, in a Roman landscape with Roman pottery, they are not 'Iron Age' in themselves, but do represent a social survival from the past. A modem example of social survival, even under conditions that would seem to preclude this, is put forward by Deetz (1996: 258). In the late nineteenth century the South Dakota town of Fort Thompson was laid out on a grid plan by government agents for the Sioux Indians, as a centre for the Crow Creek Indian reservation. When in 1957 the town was moved to make way for a dam, the houses were relocated, and the new settlement was planned in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants - in circular family units. Deetz regards this as a reflection of pre-reservation social structure that had survived in a colonial context (the imposition of a grid on the plan of Fort Thompson), to reemerge at a later date. This demonstrates that interludes of oppressive colonial rule, up to and including displacement of subordinate populations, may not be sufficient to extinguish traditional customs. Such survivals appear to occur in Roman Britain, both at the level of individual buildings like round houses (Ringley 1989: 31 - 35 and 1997: 93 - 96), as well as in over-all settlement morphology (Ringley 1988), so it should be of no surprise to find such a survival in the Fens. In the Fens we see a population spreading across large parts of the silts in girdle settlements. This may or may not be the result of official encouragement, but it does lead us to reconsider the interpretation of the Fenland landscape as a unitary and 'official' artefact that was the result of a single phase of very rapid colonisation. The existence of community structures as the basis for the silt fen landscape, and the fact that that structure is explicitly a colonising format, suggests that this population had an identity as a population: we are not dealing with disparate groups whom the Roman authorities saw fit to 'dump' in the region. This infers nothing about why the population came to the Fens: they may still have been moved by the authorities. However, we can suggest that when they arrived, some form of late Iron Age social structure survived, and was transmitted into the form of the development of the later settlement pattern. Alternatively we may suggest that the 'nuclei' of the Roman landscape were already there - the Late Iron occupants of the Fens. In either case, instead of a great wave of instantaneous settlement we must now envisage development over time, and an 'in filling' of the landscape in the late first and early second centuries spreading across the landscape from early areas of occupation, and the result owed much, in morphological terms, to LPRIA forms.

This leads us to the problem of identifying the social trends that may have driven such a pattern of settlement instability. Without more excavations on low status sites it is an impossible issue to address in more than a superficial way. However, settlement morphology, of which we do have a clear picture thanks to the wealth of information from aerial photographs (Palmer 1996), does provide indications of what may be the answer. Ringley (1987: 100) analysed some elements of the silt fen landscape, and identified 'girdle patterns' within crop mark evidence from the area (Hingley's figure 54, reproduced here as Figure 4.12). This is the form, Ringley argues, of most of the settlement in the Fens, and which is indicative of landscapes of colonisation. Each 'girdle' is a circle of sites, connected by drove ways, surrounding a central area of common land. In the centre of this common ground may be a 'parent' site. The surrounding sites of the girdle are founded as people leave the parent settlement to set up on their own. Thus, he suggests, the inhabitants of the girdle share common ancestry and the settlement system is kin based. Because of their probable 'kin based' nature (Jones 1985: 162 - 163, Ringley 1989: 100) the girdle pattern may be considered to be a survival of some aspects of LPRIA social structure, as at the Lower Windrush Multiple Settlement (or girdle pattern) in the upper Thames Valley (Ringley 1988: 91 - 95), and also at Wetwang Slack (Dent 1983, Ringley 1989: 97 - 99). That Iron Age occupation took place in the silts is beyond doubt, but the impact such a presence had upon Roman period

The second thing that we may say about the girdle form is that the social structure that Ringley envisages fits very well with an unstable settlement pattern. The need for each generation of farmers to set up new establishments provides the impetus for sustained site creation and failure. Individual holdings may not have been passed on, but simply abandoned when the occupants died, the 30

Chapter 4: Interpreting the Model

descendants of those occupants setting up their own establishments in other parts of the girdle, or breaking out of their immediate group to set up an entirely new settlement elsewhere. The twin elements of common ownership and kin based groupings would not just permit the existence of such a system, but actively encourage it (Jones 1985: 162 - 164, Ringley 1988 & 1989: 97 - 101). The failure of sites that Hallam notes (1970: 58) is considered in detail in Chapter Five, and the greater nucleation noted by her in the later Roman period may have been the result of a change away from the girdle pattern style of settlement. This was perhaps brought about by the general decline that had set in by the mid to late Roman period, and the lack of new ground upon which to expand. Thus, on a site-by-site basis social processes dominate, but those processes, functioning in the short-term, take place within the context of environmental change, which functions over the long term.

Spalding (Hayes 1988: 323) abandonment may not have been total, or prolonged. 'Events' like Hadrianic settlement, the third century gap, and perhaps the end of Roman Fenland, appear clear on the basis of a potterybased chronology. However, their conceptualisation as 'events' is rooted in the assumption that a lack of pottery equals a lack of people, and this looks more complex if alternatives are considered. Challenging the direct link between pottery consumption and human activity opens up the possibility of a more protracted post-Roman decline in the Fens.

4.4

Status

In breaking away from simplistic environmental divisions or arbitrary survey blocks it is necessary to seek for some other indicator of 'community', in the sense of a collection of sites which form a group of relevance to the people who inhabited that landscape. Hallam (1970: 4863) has tackled this problem with a statistical approach. The problem that she addressed concerned whether or not individual sites formed parts of agglomerated settlements, or were isolated farms. Here, a different approach is adopted, the essence of which is social. The aim of this is to reflect the social communities that we are trying to recover by reconstructing the landscape on the basis of what it looked and felt like (as far as we can tell) to its original inhabitants. A similar approach has been applied to small towns (Taylor forthcoming). Such a picture is more likely to be recovered from a range of indicators that can be compared and contrasted to build a model with a wide foundation in the available evidence, than single indicators studied in isolation.

However, models of average behaviour can hide a great deal of variation, and are not so useful in looking at the more immediate concerns of the population. We can see clearly from Figures 4.6 (fen island) and 4.8 (silt fen) that there is a difference in the behaviour of these two groups of site. The difficulty, if there are two groups, is to establish the boundary between them - as argued previously, environments do not bound human behaviour. If for example, the fen islands formed the core of an area that was different from that observed in Lincolnshire, to which area would the settlements on the silts to the immediate north of the islands belong? Are we to treat them as silt fen sites having more in common with settlement in Lincolnshire, simply because of the type of environment in which they existed? To do so would be to ignore the immediate proximity to major sites like Stonea, Flaggrass, and Grandford. This is a difficult issue to address, but a consideration of status may provide an answer, and it is this that we shall examine in section 4.4.

We will examine the issue of status from the bottom up, starting with the large low status groups, and proceeding to the much smaller numbers of sites with evidence of prestige objects and/or building material. Therefore we will start with the lowest status sites group, and that for which we have the least evidence - the period five, or undated, sites. As suggested in the consideration of status ( Chapter Three) there is a case for considering undated sites as the poorest in the settlement pattern, too poor to have accrued material which can be dated (i.e. fineware ), rather than a random sample of sites for which we simply happen not to have dates. This is the approach taken by Hayes et al. (1992: 245) when they equated fine ware to a form of (portable) wealth. This would mean that the chronology that has been devised only applies to the wealthier half of sites, as most dating is based upon fme wares. However the role of pottery as a wealth indicator ( especially when what we are considering is surface collected material, rather than excavated data) should not be overstated, or at the very least considered in context. Hayes et al. (1992: 245) considered that there was less disposable wealth on the fen edge than the fen, because fen edge buildings of stone and tile have less pottery recovered from them. However, this is to place a preferential importance upon ceramics that overrides all other forms of wealth, even substantial architecture. In addition, there are many other factors that may effect the

This brings us to a brief consideration of the end of the Roman period occupation in the Fens. It appears from the available evidence that occupation was terminated quite suddenly upon the Roman departure. However, Cooper (1996) has suggested that the termination of pottery supply leads to an anomaly in the archaeology - a missing generation of 'consumers' who adapted to an aceramic life style in the absence of available ceramics. The argument is similar to that of Going (1992), that a lack of pottery has lead to a mis-dating of features and sites. A scattering of early Saxon sites on the silt fen is recorded by Hayes and Lane (1992: 213-215), and at Orton Hall farm, Stonea, and possibly Whittlesea, we see evidence of activity in the fifth century. At Stonea, the only major excavated site in the central fens, there is also considerable evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Such scraps of evidence give us room to consider a gentler decline in Fenland settlement, perhaps (going by Cooper's suggestion) into the mid fifth century. There is an observable disjunction between the Roman and Early Saxon settlement pattern (Hayes 1988: 324), but given the amount of evidence for this period northwest of 31

Chapter 4: Interpreting the Model

presence or absence of pottery on a site, as Hayes et al. themselves acknowledge (1992: 245). If levels of pottery are more indicative of population level then the low levels found on fen edge sites indicate that these large structures had low populations. If this were the case it would enhance, not undermine, their identification as high status structures - domestic space is expensive. However, as discussed earlier, there are many factors which have an influence on the presence/absence of pottery, not least that of supply. In a landscape where the settlement pattern was unstable, and considerable numbers of sites lasted only a generation or so, many may simply have fallen into lag phases (Going 1992) and never had access to pottery, no matter how wealthy they were. These sites are certainly of potentially lower status than fineware using sites, but in the context of the Fens they may equally have been amongst the most short lived. Given the current state of our knowledge it is impossible to make any great claims for this group of sites, but they will be considered more closely in the detailed landscape analysis conducted in Chapters Five to Seven.

groups have been ordered from left to right according to longevity. Thus sites that exist only for a short time, groups 11, 22, 33, and 44, are clustered together. The central groups are those that exist for two periods: 12, 23, and 34. The final cluster are groups which existed for more than two periods, 13, 24, 14. What emerges from this graph is that there is a broad correlation between the length of the lifetime of a chronological period, and the percentage of sites exhibiting status. We must be wary of group 14, which may be inaccurate because of the very small number of sites that is represents (ten), but the implication seems to be that sites which last for more than one period are more likely to develop evidence of status. This might suggest that the more unstable a settlement system is, the less status sites it will contain. This is supported by Figure 4.15, which displays (all) status sites as a percentage of the settlement pattern by environment. Here it is clear that in the more stable fen island settlement pattern a greater proportion of sites demonstrate status indicators than in the less stable silt fen.

Table 3.15 presented the total number of sites by environment and status group, with a clear preponderance of sites in group one. Group one is a catchall group for sites with no apparently significant status indicators. When considering these sites as a potential low status group a sub-division becomes necessary to separate fmeware-using sites (group one) from non-fineware-using sites (group zero). The results of this division are displayed on Figure 4.13, which illustrates the fact that the distribution of group one and group zero sites by environmental group is remarkably similar. The distribution of group zero sites appears to be non-random, and this infers that non-fmeware-using sites constituted a specific class of 'location' within the settlement pattern. This may appear to lend weight to the conclusion of Hayes et al. (1992) that fmeware-use has status implications for the settlement pattern of the Fens. However, as was discussed in Chapter Three, the application of linear status hierarchies is misleading, and in this case ignores the wider social context of these sites, and other possible reasons for their lack of pottery evidence. As with any single indicator, attempts to base status models on ceramic data in isolation will lead to a distorted picture. As we shall see, when this type of site is examined in more detail in Chapters Five to Seven, the issue of pottery supply, and the function of these sites, are both vital components in understanding why they appear to be aceramic.

There is a much greater level of status display on the fen edge than on the silt fens. But as argued later, the way in which we conceive of the fen edge as a unity is false, and the clustering of sites in groups around the fen edge ( obvious from the distribution maps presented in Figures 3.3 to 3.7) supports this. The fen edge, a long, attenuated environment running through Lincolnshire, then east of Peterborough, north of Cambridgeshire, and up to Kings Lynn, is a boundary area, not a social entity. It must therefore be left outside ofthis discussion, and considered in the light of its true nature in Chapter Seven.

4.5

Artefact Distribution

As discussed in Chapter One, one of the theoretical approaches used in this study is creolisation theory. The key statement concerning creolisation for our purposes is that the objects put to use in a creolised context are the 'words' in a lexicon of material culture; the way that they are used is determined not by intrinsic values internal to those objects, but by the social context within which those objects are deployed. This social context is referred to (Joyner 1984) as a 'grammar' - part of his linguistic analogy. With this in mind, distribution maps may be used to attempt to create more subtle patterns that indicate different grammars in action, not to create social groups based upon the distribution of various objects that have been fitted into culture-historical model typologies. These 'grammars' may be reflected in the distribution of various artefacts, but such distributions will only make sense when compared with the distributions of other classes of archaeological material. In doing so we should be able to evolve a more sophisticated framework for analysis than either 'environmental groups' or arbitrary landscape blocks.

If we return to our model of a shifting girdle pattern of settlement for the silt fens, we can suggest that with a high tum over of site occupation it was less likely that any given site would accumulate wealth over time. In other areas, where the settlement pattern was more stable, wealth could accumulate on a site over several generations leading to the appearance of higher status. In the silt fens this would nor occur - sites simply did not last long enough. Figure 4.14 plots the percentage of sites exhibiting status as a percentage of the total number of sites within each chronological group. The chronological

The case of portable wealth and building material is a key example (see Figure 4.16). This map shows finds of architectural debris (mostly roof tile), and portable wealth 32

Chapter 4: Interpreting the Model

If we accept the proposition that these tiles are predominantly the fragmentary remains of roofs stripped and salvaged upon abandonment we need to consider the implications of such material. The process of putting a tiled roof on a wooden framed building is not a question of a casual variation of roofmg material - the regularity of structure required to support a tiled roof is far greater than that needed to support a thatched one. Thus sites with tiled roofs in the Fens probably represent structures that were very different from other structures which did not have such roofs. These sites can be interpreted as the high status structures of the silt fen area, the tiled roof and the regularised building structure both requiring investment and a new architectural knowledge. It can, therefore, be strongly suggested that these buildings were symbols of status displayed as architecture. A good example of such a site is 12 23 17, in fact a complex of individual sites (FS: Dun 15-19 & RAC 1, FRT: 1626), identified by Hayes and Lane (1992: 90) as one of the most important in the region. This site is considered in more detail in Chapter Five, but for the present we may simply note that it is certainly rare to find the level of material culture encountered at 12 23 17 in the Fens. Rubble, tile (both normal roof tile and slate), flue tile and glass, as well as a full range of pottery were recovered from this site. It is thus clearly a mistake to equate status with substantial structures or pottery alone: an assumption that underlies the traditional statement that villas are missing from the Fens (Hall & Coles 1994: 121). This fails to recognise that the architectural status of a building rests not upon an absolute and intrinsic 'status' value to be attached to particular architectural styles, but on a contextualised understanding of the relative differences of building styles in a given area. The lack of easily available building stone does not mean that there was no social hierarchy in the Fens, simply that we have to look for it being expressed in different ways.

from the silt fen and the fen islands. What the distribution shows is that sites where architectural debris has been recovered are predominantly on the silt fen. Sites with a high level of portable wealth are focused on and around the central fen islands. Of the 80 sites shown, only nine have both tile and portable wealth. This distribution has been considered in detail elsewhere (Fincham 2000), but the principal point to grasp is the general spatial separation of portable wealth and roof tile, as demonstrated by Table 4.1. This table presents the 80 sites that demonstrate evidence of status in the Fens (this excludes the fen edge) mapped on Figure 4.16. These sites are divided into three groups, based upon artefact distributions. As will be observed, these divisions cut across environmental boundaries. Sites 1 - 20 are southern/western fen sites, from both peat fen and fen island environments. In this southern block the portable wealth available is in the form of coinage, and fen island sites (on islands close to the fen edge like Whittlesea and Ely) show evidence for building material. The next group of 35 sites, numbered 21 to 54 on the table are silt fen sites, the vast majority of which are sites displaying status through architectural elaboration. The main exceptions to this are sites that are in the general area of Whaplode Drove, the part of the silt fen environment that borders on to the central fens, where the use of portable wealth is most marked. This central fen area is the third block of sites on Table 4.1, which are numbered 55-80. These 25 sites show the most mixed picture, with 12 being portable wealth sites, nine being architectural elaboration sites, and four being mixed. I have argued (Fincham 2000) that the tiles from the silt fen are from tiled roofs on wooden framed structures, as stone is rarely discovered from these sites. It may be argued that the quantity of tile in many cases is very small, and that roof tile need not equate to a tiled roof. One alternative use of tile was in some forms of Roman burial (Philpott 1991: 10 - 11), though, as Philpott's distribution map of cist burials (1991: 396-397, figure 1) illustrates, there are no examples of this practice known from the Fens; it appears to have been principally confmed to the south east, and Essex. It may also be suggested that roof tile may have been used in small quantities in some form of industrial process, perhaps lining flues. However, this seems unlikely, as examination of the sites where tile has been recovered in the Fens reveals that these are not sites where there is evidence for industrial activity.

Conversely, portable wealth is focused in the central fen area. This area was the core of late Iron Age activity in the study area, containing as it does many sites of this period (Malim 1992: 2, figure 1, reproduced here as Figure 4.17). How might these two concentrations, one of portable wealth, and one of Iron Age activity, be linlrnd? Stonea Island was the site of a major prehistoric ritual and political centre (Potter & Jackson 1997: 672-677), clearly giving the area a religious identity. The deposition of portable wealth, particularly in watery areas, is a wellattested method of religious observance in the Iron Age (Wait 1985: 47), and the Fens falls within one of the regional traditions identified (see Figure 4.18). Perhaps this greater concentration of wealth displayed in a portable form is an indication of some level of continuity with the pre-Roman traditions of this area. This continuity might be represented by the prevalence of portable wealth as the principal form of status display ( as opposed to architectural elaboration).

If these tiles were used for roofmg purposes, how are we to explain the fact that they often occur only in small quantities? The answer may lie in the ephemeral nature of architecture in the Fens: a tile roofed building in the Fens is highly likely to be stripped of that roof upon abandonment, tile being a valuable commodity when it is rare and imported into the region. The landscape context of these sites, located in key positions, is also suggestive, but will be considered in detail in Chapter Five. For now we may merely observe that even if the tile present does not represent extensive roofing, or is even located on such sites for some other reason, the rarity of tile on the Fens (only 2.5% of sites have it) is sufficient to mark out any site upon which roof tile is found.

At this stage two issues concerning the distribution of artefacts, and their relationship to ancient communities, begin to emerge. Firstly, when considered in social terms, distribution maps can be used to begin constructing units 33

Chapter 4: Interpreting the Model

of analysis that have more relevance to the ancient communities within a settlement pattern than do environmental groups, or arbitrary landscape blocks. As Figure 4.16 shows, although the cluster of portable wealth is located in the vicinity of the fen islands, it is not delineated by, or confined to an environmental group, but incorporates the adjacent area of the silt fen. The terms 'central' and 'silt' fen are retained as labels for these landscapes for convenience. The second issue is that such a distinction (between the central fen landscape and the silt fens) exists, though interpretation of this is problematic. One, the central fens, appears more conservative in its style of status display than the other, though the reasons for this are not clear. Two basic alternatives, to be investigated in depth in the following chapters, are either that different groups of RomanoBritons had different traditions before the Roman conquest, and this difference was transmitted into the Roman period, or that different groups developed different trajectories, once under Roman rule.

4.6

status was more commonly displayed in terms of portable wealth. This is a more firmly established pattern of settlement, with strong Iron Age roots, and is more stable than that of the silt fens proper. Although this may be broadly characterised as a 'fen island' landscape, this is not wholly the case, as it incorporates a section of the silt fens adjacent to the islands. The reconsideration of much of the traditional model allows us to modify the general 'historical narrative' of the Fenland landscape. In the LPRIA there was considerable activity on the central fen islands, and perhaps the near-by silt fen. Upon the arrival of the Romans, the new authorities concentrated their regional activity on this Iron Age core, directing roads through it, and building canals to connect the various islands. By the end of the first century activity had begun to increase on the silt fens in southern Lincolnshire, expanding out from Iron Age antecedents. This settlement landscape was based upon girdle patterns, which may be considered as an indication in the landscape of a social structure based upon kinship groups. Thus an unstable settlement pattern developed on the silts to the north, with sites rapidly being founded, and failing within a generation or two. These silt fen sites were the most vulnerable to environmental changes like fresh water flooding, or even marine incursions, being more low lying than fen island sites, and as these sites contracted they naturally tended to silt up. This, combined with irregularities in pottery supply, combined to create the impression of a period of relatively sudden and catastrophic disruption in the mid third century. There may, in fact, have been a more gradual environmental decline, accommodated to a greater or lesser degree by a relatively flexible social structure on a site-by-site basis.

Summary of a Fenland Macro Model

Chapter Four has concerned the interpretation of available survey data, and much of the traditional model has been modified as a result of our analysis. Firstly, it is clear that late Iron Age/early Roman activity in the Fens was relatively intense. This in tum weakens the strength of the concept of a massive expansion in Hadrianic settlement. Perhaps we should envisage a more gradual expansion, beginning earlier and expanding out from Iron Age settlement. Concerns about pottery chronologies, particularly the possibilities raised by Going (1992) of log and lag phases in pottery supply affecting dating, weakens the argument for the abruptness of Hadrianic colonisation and the third century gap in Fenland settlement. This has a bearing upon the way that we think about the end of Roman occupation in this area, perhaps suggesting that there may have been a more gradual withdrawal, rather than a sudden evacuation.

In the silt fens status was displayed through architectural elaboration, a pattern revealed in the exclusiveness of tiled roofs on native buildings to this area. As settlement declined, a process difficult to track because of lack of dating evidence ( and because of uncertainty about what dating evidence we do have), I have suggested that occupation continued in the form of more nucleated settlements in the manner proposed by Hallam (1970). Difficulties with dating late pottery and the suggestion ( Cooper 1996) that there may in fact be a missing generation of immediately post Roman Britons, who were living in an essentially aceramic society, allow the possibility of a gentle post Roman decline in the Fenland, rather than the cataclysmic scenarios suggested by other authors (Salway 1970: 18-19).

We may thus summarise our revised Fenland macro model in the following way. The statistical breakdown of sites indicates that there was considerable instability in the settlement pattern in both the silt fen and on the fen edge. This picture is supported by the detailed analysis of trends apparent in surface collections of pottery, conducted by the FS for a limited area of the Lincolnshire Fens. Aerial photographic evidence points to the prevalence of a 'girdle pattern' settlement type in the area roughly defmed by the silt fen. Here status appears to have been displayed in terms of architectural elaboration, but in a form that we would not necessarily recognise as 'Roman'. Roman tiled roofs, added to wooden framed buildings, represent a higher level of status in this landscape than we would characteristically ascribe to such structures. The instability in the pattern may be reflected in the comparatively high number of low status sites in this landscape - the short lives of the sites preventing the long-term accumulation of wealth. A different landscape exists to the south east of this, where

This picture clearly does not include the fen edge. The settlement pattern there was relatively unstable, but it did contain a greater degree of wealth than the silt fens. This may reflect the fact that the fen edge and the area of immediate upland contained more official Roman infrastructure, in terms of roads, canals, and small towns, than the entire Fenland area. The fen edge looked both ways and served as the gateway to the Fens for those in the upland wishing to gain access to Fenland resources, or markets. Thus site distributions on the fen edge mark 34

Chapter 4: Interpreting the Model

the point at which the social units of the mainland, intersect with, and exploit part of the Fenland. In terms of constructing socially based units of analysis, the category 'fen edge', is the most valueless of the environmental categories, as it in no way forms even the basis for a 'community', but is made up from fen edge slivers of upland social units, perhaps ( as we shall see in Chapter Seven) based on small towns.

35

Chapter 5 The Silt Fens-A Landscape of Domination?

5.1 A Social Unit of Analysis

more meaningful lines - by chronology, status, and environment. This initial processing having been conducted, the challenge was to evolve a methodology that would allow the identification of possible ancient social units for further testing. Although devised in the context of the silt fens, this methodology (as will be demonstrated in Chapters Six and Seven) was extended to the whole study area.

At the end of the last chapter the conclusion was reached that the analysis of a landscape had to be conducted in terms of social units with significance to their ancient inhabitants, if we were to understand how people related to the settlement pattern. Immediately we encounter a problem of definition; a 'social' unit that formed a historically meaningful community can only be defined once we have some information about the ancient landscape to provide a context for such a judgement. This would pose a problem if we were attempting to survey the Fens from scratch, but the current project has been conducted on the basis of interpreting largely published results. The problem then is not one of defining a social unit to be surveyed; it is recasting existing data in such a way that ancient communities are recoverable, rather than being obscured by the framework of the original survey.

A visual examination of the original FRT distribution map (Sheet K) allowed the initial identification of five apparent subdivisions in the silt fen landscape, which are illustrated on Figure 5.1, numbered 1 to 5. When the crop mark evidence available for this area is examined closely it becomes clear that each grouping is separated from its neighbours by a hiatus in the rectilinear crop marks common on the silts. This feature of the crop marks was noted by Hallam (1970: 64), when she described a landscape of 'blocks' of field systems, focused on areas of settlement, with a much looser network in the intervening zones. These gaps are not simply the product of a failure of coverage; crop marks are observed in these areas, but are of a different nature, being irregular, and likely to be the traces of relic creeks and drainage ditches. The inference of this crop mark evidence is that areas of organised landscape were divided by relatively 'untamed' areas of fen.

Both FRT and FS originally set out to survey an area defined essentially in environmental terms - both were fen surveys. FRT however based its survey methodology upon regular, but arbitrary divisions. The general distribution map (Philips 1970: Sheet K) clearly conforms to boundaries orientated upon the OS grid, and the detailed maps of rectified crop marks were printed upon sheets defined by that grid. Whilst this in no way forces the data into a false framework, the arbitrary nature of the map divisions make the data hard to use, and inevitably, important features or clusters of sites are located on the boundaries between two or more maps. Conversely the FS divides data along parish lines. This achieves exactly what is argued for, namely the division of data along historically relevant lines, but the FS system achieves this only for the medieval period. It makes no sense to divide Roman period data into parish blocks that did not exist at the time, and would not exist until the whole (Roman) landscape under question had vanished, to be replaced after a prolonged period of regional dereliction with an almost entirely new landscape. The data in FS is thus even more difficult to use than that ofFRT, the arbitrary, but at least regular divisions of the 1970 survey having been replaced with ( as far as the Roman period is concerned) arbitrary and irregular divisions of parish boundaries.

Figures 5.2 to 5.6 plot the numerical density of sites per square km by period. The first of these diagrams, Figure 5.2 shows the essentially clustered nature of early settlement in the Fenland. These clusters do not correspond exactly to the subdivision model derived from a visual examination of the overall distribution. Subdivision four, for example, appears to have a possible three early clusters. Examination of later periods (Figures 5 .3 and 5 .4) reveal the rapid filling out of the landscape, with sites most dense in the location of the early settlement foci. It is in this period that the areas of settlement density in subdivision four begin to coalesce. In period three (Figure 5.4) the southern half of the silt fen landscape begins to exhibit different behavioural trends to the northern half. In subdivisions one and two settlement shifts to the east, supporting the picture presented by Hayes, Lane and Samuels (1992: 246-248) in their detailed survey of pottery distributions. Settlement in the south remained focused upon the early centres of activity. The boundary between these two patterns of behaviour appears to run through subdivision three. Period four, Figure 5.5, sees a general retreat of all settlement, with only a handful of sites (13) surviving across the region. Undated settlement, Figure 5.6, appears to be located around the areas of dated sites.

A compromise solution was adopted in the collating and re-organising of the data from these two sources that resulted in the gazetteer presented at the end of this thesis. A framework is required to organise data before it can be analysed, and given the complexities of parish boundaries, the regular nature of the FRT survey was retained, all information from FS being converted to this format. Once reorganised, the data was subdivided along

36

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

The patterns revealed by these figures, especially in periods one and two appear to confirm the impression of a landscape composed of at least five subdivisions, with clear gaps existing in dated settlement between subdivisions two and three, three and four, and four and five. Between subdivisions one and two there are dated sites, but in lesser densities than in the main areas of settlement. The addition of undated sites to this picture would fill most of these gaps, but as will be explored later in this chapter, there is good reason to suppose that the location of undated sites at peripheral locations is an important clue to understanding the economy and social structure of the region. Their consistent location in areas of creek systems underlines, rather than weakens, the pattern of landscape blocks suggested here.

and appear to form the core around which each community is based. Communities 1, 2, and 4 all have identifiable 'status cores'. The status cores of Communities 1 and 4 are particularly pronounced, with, in both cases six sites of status confined to small areas approximately at the heart of the community territory calculated from site distributions in the initial hypothesis. A possible satellite core is attached to Community 4, designated 4a. Communities 3 and 5 have no status core, but Community 3 has only one status site of any kind, and Community 5 has none at all. Thus, although these sites do not have the cores observed elsewhere, they do not display a contrary pattern of status, and the possibility exists that status sites in these communities have been either 'lost' or are yet to be recognised. Over all, the distribution of status sites supports the hypothesis that the observed groupings are meaningful.

The first subdivision consists of 86 sites, located in grid square TF 13, south of Shoff Drove. The second subdivision consists of 77 sites, located in grid square TF 12, principally on the Hacconby and Rippingale Fens, and the third subdivision (101 sites), is located to the south east of this, to the west of Spalding. The largest subdivision, at 115 sites, is centred on Whaplode Drove. A fifth subdivision, of 23 sites, lies to the south of the fourth subdivision, and contains the excavated site at Throkenholt Farm, discussed in Chapter Four. The individual sites that compose each subdivision are listed in tabular form in the analysis of each group. As a hypothesis to test against the data, these groups were provisionally considered to be genuine features of the settlement pattern, and to represent 'social units', or 'communities'.

It was considered that if 'community' groupings in the landscape did represent ancient features, this ought to be reflected in the organisation of the regional communications network. Principal features (i.e. those of regional significance) are recorded on Figure 5.1, which shows them in relation to the proposed communities on the silt fens. As can be seen, it is apparent that most of the identified communities have a principal communications route, either a canal or road, linking them to the major linear features that run through the uplands, parallel to the fen edge. A range of factors, from the visual distribution of sites in clusters, the types of crop mark visible, the distribution of status sites, and the layout of the regional communications system, all appear to support the thesis that the silt fen landscape was divided into around five 'community' groups.

After this re-organisation of the silt fen data, the next task was to search for meaningful patterns, using a GIS package (Arcview), which might support or refute the hypothesis that these clusters of sites represent 'communities'. Significant patterns were discovered in the display of status across the region that would appear to confirm, with some modification, the hypothesis advanced. The first has already been partially discussed, that of the distribution of status indicators (Figure 4.16). The primary pattern that emerges from this distribution is a marked 'sub regional' variation between portable wealth and architectural elaboration. Items of portable wealth, including coinage, are generally concentrated in the central fens. Conversely, architectural elaboration, in the 'non-official' settlement pattern at least (i.e. excluding sites like Stonea and Grandford, which are considered to be part of an 'official landscape', and discussed m Chapter Six), was concentrated in the silt fen area.

5.2 Predictive Stability

Models

of

Settlement

Pattern

Before proceeding to a detailed examination of the evidence, it is worth attempting to create a predictive model of expected foundation and failure rates for differing scenarios. This will assist with the comparison of different site groupings. The behaviour of communities on the silt fens over time can be predictively modelled using the chronological groups as a basis to generate two different developmental scenarios. These are presented in Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8. The first presents a traditional scenario, modified by the work of Hayes and Lane, with more Iron Age and first century occupation than was hitherto considered to be the case. It retains, however, the essential structure of specific 'events', traditionally advanced for the Fens, with Hadrianic expansion, third century flooding leading to a decline in settlement numbers, and rapid collapse at the end of the Roman occupation. The second figure, 5.8,

Detailed plotting of these status sites also revealed a secondary pattern, of crucial importance to the current discussion. Sites demonstrating status, principally in the form of low-level architectural elaboration, were clustered into several distinct groups, most of which are tightly confined spatially. I shall refer to these clusters as 'status cores', as they are located at the heart of each community,

37

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

5.3

presents a model for the 'constant change' scenario, outlined in Chapter Four. Both models are presented here in the form of smooth curves on line graphs, reflecting the fact that shifts in a settlement pattern are parts of a process, rather then the neat slices of a period based chronological breakdown. Sudden rises and falls in site numbers are a product of 'period' based chronologies, and though smooth line curves to not reflect the data which should be displayed in bar graph form, they do accurately reflect the interpretation of the data.

Profiling The Silt Fen Communities

In this section the models outlined above will be applied to the data community-by-community. In addition, the distribution of different types of site, the occurrence of crop marks, evidence for both the local and regional communication networks, and overall settlement stability will be considered, to create an individual profile for each community. The results and implications of previous detailed studies will also be incorporated into these profiles, where relevant. The two principal studies of this type are that of Hayes et al. (1992), which covers the area occupied by Communities 1 and 2 and that of S. J. Hallam (1970), which covered the area occupied by Communities 2, 3, and 4.

Figure 5.7, then, is the predictive model for an early period of foundation, with a major disruption to the settlement pattern at the end of period two, into period three. This would reflect the degeneration of environmental conditions on the silt fens hypothesised for this period by Salway (1970: 15-16), and mapped by Waller (see Figures 4.3 and 4.4). Although settlement can be seen to be tailing off from period two onwards, this reflects both sites abandoned due to environmental factors, and increased nucleation in the landscape. The overall number of sites peaks at the start of period three, reflecting the cumulative foundation of sites until the onset of a period of increased water logging, which is followed by the partial re-occupation, and the rapid decline of the settlement pattern into the early fifth century. This is reflected in the steep increase of failed sites at the start of period three. In mid-period two the foundation rate and the failure rate are the same, but whilst the foundation of sites declines relatively gently, the failure rate accelerates rapidly at this point.

The distributions of sites will also be tested for statistical significance using the X 2 test. To conform with the limitations of the test it is necessary to conduct investigations on a period basis - testing all sites across all communities within a period, and due to the small size of expected values the test is only valid when applied to period two, three, and five. This results in an expected number of sites in, for example, Community 2 in period two. This is then tested against the number of sites in all other communities in the same period to establish the whether or not variation between community profiles is significant, or random. The results are discussed in detail for each community.

5.3.1

Analysis of Community 1

Community 1 is mapped on Figure 5.9, and the sites that make up this grouping are listed on Table 5.1. The 86 sites on this table are divided into the three main types of sites recoverable from the survey data available. These three groups are status sites, sites using fineware pottery, and undated sites. Sites exhibiting signs of architectural elaboration or portable wealth are listed 1 to 10, sites using fineware are listed 11 to 58, and sites showing no status indicators, or any sign of fineware are listed 59 to 86. The plotting of sites reveals that a well-defmed status core centres on the OS grid point TF 170 320. This core consists of six status sites: four of the architectural elaboration trend (13 23 26, 13 23 27, 13 23 29, and 13 23 34), and two of the mixed wealth trend (13 33 01 and 13 24 02). In the immediate vicinity are another four low status sites that may be associated with these high status sites. Sites 13 23 26, 13 23 27, 13 23 29 and 13 33 01, are all sites with evidence of possible structural elements, roof tile, and stone or rubble. Site 13 24 02 exhibits evidence of roof tile, and a bronze artefact has also been recovered.

Figure 5.8 presents a second model, based upon a more general 'cycling' of settlement, as discussed in Chapter Four. We see that the profiles for both foundation and failure rates are evenly balanced, the former peaking at the start of period two, and the latter at the start of period three. In the middle of period two it can be seen that site failure and site foundation rates are running at the same level, both factors on gentle trajectories, failures rising, foundations falling. The relative positions of these trends at the start of period three in both this model, and the traditional model are key indicators. Whilst in the traditional model there are three times as many sites failing as are being founded, in the 'gradual change' model, the foundation rate is as much as half that of the failure rate. This second model, if observed in the data, represents a more dynamic settlement pattern, decline being at least partly matched by site foundation, whilst the first model presents a more extreme trend of later decline. The overall profile of the total number of sites in the gradual change model can also be seen to be a more even curve, peaking in the middle of period two before declining, rather than the first model which predicts maximum expansion at a later date, followed by more sudden decline.

Both sites from which portable wealth has been recorded (13 24 02 and 13 33 01) are in the central core area. The metal work from the first site is recorded by the FS as 'lead, iron and ?bronze' (Microfiche entry for POI 41,

38

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

Hayes and Lane 1992), with no discussion of what these metal objects actually were, their context, or current location. The portable wealth recorded on the second site by FRT (268), is just a single coin. Although a minor find, in the context of the silt fens where there is almost no coinage, even a single coin is note-worthy, and it is important that it should occur in the status core. Site 13 23 34 has evidence of flue tile, and the outlying status sites to the east (13 23 08 and 13 33 24) are both lesser structures with tiled roofs, as is the single outlier to the west ( 13 23 01). We can thus demonstrate a significant bias towards the central core in terms of architectural elaboration, and the small indications of portable wealth are exclusively concentrated in this core area. As can be seen from Figure 5.9, status sites appear to have been organised around a rough ring of droves at the heart of the community.

fmds other than pottery were recovered from this site, and on this basis, as is the case with most Fenland sites, it may be inferred that the architecture was ephemeral.

The communications of Community 1 are a factor of vital importance in understanding the distribution of sites. As can be seen from Figure 5.1 Shoff Drove, a Roman road (M58b ), runs out laterally from the north/south line of Mareham Lane (M 260, which runs through the uplands west of the fens between Sleaford and Borne), down to the fen edge, across the Car Dyke, over a short stretch of peat fen, and out onto the silt fens, where it passes through the north end of Community 1. The road continues, ultimately heading for Bicker Haven, but a drove that acts as the 'spine' for the community, runs north/south from the Roman road, down towards the status core. The status core itself was arranged around a central ring of drove roads, and the southern part of the community seems to have been served by a roughly east/west arrangement of droves, which runs out from the southern part of this central ring. The morphology of this arrangement is displayed on Figure 5.9. The significance of this to the settlement pattern is that it places the status core at the hub of the community, which would have been the only obvious destination for a traveller leaving the Shoff Drove road at this point.

Undated sites, mapped on Figure 5.6, have a tendency to be located on the fringe of the main area of dated sites. They are generally peripheral to the main droves, the dated sites, and the field systems. As discussed above, the status of these sites is problematic: Table 5.1 illustrates that all undated sites are also economically poor, though we must be careful to avoid circular arguments in linking 'undated' to 'low status', as by definition a site that is undated, will have no evidence for the use of fmeware, the principal source of dating information. Many of these undated sites are in fact salterns, not occupation sites, accounting for the lack of fineware. There are a total of twelve salterns known from Community 1, and as we can see from Table 5.1, ten of these are undated. They were located with access to brine, from which salt was extracted, and the peat fens, the obvious source of fuel, and Figure 5.9 makes clear that they were confined principally to the western fringe of the settlement complex.

Dated sites are concentrated mainly in areas where aerial photography has revealed field systems. Thus both dated sites and observed field systems would appear to be organised around the principal drove roads discussed above. An interpretation of this may be found in the fact that the Fenland economy is considered to be one of sheep farming, augmented by salt production (Potter 1981: 129). The zone of community one which was occupied by dated sites and field systems might therefore be interpreted as an area dedicated to the raising of livestock, an element in a mixed livestock/salt production economy, though this is considered in more detail later in this chapter.

Can we recover any sense of the history of this community? It is important to note that this area is considered to have begun salt production in the Iron Age (Hayes and Lane 1992: 209-210). At least two settlement sites (13 13 01 and 13 13 02) show evidence of late Iron Age occupation, as well as six of the saltern sites, 13 50 23, and 13 50 26 to 13 50 30. Thus Roman period exploitation of the area echoes an industry that existed in the LPRlA. The girdle pattern settlements of the region my have their origin in these late Iron Age beginnings, but difficulties in dating Iron Age pottery means that chronologies for this period are obscure (Lane 1988: 316 - 318). Whilst there is no positive evidence to support continuation of middle Iron Age occupation into the LPRlA, the fact that on the fen edge middle Iron Age pottery is succeeded without an apparent gap by Roman pottery suggests that the apparent lack of LPRlA activity in this area may be a result of inadequately understood pottery typologies.

These drove roads also help us to make sense of lower status settlement. The second group of sites listed on Table 5.1 are dated sites with no sign of status display, the fmeware using group that constitute the bulk of dated sites upon which the regional chronology is based. It is these sites ( and those status sites with dating evidence) that are represented on Figures 5.2 - 5.6. The first thing that we may note is that the largest concentrations of sites, in the central and southern areas of the community, appear to be clustered around drove roads (Figure 5.9). These are principally settlement sites, most of which belong to chronological groups 23 or 33. It is difficult to give detail about this kind of site with no excavation data, but a typical example might be site 13 23 10. This site is located north of the status core, immediately east of the north/south drove road linking the core to Shoff Drove. Pottery recovered from the site includes shell gritted ware, grey ware, samian, colour coat and mortaria. No

The foundations of Community 1 were in existence in

39

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

period one, in the form of a handful of sites clustered to the west of the main focus of Roman activity (Figure 5.2). Although the pottery evidence indicates that expansion occurred suddenly in period two, 'lag' phases in pottery supply may distort this picture, opening the possibility that expansion was more gradual. The general picture for the silt fens presented in the last chapter was one of settlement instability, but this is an average picture that may mask community-scale differences. This approach is validated by the results that we achieve on the silt fens, as Community 1 did not obey this 'average' chronological profile. The number of sites that existed only in period two ( chronological group 22) is very small, but the number of sites that existed only in period three (chronological group 33) is comparatively large. This suggests a foundation rate maintained until comparatively late in the Roman occupation. This is seen in Figure 5.10, and is a pattern that conforms to the model advanced in Figure 5.7, the traditional predictive model.

It is in this area, studied by Hayes et al. (1992: 234-248), that a pattern of south to north and simultaneous west to east movement was observed in pottery distribution. This pattern would appear to be supported by Figures 5.2 - 5.6, in that after the expansion of the late first/early second century numbers of sites remain the same, or decrease in the western half of the community. Hayes et al. (1992) dealt with actual quantities of fineware present on each site, whereas the current project is only dealing with presence/absence. Here there is no indication of the rise or decline, only foundation and failure, but the broad pattern of a general shift to the east seems to be confirmed by both the spatial and chronological distribution of sites. As Figure 5.10 indicates, there was still a significant level of settlement foundation in period three, and these are the sites which appear in Figure 5.4 in the east of the settlement complex. This analysis essentially conforms with Hallam's analysis of the landscape (1970: 63-71), which is the foundation of the predictive model offered on Figure 5.7.

Site distribution over time across the whole silt fens was tested for statistical significance by period, and for the periods for which the number of sites was large enough to allow valid testing (periods two, three and five), the null hypothesis, that the number of sites in each community in each period was in proportion to the overall number of sites in each community, was rejected. As significance testing was conducted on a chronological basis, we cannot make firm statements about the behaviour of individual communities. What can be noted, however, is that the statistical tests indicate non-random variation from average behaviour across the silt fen communities in both periods two and three. In period two, Community 1 contributes to the overall error, but the contribution is not large compared to that of other communities - this indicates that the foundation rate in Community 2 was low compared to other communities at this time. In period three, however, Community 1 is the major source of statistical error, indicating an increase in the rate of site foundation in Community 1 relative to other silt fen communities. This confirms the statistical significance of the pattern of late development observed above.

5.3.2

Analysis of Community 2

Community 2, its basic structures and communications, are mapped on Figure 5.11, and the sites of which it is comprised are listed in Table 5.2. Several important similarities with Community 1 are immediately apparent. A similar, if more dispersed, status core is observable, centred upon OS grid reference TF 155 270, and composed entirely of sites exhibiting evidence of architectural elaboration, with two outlier status sites to the south. Of the six status sites in the 'hub' three of them, 12 13 03, 12 23 12, and 12 23 13, are all of status ranl( four, buildings with tile roofs but no evidence of substantial walling. The other three sites in the status core, 12 23 14, 12 23 15 and 12 23 17 are of rank seven, buildings of some substance with evidence for stone or rubble walling material. The notion of a status core is thus reinforced by the concentration of all forms of architectural elaboration that occur in Community 2 in the same small area. Site 12 23 17 is a good example of this group, with rubble, tile, multiple quern stones and a wide range of pottery including amphora sherds and mortaria (both rare in the Fens), as well as samian and NVW colour coat. This complex was mapped in detail in FRT (see gazetteer), and discussed by Hayes and Lane (1992: 90), who considered it to be 'the most important in this part of the fens'.

In Figure 5.10 we clearly see failure rates weighted towards the end of the Roman occupation, declining steeply towards the early fifth century. Conversely, foundation rates, although peaking in the second century, remain relatively high, even into period three. There is a degree of settlement turnover in period three, but the status core remained. All sites in the status core were in existence in period three, and one (13 33 01) was only in existence in period three, which may be an indication that the status core in its final form was a period three development. A small number of sites ( 13 24 02, 13 24 03 & 13 34 02) continued into period four, roughly in the area of the status core, though the number of sites was very small. It is possible that settlement retreated into this central area, as the landscape declined.

Community 2 is served by two main communications routes to the upland. The first is the canal from the Car Dyke to Rippingale Fen, which connects with the northern end of the community, and the second is the BourneMorton Canal, which connects with the southern end. Although the central ring of droves is observable in the cropmarks, evidence for radiating droves, connecting other parts of the community with the central hub is lacking. However, a southern extension of settlement

40

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

(within which the two outlying status sites 12 23 03 and 12 23 04 are located) is served by a significant watercourse. This watercourse runs towards the main settlement (see Figure 5.11), and the Bourne-Morton canal terminates at this feature.

high rate of foundation early in the Roman period, settlement tum-over occurring in the mid Roman period, and failure rates accelerating towards the end of the occupation. The number of sites in Community 2 peaks earlier than that of Community 1, a pattern which supports the suggestion of Hayes et al. (1992) that the settlement to the north of their study area (i.e. Community 1) developed later than parts of the silt fen which lay further south. In Community 2 the mid Roman period is one of cyclical failure and regeneration, and conforms to the constant change model advanced on Figure 5.8, rather than the traditional model of Figure 5.7.

A rough zone of fineware-using sites exists, focused mainly to the south and west of the main concentration of status sites. As with Community 1 there is a broad correlation between the location of dated sites in the landscape and areas where aerial photography has provided evidence of field systems. Site 12 23 11 is a site of this type. The crop mark evidence shows it as a string of small enclosures arranged along either side of a droveway (see gazetteer for detailed plan). Occupation debris is in evidence, but covers the area in a diffuse spread, rather than being strongly concentrated in any particular location, perhaps as a result of ploughing. Various types of pottery have been recovered from this site, including samian, and NVW colour coat.

Statistical significance testing (see section 5.3.1) conducted across the region, indicated non-random variation for the expected occurrence of sites over time. Although, as explained in the context of Community 1, testing occurred by period across the whole region, each community's contribution to the eventual error can be assessed. The error produced by Community 2 was greater in period two, than in period three, although in both cases the value was small. This is in marked contrast with Community 1 (discussed above), and is thus in keeping with the picture obtained from the stability graph (Figure 5.12) of different development histories for the two areas.

The field systems associated with this settlement complex are intermittent, being largely concentrated at the terminus of the Roman road across Rippingale Fen, and in the immediate vicinity of sites on the central hub. There is some evidence of a looser field system arranged around the southern sites, particularly around the end of the Bourne-Morton Canal. This somewhat unclear picture is in keeping with the generally diffuse nature of Community 2.

Community 2 is particularly interesting from the point of view of comparing current results with those of previous detailed studies, as it is the only one which falls into both the study area of S. J. Hallam, and Hayes et al. Hallam conducted a detailed statistical analysis of the region, but presented the results as a generalised picture for her entire study region (covering Communities 2 to 4), which obscures the detail of events. But the picture that she presented (57-58) is one broadly recognisable in the results of this current study. Her results detect second century expansion, with some sites in the south and east of the Community 2 complex being abandoned in the late second to late third centuries (FRT Sheet L, c & d). The general nature of later settlement in her study area was of 'compact nuclei with many farms, some refounded, some recently founded' (Hallam 1970: 58). The retreat of such settlement in Hallam's model is, however, more extreme in some areas (roughly the area occupied by Community 3) than others, and we may suppose that Community 2 actually faired quite well: the area that it occupies is one singled out by Hallam (1970: 58) as an area of surviving sites.

The undated sites in this community form an outer fringe, mainly on the western side of the settlement area, and as with Community 1, the overwhelming majority of the saltem sites are located in the region of the 'undated fringe' (see Table 5.2). Of the total of 77 sites in Community 2, 29 are saltems, of which 22 are undated. The remaining saltem sites are combined with settlement. The basic history of this complex is similar to that of Community 1, with scattered indications of Iron Age activity, followed by Roman expansion. However, the three sites which demonstrate some Iron Age activity are widely spaced, and do not represent an early 'nucleus'. This lack of an early focus may account for the apparent diffuseness of the community in later periods. The spatial distribution of sites over time within Community Two is illustrated by Figures 5.2 to 5.6. Figure 5.3 shows early second century expansion, the great bulk of sites focused in the western half of the complex. Figure 5.4 shows an eastward shift in the concentration of settlement, with previous areas of high site density in decline. Figure 5.6 illustrates how undated sites are most concentrated in peripheral areas.

Hallam's work is echoed in the later study of Hayes et al. (1992) located to the north, which plotted pottery distribution across this area, which demonstrated a general drift of settlement eastwards, and northwards. Although the settlement distributions do not provide the clear confirmation for this picture that those for Community 1 appeared to do, two things must be remembered. Firstly the relationship between Community 1 and 2, i.e. that the latter is directly south of the former,

When we examine the foundation/failure rates presented on Figure 5 .12 we see different profiles over time to those observed for Community 1. For Community 2 the failure and foundation rates are more evenly balanced, with a

41

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

means that any west to east shift in settlement will be observable within an individual community, whereas a south to north shift will be from one community to another. What we observe, when we compare Communities 1 and 2 is a relative increase in the size of Community 1, and only a slight increase in Community 2. Although the current study does not fully support the contention of Hayes et al. (1992) that the area occupied by Community 2 actually declined, it does suggest that the general trend in the settlement data for the north to become more intensely occupied than the south is correct.

and the Baston - Spalding road (M261 ), which runs right through the settlement complex to end at Spalding (the Roman occupation of which is considered later in section 5.3.7). The main droves of this settlement are a 'spinal' east/west road, and several north/south fragments laid out either side of this central feature (see Figure 5.13). Fineware-using sites with no signs of architectural elaboration are, as in other communities, concentrated in areas where there is crop mark evidence for field systems. This type of site in Community 3 is exemplified by 22 23 02, for which FRT provides a detailed plot of the cropmarks. This is a relatively small site, with a single dense area of occupation debris located in a complex of small enclosures, laid out at the comer of a major drove road. The main concentration of sites like 22 23 02 stretches along the spinal east/west drove. Both to the north and south of this spine lie clusters of sites, served by the north/south drove fragments, which would probably have linked them to the 'spine'. The northern cluster is more tightly defined, that to the south being relatively diffuse.

Secondly we must remember the difference in the data being presented. The current study deals with settlements, dated on presence or absence of pottery, whilst Hayes et al. were dealing with quantified pottery distribution, and specifically note that a 'deteriorating environment may result in a decline in economic activity and prosperity that falls short of the abandonment of settlements.' Such a situation would not be visible in the current study, which would simply detect continued occupation. What can be noted here, however, is that a comparison between the stability graphs for Community 1 (Figure 5.10) and Community 2 (Figure 5.12) indicate a later peak in the total number of sites in Community 1, than is the case in Community 2. This would tend to support the hypothesis of a northern drift in settlement. Finally it can be seen that although each study (Hallam, Hayes et al., and the current project) have each used different methodologies, the results of each are supportive, and do combine to form a single, if complex, picture.

5.3.3

The relationship of these dated sites to field systems is clear. The most intense area of small field enclosures lies along the spinal drove way. The cluster of sites to the north is accompanied by a similar network of fields, though slightly looser in nature. The southern cluster of sites appears to have very few fields laid out in its vicinity, but is accompanied by an ill-defmed network of curvilinear watercourses. Cropmark coverage is intermittent in this area, making it difficult to say anything about the organisation of this part of the landscape, but the chief identifiable feature is a single drove leading south from the Baston - Spalding road that runs through the heart of Community 3. The southern sites are served by this drove, and should perhaps be interpreted as an off shoot of settlement into an area that was not drained and developed to the same degree as other parts of the community

Analysis of Community 3

The basic features of Community 3 are mapped on Figure 5.13, and its sites are listed on Table 5.3. The first observation to be made about this community is the lack of a status core. Only two high status sites (22 12 02 and 22 34 01), where roof tile was discovered, are known from this community. The first is towards the centre of the community, and the second is in the northern part of the complex. It is possible that this was a community in which the status core, for whatever reason, never developed the apparent status indicators of the neighbouring settlement complexes, that there were status sites present that have either not been recognised, or that have been lost beneath later activity or sites. A possible location for a status core is Pinchbeck Common (which would make 22 12 02 on of the status core sites). Surrounding the common is a dense concentration of sites, and fragments of drove way that may have formed part of the core's ring drove are apparent in the cropmark evidence. However, cropmark coverage fails on, and around, the Common, and the possible existence of a status sore in this area remains speculation.

Undated sites roughly surround the areas of dated settlement. This picture is complicated by the multinucleated nature of Community 3, but undated sites are clearly located in the areas between the three main clusters of dated settlement. This pattern is particularly obvious in the case of the southern cluster, where undated sites form a ring around dated sites. There are 19 saltems, 15 of which are associated with undated sites. Of the saltems, 15 cluster in the north of the community, many of which form an extensive and tight grouping close to the area of creek system which separates this block of settlement from that of Community 2. Presumably these creeks were the sources of the brine used in the saltems. The history of Community 3, and the spatial distribution of sites, is demonstrated by Figures 5.2 to 5.6. Period one activity is characterised by scattered, low-density settlement. As elsewhere, period two shows rapid

This community is served by the canalised river Glen (a feature regarded as possibly Roman by FRT, Sheet K),

42

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

expansion, in Community 3 this clearly 'in fills' an area previously lightly occupied. Period three shows a marked shift in settlement density, with a general decline in the numbers of sites, particularly in the central band. Settlement increases in the northern cluster, and remains virtually static in the southern.

5.3.4

Analysis of Community 4

Community Four is mapped on Figure 5.15 and the sites it is composed of are listed on Table 5.4. Like others, Community 4 has a group of status sites at its heart, centred on OS grid point TF 305130. It comprises of six sites, three (31 23 01, 31 23 04 and 312401) conforming to the architectural elaboration trend, with no portable wealth, but all with evidence of roof tile. One site (31 23 13) is a mixed tradition site, with roof tile and a single coin, and two (31 23 02 and 31 50 07) were portable wealth sites, with no sign of architectural elaboration. These sites probably form the most clearly defined status core of any of those on the silt fen, although this picture is complicated by the existence of an outlying cluster of status sites to the north west, referred to as 4a. This is comprised of five sites, 21 13 07, 21 13 09, 21 13 10, 21 23 06, and 21 23 12. All of these sites conform to the architectural elaboration trend, and have produced evidence for tiled roofs, but no walling material. Of these sites, three show evidence of saltern activity, though this activity may be early, and the status sites may develop after the saltern activity has ceased. This cluster is also mixed with low status sites, in a way that does not occur in the main status core to the south east.

Turning to settlement pattern stability (Figure 5.14) the foundation and failure rate curves are similar in character to those of Community 2, and thus the two communities may be considered to demonstrate similar behaviour over time. Community 3 conforms more closely to the generalised pattern of constant change generated for the silt fen landscape, than the model of sudden, catastrophic events. Site behaviour over time was, as with other areas, subjected to statistical testing. The period two and three patterns across all communities varied significantly from the average behaviour of 'the silt fens'. In terms of Community 3 specifically, we see that there were less sites than predicted in period three, suggesting a drop in settlement density which was out of proportion to general trends in the rest of the area in the later Roman period. How does this compare to pervious studies of the area? As noted above, Community 3 is outside the study area of Hayes et al. , but is firmly within the area covered by Hallam. Hallam (1970: 58) notes that 'by the mid-third century, many loose fen-ward complexes had disappeared from the map ... ahnost all of the settlements south-west of Spalding had gone.' This is visible on Hallam's distribution map (FRT sheet L, c & d). Hallam's picture is reflected in the shrinking of the central band of settlement along the spinal drove road, and is echoed in the results of the significance testing discussed above. It is interesting to note that the eastward trend noted by Hayes et al. in the area to the north (a picture supported by the results of the current analysis), is not borne out to the south of the 1992 study area. Settlement occupying the western half of Community 3 certainly declines, but no corresponding increase in settlement to the east is apparent. Neither is there a south to north shift; the areas of this community that survive appear to achieve a measure of stability, rather than expansion. This is at odds with Hallam's picture of a complete desertion of this area by the late third century (FRT Sheet L, d). It must be noted, however, that many of the sites in Community 3 which show evidence of late occupation were identified by FS (and were therefore not available to Hallam when she drew her distribution maps), or were 'undated' Roman sites at the time of FRT and were subsequently dated by FS. It must also be remembered that the current study does not aspire to the detailed analysis of the expansion and contraction of individual sites, and the general trends of Hallam's work which indicate a decline in this area may still hold true. That decline, however, may fall short of the widespread abandonment that she proposed.

In terms of communications, Community 4 is served firstly by the canalised Welland, and secondly the Southea, a natural watercourse. The first of these, the Welland route, runs through the north west status group, whilst the second, the Southea, terminates at the larger southern status group. Thus, like other communities, there are well-established connections to the mainland. The internal pattern of droves is similar to other communities, in that an apparent hub of roads defmes the primary status core, with drove ways radiating out from this hub to other parts of the complex (see Figure 5.15), one of which runs towards the Welland group of status sites.

Dated sites cluster around the Southea focus of Community 4, as well as the Welland focus. There is also a diffuse spread across the rest of the area of settlement to the north east. Thus settlement is most dense along the boundary with the peat fens to the south west. Sites of this class are similar to those discussed for other communities, a good example being 31 24 02, a group of settlement debris spreads within an area of small enclosures, arranged along a principal drove way. Once again the relationship between dated sites and field systems reveals important insights into the structure of the local landscape. Tight networks of enclosures are centred on the main hub of Community 4, with a lesser concentration around the Welland focus. Between them is a band of irregular, looser crop marks, reminiscent of those that separate the main community blocks. However, this zone is narrow, and unlike others elsewhere, is crossed by a principal drove route. To the north east, where settlement is widespread but unfocused, the

43

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

landscape is dominated by a slightly loose, but still cohesive network of fields.

area of Community 4 may well have been in decline, sites may have been interrupted by flooding, and some sites were certainly abandoned, but there is no observable seaward movement of settlement in this area.

Undated sites are located around the Welland focus, generally avoiding areas of field system and dated sites. An exception to this is the diffuse north eastern settlement area, through which undated sites are relatively evenly distributed. There are 28 saltern sites in Community 4, of which 20 are also settlement sites. Of the 28 saltern sites, ten are located around the area of the Welland focus, and the rest (with the exception of site 31 24 01) are located south of the primary status core.

5.3.5

Analysis of Community 5

Community 5 is different from the others so far examined, both in its size, and the quality of the evidence available. It is mapped on Figure 5 .17 and its component sites are listed on Table 5.5. The community is small, compared to others, and has no observable status core, in fact no status sites of any kind have been recorded from this complex. Communications are also unusual - there is no major route connecting this settlement to the outside world, as is the case with all other silt fen complexes.

The chronological development of the complex is presented on Figures 5.2 to 5.6. Significant clusters of early sites can be seen on Figure 5.2, one in the location of the Welland focus, and one immediately to the south of the Southea status core. A scattering of early sites exists to the north east, in the area of later diffuse settlement. The later merging of these two foci, and the fact that unlike other settlement complexes they were linked by a drove, suggests that what began as two distinct settlement clusters in period one had a closer relationship by period two. Given the somewhat 'half formed nature of the 4a status core, with little indication of a hub of droves, it is suggested the 4a was dependant on status core 4. Figure 5.3 illustrates how period two settlement is still based around the two early foci, and Figure 5.4 demonstrates that these two main areas of dated sites remained relatively static from period two into period three, both in terms of the numbers of sites, and location.

This cluster of sites was identified by Ringley (1989: 100) as a good example of girdle pattern settlement, inferring a kin based social structure, and a landscape of colonisation, but the number of dated sites is also very low, and it is difficult to interpret the actual sites present. In terms of communications, the complex is dominated by a ring drove, and settlement is arranged around this feature, or along linear droves that radiate from it. The complex has no obvious main communication route linking it to the outside world, and although there is no certain direct link to Community 4, there are suggestive hints of a major droveway (termed by FRT a 'limiting drove', as it appears to mark the southern limit of settlement in this area) which runs between the two. Like 4a, Community 5 perhaps had a closer relationship with Community 4, than was the case between 1, 2 and 3. Only seven sites were recorded as having any dating evidence. Although the area has been surveyed both by the FRT and by the FS, Community 5 fell outside the coverage of Hallam's detailed field survey, a fact that may account for some of our lack of detail.

The development trends of the complex obey the continual change model, as is demonstrated by Figure 5.15. Statistical significance testing of the Community 4 sites reveals a higher number of settlements in period two than would be expected in the null hypothesis, and this represents a significant source of error in the test for this period. The correlation is better for period three, the degree of variation between expected and observed values being insignificant.

Undated sites are more common than in other communities, and occur in areas of field system. This is likely to be a result of the poorer quality of data from this area. This may also account for the lack of salterns in the complex, a seemingly important economic element in the other communities. There is only one known saltern from Community 5.

Hallam's study took in the area of Community 4, and her distribution maps (FRT Sheet L, a - e) indicate that this area remained occupied throughout the Roman period, and achieved a degree of stability, with the level of occupation in the third century maintained by late foundations (1970: 58). What is important to note is that the methodology adopted in this current study detects no seaward shift in occupation. As elsewhere, this may be because of the type of data being used - distributions have been analysed on the basis of simple presence and absence, which cannot address issues of site decline that fall short of abandonment. However, it is striking that other studies, using more subtle techniques on smaller areas, detected shifts that were also visible in the broader picture of settlement distribution. The fact that such trends are not visible in Community 4 cannot thus be dismissed as a function of an inadequate data set. The

The scant information available for Community 5 has been plotted on Figures 5.2 to 5.6. Although we must be very wary of interpreting any patterns apparent on the basis of just seven dated sites, it may be noted that there is a decline (from seven to four sites) from period two to period three. This is a small basis for foundation and failure rates as generated for other communities, and thus they have not been presented. Community 5 was included in the significance tests conducted on settlement across this area, consistently contributing to the statistical error,

44

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

but as with every aspect of this community, this is probably caused by the poor quality of the available data.

people, Community 2 by 385, Community 3 by 505, Community 4 by 575 and Community 5 by 115.

5.3.6

5.3. 7

Summary

The western silt fens can be seen to divide into approximately five settlement complexes, though with some internal subdivisions, Community 4 being the prime example. The broad scale of analysis adapted here receives some support from the fact that where the current study area overlaps with previous detailed work, similar patterns are observed. This can be seen with the northern study conducted by Hayes et al. (1992), and to a lesser degree with the early work of Hallam (1970). This demonstrates that the analysis conducted here is capable of detecting significant trends, even if the scale at which it was conducted lacks some of the resolution of more detailed (but more geographically restricted) approaches, in a broadly based study across a wide landscape.

Spalding

Our picture of the silt fens is incomplete without considering the important site of Spalding. The Roman remains around the modem town of Spalding are scanty, and difficult to interpret: they are recorded in FRT, and discussed briefly by Hallam (60), but the area of the town itself, and its immediate surroundings, were not surveyed in the FS. Thus what we have are indications, nothing more, that this was an important location, and it is recorded as such by FRT (1970: 290-291). Spalding is the only location in the silt fens where there is a (relatively) significant concentration of coinage. Six single and two multiple coin finds were recorded in and around Spalding by FRT (290 - 292), though most were unidentified It may be noted, however, that one of the identified coins was particularly early in a Fenland context, being an issue of Claudius I, and another, a gold solidus of Arcadius, dating to 408, was particularly late. Although the evidence is slight, this would seem to indicate at least the possibility of a site occupied during the whole period of the Roman occupation. It is also notable that a Roman sculpture (a female bust) and a substantial Roman bridge, were also reported from the town

The broad trends that are visible can be summarised as follows. As figures 5.2 to 5.6 show, there were shifts over time in the settlement pattern. The dated sites, when plotted by period, displayed a shift east in the northern communities, but a relatively static, if declining, pattern in the southern communities. Although, as has been argued, social decisions were made in the Fens, and it is not the case that all actions were environmentally determined, actions did take place within a dynamic environmental context. This has a bearing on the founding of communities, and where they were located. As environmental conditions worsened in the late Roman period, settlement in the north retreated east. Hayes et al. (1992) suggest that the silts to the east were slightly higher than the surrounding landscape, and the north/south band of settlement simply shifted to a better location. In terms of the social process involved in this shift, it has been argued in Chapter 4 that a 'colonising' social structure allowed for a gradual movement of the population, driven by the environment, over time, and without sudden catastrophe.

These are of course nothing more than fragments of information, and would mean little if it were not for the context of Spalding in the local communications network. Having advanced a model of essentially modular silt fen communities, all of which are of relatively low status and served by communications to the upland (but rarely to each other), we must attempt to find a role for this settlement. Spalding not only has indications of status, but it is not attached to a broader community and it acts as a nodal point in the communications network. The Baston Spalding road (M261) that serves Community 3 ultimately ends at Spalding. The canalised River Welland, and the possible Roman road which shadows its course which serves Community 4, also continues to Spalding. The great majority of silt fen settlement represented in Communities 3 and 4 ( and its possible satellite Community 5) thus have communications linl(s with Spalding.

Can we speculate upon the number of people who inhabited these communities? Hallam (1970: 71 - 72), examining the Fens, considered a figure of four to five people per site to be reasonable, a figure with which Millett (1990b: 185) concurred, and it is this figure which I have used to generate the population estimates advanced here. It is possible that sites may have been more densely populated, if we consider the possibility of extended, rather than nuclear, families, occupying sites (Ringley 1989: 6 - 9). However, I have retained the average figure of five people per site to take account of the fact that some sites (like saltems) were only seasonally occupied. The figures here thus represent a slight over estimation on the basis on a strict nuclear family model. On this basis Community 1 was inhabited by approximately 430

In the absence of quality data the role of Spalding can only be a speculation. But FRT records (286) that the Seventh century occupants of this area were the Spaldingas or Spaldas, the 'dwellers by the gulf. Add this to the Roman bridge in Spalding (FRT: 291), and we may hypothesis that Spalding was a centre, major by Fenland standards, which was in a key location in the local canal and road network, It is also considerably more seaward than any other significant silt fen settlement. The ancient coastline is not well established, but given its proximity, it must have played a large part in life on the

45

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

silt fen, g1vmg contact with the sea. FRT reconstructs what it terms the Saxon coast on its general distribution map (Sheet K), and this shows an inlet, at the end of which is the concentration of Roman finds at Spalding. This does not demonstrate that Spalding was located at the head of such an inlet in the Roman period; of this we cannot be certain. However, it does underline Spalding's probable coastal access. Given these various strands of circumstantial evidence, we may advance the tentative hypothesis that Spalding was a small port serving the silt fen, and allowing communication to, and from the sea, perhaps also functioning as a regional market centre.

4a, the complexes which contained identifiable status cores. The first thing to note is that all of the cores contain a similar number of sites (five or six), irrespective of the size of the community of which they form a part. It is also notable that the cores are of similar physical size: the core of Community 1, the possible core located on Pinchbeck Common in Community 3 and the core and its possible two satellites in Community 4 are all organised around a space of approximately one square kilometre. Only the more dispersed core of Community 2, at about two square kilometres, is larger. The primary trend in terms of status display is one of architectural elaboration. Neither the cores in Community 2 or 4a had any other kind of status sites, and in Communities 1 and 4 more than 50% of all status sites demonstrated only architectural elaboration. Of the other status sites in these complexes only two, both in Community 4, are of the portable wealth trend rather than mixed architectural elaboration/portable wealth. Only these two sites, in all of the status sites in the fens, show no substantial structural evidence.

5.3.8. Silt Fen sites outside the Community Structure. Of the 767 silt fen sites recorded in the gazetteer, 289 lie outside of the community structure that has been identified. However, as with the peat fen sites, this group is not susceptible to analysis as a group, due to its widely scattered nature. Many of the sites lie in the northern extension of the silt fen that runs towards Lincohl. This area has only been very partially surveyed (Lane 1992), and has not formed an integral part of the core study area of this project.

Is it possible to compare the relative wealth for the status cores? The difficulty with this is that with different trends in status display it is hard to make judgements on the relative value of, for example, a site with a great number of coins, or one with a possible tiled roofed building. Table 5.6 advances a possible method for doing this, in which the status ranks in each 'status trend' is given a value based upon its relative position to other status categories in other trends. If we score status cores with this method we come up with a series of totals that give a rough guide to relative wealth. These totals are displayed on Table 5.7.

The rest of this group form an ill-defined north eastern fringe to the community structure outlined in the first part of this chapter, though it is difficult to discuss these sites in the absence of cropmark evidence available for much of the silt fens. It is well recognised that an extensive area lay seaward of the known silt fen sites which was buried by post-Roman silt deposition (Hall & Coles 1994), and it is possible that this eastern fringe of sites is all that is visible of further community structures, now largely buried. However, only three of these sites, 22 50 03, 24 24 01 and 30 23 03 had any evidence of status display recovered from them. In the first two, there was just a single coin on each site. At 30 23 03 there was a coin find and a coin hoard, dating to the third century. Thus it may be that these sites represent a low status extension of the landscape of colonisation identified in the western silt fens.

We see from this scoring that Community 1 had the 'richest' core, and the wealth of the cores decreases the further south east that they are located, although the differences are relatively slight. It is also interesting to note that, as with community size, there is a lack of correlation between the scale of salt production and the wealth of the status cores. The character of these groups of sites is thus independent of the economic profiles and density of settlement of the silt fen communities. This suggests that the cores must have had a specific function that was not directly linked, either to a community's economy, or the size of its population. This function was perhaps administrative.

5.4 A Comparative Analysis between Silt Fen Communities The final stage in this analysis of the silt fen landscape is to compare various common elements that have been identified across the community complexes. This comparative analysis will be conducted upon the status cores, communications, settlement types, and salt production in the context of the silt fen economy.

5.4.1

5.4.2

The Nature of Settlements

Throughout the analysis of the silt fen communities, examples of individual sites were used as illustrations of broad types of settlement. These broad 'types' were based principally upon status. Having examined a range of such sites, it is possible to make some general observations about the type of settlement that existed. This must begin with actual buildings. As Salway noted (1970: 7) data is

A comparison of Status Cores

This comparison applies only to Communities 1, 2, 4, and

46

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

'average' of them all, and serves to illustrate the basic (repeated) landscape features. This abstract community is presented on Figure 5.18. It has a centrally located status core of six sites with roof tile, surrounded by a zone of field systems. Within this zone are fineware-using settlements, nucleated collections of rectangular buildings with thatched roofs. This area is surrounded by a zone of loosely connected ditches and creeks, populated by insubstantial sites and saltems. The whole complex is served by droves that radiate from the hub of the status core, and is connected to the uplands to the west by a single Roman road.

thin ( a situation which for the silt fens has not improved since the publication of FRT), but what evidence there is instructive. As the enlarged area of crop marks from FRT demonstrates many sites show evidence of concentrations of dense settlement debris, many roughly rectangular. As was pointed out by Hallam (1970: 49), although these areas of debris cannot be claimed to exactly outline buildings, their generally rectangular nature may suggest that the distribution of such material has not been too badly distorted by ploughing. This is supported by the fact that many of these debris spreads appear to respect enclosure boundaries that once contained structures. The suggestion from sites lilrn, for example, 22 33 01, must be that buildings were longer than they were wide, and the most likely ground plan for such a structure is that of a rectangular building. From scattered investigations like that at Welney, site 59 24 01, Salway (1970: 7) was able to characterise typical Fenland buildings as being rectangular with 'low sill-walls of clay, upper works of wattle and daub, with or without a light timber framework, and pitched roofs of thatch'. Without modem excavation on a well-preserved site this is as much as we can say about 'typical' Fenland architecture.

5.4.3

Salt Production and Agriculture

Table 5.8 presents the number of saltems, as a percentage of the total number of sites in each community. Some of these sites have evidence of late Iron Age activity, but dating of saltem sites is problematic, and there is little way of distinguishing between early Roman and LPRIA salt production. If, as has been hypothesised, the Roman authorities were expanding an industry already in existence, it is lilrnly that 'late Iron Age' saltems will have continued into the post conquest period.

What of the settlements themselves? Hallam (1970: 5960) proposed a typology of settlement types, but it is a scheme impossible to apply over the whole region, given the type of data available. When dealing only with survey data, and where there is little or no accompanying excavation, site types can only be based upon the nature of surface finds. In the case of the silt fens, it is clear from the analysis of the various settlement complexes that sites break down into three basic groups, status sites, dated sites with no status evidence, and undated sites.

As can be clearly seen, the highest proportion is to be found in Community 2, at 35.5 %, but the degree of salt production is generally high, illustrating the importance of this industry to the region. The one exception is Community 5, which has only 4% saltem sites, but the quality of data for this area is poor, and no weight can be attached to this value. Table 5.8 also presents the absolute numbers of saltems in each community, giving an idea of the spatial distribution of the industry. The focus is clearly on Community 2, with 29 saltems. Salt production can be seen to tail off both to the north and south of this community.

We can provide a little more detail for this picture by analysing the context of sites within the known network of crop marks. Given the imprecise nature of much of the survey data available, it was considered best to confine the correlation of survey and crop mark data to explicitly published examples, in effect the 48 detailed combination plans (crop marks and surface scatters) included as inserts in the FRT maps. What these combination plans illustrate is that status and dated sites were probably composed of multiple numbers of rectangular buildings. Of the 48 plans, 4 7 are dated sites. They tend not to be of the undated group, which infers that these peripheral sites are less substantial habitations, leaving less surface evidence.

Can we attempt a chronology for these sites? This is difficult because most saltems are undated, and they are not generally mixed with settlement debris. Those that are, may well precede the datable settlement. Silt fen saltems, identified on the basis of the presence of briquetage, are usually considered to be an early Roman industry, growing as they did out of a LPRIA precursor (Hayes and Lane 1992: 227). But this relates to the archaeological detectable traces of briquetage, and Bradley (1975: 25) has advanced a hypothesis for Hampshire in which salt making 'declined' after AD 100 because of a refinement in the technique of salt making which left less archaeological trace, rather than a decline in the industry per se. Hayes and Lane (1992: 227) dispute this for the Fens, citing Gurney (1986: 137), who presents salt-making sites dated to the late 2nd/early 3rd century at Denver, on the eastern fen edge. These sites were still based upon briquetage technology. But the main focus of salt production in the fens was to the west, and the possibility that old techniques were still in use away

Like most aspects of the silt fens, this basic spatial pattern of sites, and the tri-partite division of settlement types is repeated, across the settlement complexes identified. The picture that emerges from the analysis of the five communities is of repeated features that together form a 'modular' landscape. The repetition of features is not, of course, totally consistent - it would be unrealistic to expect this. But it does allow the creation of a caricature of a 'typical' Fenland Community, a model which fits none of the actual communities observed, but is rather an

47

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

from the main field of salt production is no proof that new techniques were not adopted on the silt fens themselves.

based system, the peak times of activity would have been at lambing and slaughtering/shearing. In modem flocks lambing occurs around March or early April, and as this is timed to take maximum advantage of the peak in grass growth in the summer months, timing is unlikely to have been significantly different in the past (Speedy 1980: 18). Bradley's seasonal model of salt production, which suggests that activity was concentrated in MaySeptember, would indicate that in a combined salt production/sheep rearing economy the peak of activity in the saltems would have occurred after lambing.

It is instructive to consider the Roman salt industry that

was based on Droitwich, a comparison that is only by way of illustration, as coastal salt production is different from that at inland sites. But the need to evaporate brine, the part of the process which creates the most diagnostic archaeological remains, and which may be considered to be the part of the process that underwent technological advance, is common to both types of salt production. No late Roman equivalent of briquetage is known from Droitwich, even though there was early Roman salt production immediately before the Late Roman Period, and early Anglo Saxon salt production (Bond & Hunt 1992: 186) following the end of the Roman occupation. At Droitwich the possibility of salt production in the late Roman period being conducted in such a way as to create little, or no, briquetage was raised (Woodiwiss 1992: 183). Here, barrels set into the ground and the use of wicker baskets for draining were tentatively associated with salt production, and this would certainly account for the lack of briquetage. An alternative is the use of brine pans made from some other substance, like lead, as was recorded at Droitwich (Woodiwiss 1992: 82, 183) or Middlewich (Bestwick 1975: 66), though in the absence of any evidence to point in this direction, it remains a highly speculative possibility for the Fens. However, although hardly conclusive, the evidence from Droitwich does suggest the possibility of the continuation of some form of salt production after the early Roman period, and given the difficulties in dating what evidence we do have, the chronological span of the Fenland salt production area must remain an open question.

The timing of the second period of intense activity during sheep farming, shearing and/or slaughtering, is dependent on the specific husbandry regime in operation, i.e. whether sheep are being reared primarily for meat, or for their secondary products (wool, and milk). If sheep were being slaughtered for meat, the lambs would have been butchered under a year of age, but at older than six months (Speedy 1980: 85-86), and this activity would fall place between September and April - once again outside the main period for salting. This slaughter age is based upon modem practice, but the one well analysed bone assemblage from the Fens that we have, from Stonea Grange, adds support to this picture, with a first peak of death in sheep occurring in the first summer/autumn. The rearing of sheep for secondary products would probably have entailed shearing in late May or early June (Speedy 1980: 126), which means that shearing would have occurred at the start of the salt producing season. However, if salt production were delayed until after this, it would still give three and a half months to work the saltems. The timing of processes involved in both stock management and salt production is important, because of the obvious end result of practicing both activities in the same economy, that of salted meat. It may have been the case that, having raised stock, and produced salt over the summer months the slaughtering and salting took place over the winter.

Salt production can only have been part of the silt fen economy, being a seasonal occupation (Bradley 1975: 2223) that may only have been conducted from May to September. Bradley asserts that 'the conception of salting as an advanced specialist occupation becomes untenable' (23), in his study of salt making in the Roman period on the south coast. This opens up the question of what the salt workers did to support themselves, outside the seasonal cycle of salt production. Bradley ties salt working in Hampshire and Sussex to an agrarian economy, but the Fenland landscape could never have supported extensive cereal cultivation (Potter 1981: 129 131, & Salway 1970: 13 - 14). The economy of the Fens has long been considered to be based upon stock rearing, a contention supported by the many small irregular fields, unsuitable for arable production which are visible as crop marks (Hallam 1970: 64). Potter suggests that sheep formed a principal element of a livestock economy, though there are indications that cattle might have been important as well (Stallibrass 1997: 594).

General conditions in the region, damp and low lying, are not those traditionally considered the best for sheep farming. The principal problems would have been foot rot and liver fluke. But modem Romney Marsh sheep are resistant to foot rot, and Roman 'Fenland' sheep may have been as well (Stallibrass 1997: 591). Stallibrass also suggested that if slaughtered early, lambs suffering from liver fluke will be too young to develop the full effects of infestation, and perhaps removing them so young would help to clean up pastures. It may also be the case that cattle formed a significant part

of the animal economy. Turning again to the evidence from Stonea, we see that there were significant numbers of cattle recovered from the site. Of the total assemblage recovered, 40% were cattle in the second to third century and 45% in the third to fourth century. The age at death of these animals did not suggest that they were primarily used for meat, and their use as a dairy herd was

Ifwe return to our abstract spatial model (Figure 5.18) we can see that the dated settlement zone is where the stock fields are concentrated. If we assume a principally sheep

48

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

considered possible but not proven (Stallibrass 1997: 594). There are distinct advantages to raising both cattle and sheep over and above the purely economic (Speedy 1980: 25-29); alternating grazing areas between the two species helps to keep down worm infestation, something that in the less than perfect environment of the Fens may have been important. This picture of a mixed economy is supported by the faunal assemblage recovered from Throckenholt Farm in Community 5, where the bones were 'mainly of cattle and sheep from ditch fills'.

and for the over wintering of animals once they had left the summer pastures. If this was the case then undated sites may lack datable material culture because they were only occupied on a seasonal basis, during the summer when the livestock were on the summer pastures at the edge of the community, and the saltems were in operation. This suggestion allows us to propose an economic calendar for the silt fens, although in the absence of more high quality animal bone assemblages from the region, it remains highly speculative. This calendar is presented on Table 5.9.

Whatever the animal species in question, any individuals not slaughtered will require fodder during the winter. In the Fenland context it may well be that many of the fields observable in the crop mark evidence would have been set aside for hay. The somewhat mysterious 'fen circles' have been interpreted by Hall (1978) as faint drip gullies formed from the thatched roofs of hay or com stacks. The evidence for these is summarised in Hall & Coles (1994: 119-120), and while it is not even certain that they are of Roman date, they are numerous, with 703 in Cambridgeshire alone. If they are of Roman date, and if they are the relics of 'fodder' stacks, this would fit well into the agricultural system proposed.

5.5 Communications, Markets

Administration

and

Having conducted a detailed investigation of the silt fen landscape, disparate elements must now be drawn together to form a general picture of this area. The roads and canals that connect the silt fen communities to the upland form branches from the twin main north/south communications routes of King Street (M26, itself a branch from Ermine Street, M2b), and the Car Dyke (see Figure 5.19). King Street appears to have little obvious function, except to act as a spine to roads branching into the silt fen. Thus we have a road system that connects individual silt fen settlements, to King Street, a road that ends at Durobrivae. The impression given by this communications network is that these silt fen communities were in some way dependant upon Durobrivae. This visual impression is strengthened by a key consideration that is the fact that there is little evidence of major lateral communication between the settlement complexes on the silt fens. These complexes may be connected by less 'official' drove ways, though even these are not discernible in the extensive crop mark evidence from the area. It would not, then, be possible, given what we know of the silt fen official communication network, to travel between communities without a lengthy detour up to the uplands. The silt fens do not function as a whole, but were carved up in to blocks accessed from King Street, or the Car Dyke, and ultimately this places them in a hierarchical relationship with Durobrivae. The lack of communications between communities means that it would also have been impossible to travel from the silt fen settlement complexes to the central fen landscape, without going via King Street and Durobrivae.

5.4.4 Undated sites, pottery, and the economic calendar

The picture proposed above has provided a basic model of the economy of the silt fens, one of mixed stock rearing and salt production. However, the distribution of undated sites may give us a clue as to how such a system functioned. The status of undated sites occasions some uncertainty. They are undated because no fmeware has been recovered from them, but it is difficult to ascribe this to the vagaries of survey data because these sites occupy a consistent spatial position in the settlement pattern generally at the periphery of communities. This situation is complicated by the fact that these sites may either have been very short lived sites which simply happen to fall into lag phases of pottery supply, or that they were the sites which were the poorest. One possible explanation for the distribution of undated sites emerges if we consider them in the light of the economic model that has been advanced. Firstly we may note that most saltems are 'undated sites', and that these are naturally located at the edge of communities where the most active creek systems provided a ready source of brine, and often positioned where peat was an available source of fuel. As already noted, these sites would be in use during the summer, but not the winter. If the economic model is correct in assuming that salt production was combined with stock rearing, then summer pasture may have been at the fringes of settlement, outside the mapped field systems. The fields would have been used in the summer for producing hay,

This clearly has implications for the sometimes rather circular arguments concerning the official administration of the Fens. The two candidates for official administration centres are Stonea (Jackson & Potter 1997: 688-689) and Durobrivae (Mackreth 1996: 234-235). It is clear from the communication network, and our discussion of the structure of silt fen settlement, that the silt fens could only be accessed from Durobrivae, and that the communications simply did not exist to allow Stonea to

49

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

be the administrative centre of the area that is under discussion. This does not alter the importance of Stonea Grange to the central fens, as will be discussed in Chapter Six, but in effect the Fens were divided into two clear units, the silt fens from Horbling to Parsons Drove (the landscape which has been analysed in this chapter) and the central fen area which includes the central fen islands, and a block of silt fen from Welney to Friday Bridge and Outwell (see Figure 5.19).

highly speculative, is that they are administrative in nature, perhaps supervising the production of salt, and salted meat. They would thus form an important part of the control mechanism for this landscape. The material culture on these sites is high by Fenland standards, but they are certainly not army outposts, or official residences of any kind. The best interpretation of these high status sites is that they are inhabited by natives charged by the army with the administration of the community, and presumably the organisation of that particular community's production. They would essentially form 'estate centres' which may have performed a wide range of organisational functions, including tax and rent collection. Thus we may hypothesise that in a compartmentalised and controlled landscape sites central to each isolated community were occupied by local officials with direct responsibility to the Roman military in the early Roman period, and perhaps to the authorities in Durobrivae from the Antonine period onwards. The early Roman salt industry would, perhaps, have been under direct military control, and any later Roman settlement in the silt fens would have been controlled from Durobrivae.

Durobrivae is largely a later second century development (Mackreth 1996: 324-235), and would only have come into mature existence at a time when the salt production industry appears to be in decline. As argued above, there are reasons why the salt industry may simply not be archaeologically visible in this later period. But activity in the Durobrivae region in the early period, when salt production is definitely known, is significant in this context. The existence of a fortress at Longthorpe, and a smaller fort in the Durobrivae area (Wilde 1974: 142), demonstrates an early military presence in a commanding position at the end of King Street. It is worth noting that these forts, positioned as they are, occupy a classic position of 'economy of force' in which they control not only the north/south fen edge spinal route for the silt fen communities, but also the east/west route of the Fen Causeway. We might suggest, based upon the apparent nature of the silt fen communications system, that ultimately the salt works were controlled, or at least policed, by the army, based in the area around Durobrivae. This suggestion is supported by the known association between the military and salt production, and the identification of salt as an imperial monopoly (Salway 1970: 10).

This leaves us with the final question of markets. The only certain market place in the Fens is located at Stonea Grange, in front of the stone tower at the heart of the complex (Jackson & Potter 1997: 681), though, as discussed in section 5 .3.7, it is also possible that Spalding performed a market function. Other local centres, on the fen edge, would have acted as trading centres, the principal of these for our current considerations being Durobrivae. Ringley (1989: 114) in discussing the structure of rural landscapes in Roman Britain suggested that seven to ten km (with a round journey of 14 km to 20 km) was the practical limit that a peasant would travel to market. Such a journey must realistically be completed in one day, as the expense of staying away from home would be too great to be borne on a regular basis. If these distance limits are plotted (see Figure 5.19) they clearly illustrate that the silt fens were not covered by any formalised market network. This provides us with a slight paradox, as it is clear from the fineware found on silt fen sites that there was access to at least basic external supplies.

In this context we can begin to explore the community structure of the silt fen landscape, and the function of the status cores of silt fen settlements. We have so far envisaged a landscape controlled, or policed by the military, with a populace engaged in salt production and a secondary activity of live stock rearing. We must now address how the landscape was actually controlled. The 'atomisation' of the population is a pre-requisite for control of a subject population (Scott 1990: 58-66), and even when conducted at a community level is a potentially repressive measure. The division of the silt fens along the lines discussed above is a structure in the landscape that embodies the phenomena that Scott identifies in the social context: the self-perception of the ruling authority as the only link between subordinates. The road network connecting these communities is a blunt expression of imperial self-perception and control though (as we will see in Chapter Eight) this need not be an accurate reflection of the true situation.

The answer may be provided by a consideration of periodic markets. Although discussing Italy, Frayn (1993: 39-40) illustrates the possibilities of regular markets that play host to 'travelling salesmen' and local small holders. Considering the pattern of market distribution observed and the communications system described above, it is possible that regular small markets were held in each silt fen community, perhaps like that postulated at Hockwold (Salway 1967: 55). If such a market existed at Hockwold, it did so in the complete absence of coinage (Salway 1967: 57), suggesting that any economy functioned on barter. Given that there is a general absence of coinage

The status cores that we have observed in many of the silt fen communities are of a uniform size, and thus do not appear to be directly linked to local economic development. One explanation of their presence, although

50

Chapter 5: The Silt Fens - A Landscape of Domination?

from the silt fens also, any putative markets in the area may also have operated on such a basis. The likely location of such markets would be the administrative status cores, where activity at the market could be monitored and easily taxed. Similar 'estate' markets have been postulated for North Africa by Kehoe (1988: 215-220) where they not only supplied the local inhabitants with goods, a chance to sell their produce or offer their labour, but also provided an element of control over the access of the population to the outside. An 'estate' sponsored market is, like a restrictive communications system, a potentially effective method of control. It can be seen from this discussion that a broadly based approach to survey data can achieve interesting insights into a landscape, and the social structures that shaped its formation. But the silt fen communities in the northern half of the study area are only part of this picture: the archaeology of the central fens will be analysed in the next chapter, where a contrasting picture to the silts can be seen to emerge.

51

Chapter 6 The Central Fens: A Landscape of Continuity?

6.1 The Late Pre-Roman Iron Age in Central Fenland

interpretation explains why the man-made defences on the riverside are weaker, comprising only a single ditch, as opposed to a double bank on the landward side. However, located on an island in the central fens as it is, the only realistic way of mounting an attack upon Stonea would be by boat. This would involve the landing of combatants at some point on the island which, given the lack of defensive structures on the fen edge side of the Camp, could just as easily be within the circuit of ditch and bank as without. Such an attack could only be fended off by a prepared defence with sufficient force to hold the length of the shore. The side abutting the river, lacking any convincing defence, is thus the weakest, rather than the strongest part of any hypothetical fortified space, and makes the Camp virtually useless as a 'refuge'. This should steer us away from a purely pragmatic and solely military interpretation.

An obvious pre-condition of a 'landscape of continuity' is pre-Roman occupation. The awareness of such occupation has been steadily growing, from the small beginnings represented by the sketch of Iron Age activity by David Hall (Potter 1981), to the widespread recognition of Iron Age remains by the Fen Survey. Figure 4.17 shows the nature of Iron Age occupation in the central fens, as it is currently understood. There are many possible factors that may have effected the survival and recognition of LPRIA pottery, the consideration of which is at its most developed in the south Lincolnshire Fens (Lane 1988: 320 and Hayes & Lane 1992: 233). However, the essential arguments - poor survival, conservative pottery traditions, failure to recognise LPRIA wares - are as relevant for the central fens, as they are for the Lincolnshire silts. In addition, later towns located in the same 'prime' settlement areas may have obscured Iron Age activity that occurred on the Fenland islands. In the context of the central fens this means the modem town of March and the railway marshalling yards and prison, which accompany it. Together, these modem features serve to deny us knowledge of the Iron Age ( and Roman) occupation of much of the central and northern areas of March Island.

In addition to purely tactical considerations, we might

question the need for a 'defensive' site here at all. From a wider regional perspective we must ask who the possible enemy may have been who would have attacked such a place? Its initial construction pre-dates the Roman invasion, and if the monument itself was the focus of Icenian power in the area in the LPRIA (Jackson & Potter 1997: 677), then the only two obvious sources of threat are the Catuvellauni to the south, or the Corieltauvi to the west. Stonea is remote, separated from both of these tribal groups by wide expanses of peat fen, and the prospect of an amphibious military operation to capture Stonea Island is surely an anachronistic concept.

It is in this context that our discussion of LPRIA occupation of the central fens must take place, and the first site that we must consider is Stonea Camp (site 49 11 01). As the largest and most imposing site in this period it is clearly of central importance, although its exact function is somewhat enigmatic. The site itself has been only incompletely investigated, but appears to have a multi-phased occupation, peaking in the period of the Icenian client state (Philpot and Potter 1997: 43). In basic form Stonea Camp is a large multi-vallate earthwork which forms a 'D' shaped enclosure backing onto a roddon, one side thus being defined by an extinct water course (Figure 6.1). There is no evidence from within the enclosure of occupation, very little debris or animal bone and no evidence for arable agriculture (Malim 1992a).

There are other options regarding Stonea that ought to be considered, however. On the landward side of the Camp, which we must remember requires the least defence from the only viable method of attack; there is a considerable elaboration of architecture: double ditch and ramparts, as well as an entrance. Overall these defences must have been of considerable scale, given that we know that the width of the ditches here ranged from three to over four metres (Malim 1992a: 30). Thus the approach to the site was emphasised from the landward direction, making the Camp, in essence, a non-defensive enclosure. Jackson & Potter (1997: 676) offer the possibility of an Iron Age sanctuary beneath the remains of the later Romano-Celtic temple, near the Stonea Grange site. The existence of such a structure is by no means established: the dating of the observed remains is inadequate (Jackson & Potter 1997: 682), and was represented by only a handful of shallow features. But if such a sanctuary were positioned at this point, the side of Stonea Camp that was enhanced with earthworks would face it. This reinforces the idea of a complex of symbolic and ceremonial sites on Stonea

The monument is clearly unique in a Fenland context, making it a difficult site to interpret, but it has generally been perceived as a defensive earthwork in its last phase and identified as a possible candidate for the location of the crushing of the revolt of AD 47 (Potter & Jackson 1997: 677). Malim (1992a: 33) considers the layout of the south western side of Stonea Camp to infer that those who built it did so with the intention of using the river as a natural defence (see Figure 6.1). For Malim this

52

Chapter 6: The Central Fens: A Landscape of Continuity?

Island in the period of the client state. Potter (Jackson & Potter 1997: 43) has suggested a possible ritual and economic function for the site, and in the light of the long standing ritual nature of the island, with a range of prehistoric monuments stretching back to the Neolithic (Jackson & Potter 1997: 674-677) this makes better sense of the Camp than a sudden conversion of the site to a 'fort'. We should perhaps see the ritual site at Thetford as a parallel to the activity at Stonea in the first century, particularly given the sudden termination of both sites at approximately the same date ( Gregory 1991).

Stonea Camp could certainly be interpreted in this way, with flooded ditches and banks marking out the space within. Hill (1995) envisages a society without a hierarchical elite, but one made up of household heads and elders. In Hill's model this elite used the 'hill fort' sites to conduct rituals in which they reproduced their social control over junior members of the households whom had gathered there. Such sites were, in Hill's opinion, not 'forts', the military functionality of them being highly questionable (1995: 52). They were often not positioned correctly for defence, and the 'destruction' of them was often accompanied with ritual deposits, suggesting some sort of 'closure' ritual, rather than violent attack. Instead, according to Hill's thesis, they are simply sites, which, through the mechanism of a ditch and bank, have been isolated for some social reason from the everyday space of 'farmstead and field' (1995: 53).

Malim (1992b: 17) describes human bone finds from the site, which do 'not all date to the same phase', and offers this as evidence of 'battles' at the earthwork. The other option, a generically 'ritual' motivation behind the hacking and distribution of bone is dismissed on this basis. This is curious, because a large battle in and around the earthwork might be expected to leave a lot of bone dated to the same phase, not different ones. Human bone scattered through different phases is more likely to be the result of repeated small acts of deposition.

This is clearly a model reminiscent of the situation not only at Stonea Camp, but other sites in the region. In discussing Arbury Camp ( a site north of Cambridge, offered by Potter (1997: 43) as a comparison with Stonea), C. Evans (1992a: 16-20), concludes that this circular earthwork of Iron Age date was a 'commanding gesture in empty lands.' It was poorly positioned for defence, and an elaborate entrance tower stood proud of the main rampart, giving it visual impart whilst lessening its effectiveness as a piece of military architecture. The site seems to fit rather well with a picture of earthworks which, whilst superficially defensive structures, may in fact have served a variety of functions, some related to expressions of power and authority, some to ritual use.

Malim also offers the suggestion that fresh water flooding of the site's 'defensive' ditches relates to an 'attempt to flood the Camp and therefore destroy its defensive capability' (Malim 1992b: 17). However, ditches may be expected to flood in such a waterlogged and low lying landscape: we need only think of the modem drainage dykes which criss-cross the region to realise that this is so. The flooding of the ditches can in no way be interpreted as a deliberate act, unless we consider that they were dug with the intention that they flood. A motive for this becomes apparent if we follow up the link between wetness and ritual (Wait 1985, Bradley 1998). The action of cutting ditches at one side of the camp, the side that faces the wider wetland landscape, might be considered to visually emphasise that part of the landscape which is most watery, making it visible from within the monument, whilst at the same time putting it beyond reach. The cutting of ditches and their flooding, serves rather to create a backdrop of a 'wet landscape' to any activity occurring within the camp, whilst also ensuring its liminality - the ditches prevent observers from reaching the 'wetness'. This accentuated the fact that the raised banks on the landward side of the monument would visually screen the Island's 'dry' landscape from those within the Camp.

It may be objected that Hill's work is focused upon the middle Iron Age, whereas the final phase at Stonea Camp is late Iron Age. However, the possibly conservative nature of communities in the central fens has already been noted (Potter 1997: 694), and it is not hard to envisage a LPRIA community existing in the central fens based upon Hill's model from an earlier period. In addition, the discussion above of the function of Stonea Camp lends weight to an interpretation of the earthwork as a demarked social space, acting as a social and ritual centre for the settlement sites on the surrounding islands.

Turning to the evidence for the lower status Iron Age settlement in the central fens, we see from Figure 4.17 that Stonea Camp lies in the centre of a spread of sites from which Iron Age material has been collected. The gazetteer codes for these sites are listed on Table 3.8, though the evidence for 'settlement' amounts to LPRIA pottery recovered in small quantities during field walking, and there are no excavated low status sites for this period. The data is thus fairly flimsy, but if the 'household' model is correct, then these sites may represent individual farmsteads that functioned with a degree of independence. Individual settlements would, by the island nature of the

Having pointed to the possibility of a ritual interpretation of Stonea Camp, we must next consider how such a monument might fit within the local landscape, and what its function might have been. J. D. Hill (1995) has suggested, in the context of middle Iron Age Wessex, that such structures were principally intended as 'communal foci' for fragmented societies that were based upon autonomous 'households'. Thus earthworks served to wall off a special social space within which rituals and ceremonies that cut across society could be performed.

53

Chapter 6: The Central Fens: A Landscape of Continuity?

local topography, be more isolated and independent than comparable sites in a normal farming landscape.

Figure 6.2. As we have explored in the context of the silt fens, it is possible to link these differential indications of status to discreet social structures. In Chapter Five such indications of status were used to create a structure of analysis that demonstrated the existence of community groups. However, the evidence for the central fens is of a slightly different nature, and this creates a degree of difficulty in extending the approach used so far to this new area. Firstly, the cropmark evidence so useful in creating a community structure on the silts is not as extensive in the central fens. Secondly, portable wealth is a more difficult indicator of status to assess in a landscape context. It is by definition portable and when we are considering coinage, and other metal items that have been recovered in field survey, most are not even properly provenanced. Their positioning on a map can be used to generate a general zone where such objects are common, i.e. 'the central fens', and sites, which show particular clusters of wealth, are clearly of interest, but we must recognise the fundamental difference between architectural remains, which cannot be moved (unless robbed out), and objects of value, which can.

We can thus hypothesise that a small community, with an insular and independent sense of identity articulated at the Stonea Camp monument, and relatively isolated from the mainstream of Iron Age Britain, existed in this region prior to the Roman conquest. It follows from this that one of the principal questions which we may ask of the Roman period data is: what happened to this community in the period from the initial invasion of Britain until the abolition of the Icenian client state in 61 AD, and after?

6.2

Defining the Central Fens

A general analysis of settlement data in the study area was conducted in Chapter Four on the basis of crude environmental divisions, i.e. 'silt fen' or 'fen islands'. However, as the detailed examination of the data available for the silt fens showed in Chapter Five, these crude divisions mask the real pattern of spatial and chronological development which was taking place at a smaller scale than can be examined at the level of environmental groups. In fact, the development of the central fen area is the perfect example to demonstrate why such categories of analysis are unhelpful when attempting to understand Fenland landscapes. As will be seen, the development of the central fen block includes settlement which spread out onto the drying silts to the north and east, but which were connected to the central fen island occupation complex, and had little to do with the silt fen occupation, which was examined in Chapter Five.

The spatial distribution of architectural elements, for example tile, is therefore strictly relevant to reconstructing settlement hierarchy, whereas portable wealth can be moved from site to site, and is more likely to be removed when a settlement is abandoned. The difference between portable and non-portable forms of status display may also reflect differences in the social structures which they reveal - display through portable objects suggests power essentially resting with individuals, whilst architectural display suggests more a pattern of power resting in places. In the former case it is not then possible to establish a 'settlement' hierarchy. This being so, our analysis of status in the central fens must be at a more generalised level than it was for the silts.

For the purpose of this analysis, we must begin by establishing a definition of the central fen area. This is comparatively simple in the LPRlA period, as settlement consisted of a comparatively isolated pocket of sites. But this situation changed in the Roman period, with the massive expansion of settlement. The challenge is to identify if there is still an area with a distinctive 'central fen' identity in periods two and three, and if so, how to establish its extent. One method of tackling this problem lies in the comparative distribution of wealth in the Fens, displayed on Figure 4.16. As argued earlier, and supported by extensive analysis of the phenomenon of silt fen tiled roofs, these distributions, one of architectural debris, the other of 'portable wealth', represent two different traditions of wealth display. The area defined by the 'portable wealth' tradition is comparatively clear, there being very little overlap between the portable wealth concentrations of the central fens, and the more architecturally based status display further north. Looking at the distribution map, we see that in the entire expanse of the silt fens, the vast majority of portable wealth which has been located lies in the area between March and Welney, closer to the central fen islands, than to the expanses of silt fen settlement in the Lincolnshire Fens. The principal features of this central area are mapped on

If we are to invest the presence of prestige objects with significance, we must critically examine what we thinl( their presence indicates. Are they simply an indication of greater overall wealth in an area? A superficial glimpse at Figure 4.16 suggests that this may be the case, an argument supported by the fact that the sites demonstrating the greatest architectural elaboration are also in this central area. There are several sites in the central fens, principally Grandford (site 39 14 02), Stonea Grange (site 49 14 01), and Langwood Hill (site 48 13 01), mapped on Figure 6.2, where the level of architectural elaboration is high, with stone walled buildings, and in the case of Stonea Grange very large quantities of other material like window glass. The gazetteer codes and architectural debris recovered from these sites have already been listed on Table 4.1. These sites also have portable wealth associated with them, pointing to a higher standard of living than on other sites,

54

Chapter 6: The Central Fens: A Landscape of Continuity?

but does this make the central fens a generally more wealthy area?

does not accord with what we know about the LPRlA in the central fens, nor address how the pre-conquest community made the transition to Roman rule.

The problem with the sites identified above is two fold. Firstly they are an architectural extreme: the only sites that approach the traditional image of 'Roman' in the Fens are concentrated in this central area. This is a problem, because there is little evidence of an 'intermediate' class of buildings between these elaborate structures, and the rest of the sites in the central fens, once we remove sites clearly linked to the imperial presence in the area because of their location on the communications system.

A second option does exist which allows us to begin considering this issue. The use of prestige items for votive offering and to display status is a well-known phenomenon from the LPRlA. Such an interest in such items in this region in a religious context has already been indicated by Wait (1985: 48) and Bradley (1998: 179), and is implicated in the centralisation of political power in this period (Haslegrove 1982). We can thus postulate a tradition of status display through portable wealth as being a trait of LPRlA society. A good interpretation of the concentration of the portable wealth in the central fens in the Roman period, but no corresponding architectural elaboration in the native settlement pattern, is as a survival of a LPRlA tradition of status display and the deposition of votive offerings through the medium of prestige objects. This leads us to the conclusion that some elements of the social structure of LPRlA Fenland survived into the Roman period, and that this survival manifests itself in the preference for wealth in the form of prestige items (as opposed to less portable architectural forms). The heavy concentration of such items in the central fens, and the corresponding lack of them on the silt fens to the north, suggests that such a preference was significant, and that the distribution of prestige items may be used to defme 'the central fens' for discussion, an area which we may consider as 'Community 6'. Community 6 is mapped on Figure 6.2, and the sites within it (on Tables 6.1 and 6.2), are the subject of the following analysis.

Secondly, in style, function, or ongm, they are clearly intrusive to the area. Stonea Grange, for example, with its stone tower, temple, market place, and regular grid system of streets in the surrounding settlement (see Figure 6.3 for a site plan), can be nothing else but a site founded under the orchestration of authorities external to the Fens - it shares nothing in common with any demonstrable 'Fenland' architectural tradition. Stonea Grange is therefore distinct from the native settlement pattern that developed from the existing LPRlA occupation of the area. The same is also true for Grandford (see Figure 6.4 for a site plan). As a settlement associated with an early Roman fort, and lying on the Fen Causeway, this site is clearly connected with 'official' activity in the area, rather than the native settlement pattern. Being in origin a possible vicus settlement (Potter 1981: 85-88), this site would have attracted people from outside the area, and being on a main road would have increased the 'metropolitan' nature of the Grandford settlement. Flaggrass (site 49 14 02) is another site which is unusual, being at a junction in the central fen communication routes, and having a principally industrial nature (Hall 1987: 43-44). The official nature of Stonea, and the 'sub official' nature of Grandford and Flaggrass, make them part of what we shall term the 'official landscape'. This landscape consisted of an early military presence, of communications (see Figure 6.2), of 'Roman' sites like Stonea Grange and of sites that grew into existence because of the official presence, like Grandford. This issue is discussed further in section 6.5.

6.3

A Statistical Analysis of Community 6

Community 6 cuts across three intersecting environmental groups, the central fen islands, the area of silt fen to the north and east of March and areas of peat fen between the islands. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 list the central fen sites, and Figure 6.5 models the rise and fall of central fen settlement in the same way as was done for the silt fen communities. The basic pattern conforms to the predictive model for constant change advanced in Chapter Five (see Figure 5.8), but there are significant differences that emerge when the pattern is examined in more detail. Firstly, there are a great many more early sites in this area than there are in the silt fen communities. If we examine Community 4, the largest community on the silts at 115 sites, we see that between period one and period two the total number of sites known increases by a factor of four. The same calculation for Community 6, at 200 sites a little less than twice the size of Community 4, reveals that the increase over the same two periods is only 2.7. This underlines a key feature of the central fens, that there was a considerably more developed core of early settlement, which is built upon by later expansion. Returning to Figure 6.5 we see that this curve is similar to the constant change model. However, Figures 6.6 to 6.10,

Where does this leave our consideration of portable wealth? With little architectural display of status in the architecture of the native settlement pattern of the central fens, we may consider two other options. Firstly, if we base our discussion of settlement hierarchy upon architecture and architecture alone, the only hierarchy that can be created is a Roman/Native one, in which the Romans rule and the natives form an undifferentiated subject population. In this scenario, we must envisage a situation where there is little or no status differentiation in the native settlement pattern. This entails a situation in which we do not allow the possibility of a native elite of any kind, and neither do we accept that one may have developed over the course of the Roman occupation. This

55

Chapter 6: The Central Fens: A Landscape of Continuity?

which plot the spatial distribution of sites over time in a manner similar to Figures 5.2 to 5.6, provide an interesting insight into the process of expansion. Looking at Figures 6.7 and 6.8 we see that the elements of the landscape which change most are those which expand out onto the central silt fen (north of March Island) during periods two and three. The island areas remain most stable.

6.4 An overview Community6

of

Roman

Settlement

Figure 6.9 shows the few sites that we know to have been occupied at the very end of the Roman period. Although the seven sites mapped are not really sufficient to reliably deduce settlement trends in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, their distribution is suggestive. Settlement had all but ended in the silts of the central fens, but there was late occupation at two sites associated with the Fen Causeway, one of which is Grandford (site 39 14 02), and the other where the road crossed the Welney Tail (49 24 02). There is also late Roman and early Anglo Saxon occupation at Stonea Grange. The general trend, insofar as it can be established, would appear to be for settlement at the end of the Roman period to retreat to islands, key sites, and lines of communication. It may also be significant that both Stonea and Grandford, the two sites where substantial excavation has been conducted, are demonstrably late. It may well be that lack of excavated data is creating an overly gloomy picture of the late fourth century in the Fens.

in

Figures 6.6 to 6.10 are worth considering in detail. Figure 6.6 plots the sites of period one. As can be seen from Figure 4.17, Iron Age occupation focuses upon the islands, and Figure 6.6 illustrates how settlement developed in the early Roman period on the silts to the north of March, with the whole complex apparently centred on the earthwork site at Stonea Camp. This silt fen development is focused upon a major roddon that would have provided the slightly higher and more stable ground needed to expand into this area from the older settlement of the islands (Hall 1996, figure 102).

Figure 6.10 shows undated sites, which are distributed in a way that is consistent with the main thrust of development noted above. The trend demonstrated by Figure 6.10 is different to that in the silt fen landscape, where it was seen that undated sites tended to avoid areas where dated sites were clustered. Many of the undated sites in the central fen area are located on or around the island of Stonea, and given that this was an area of Iron Age activity the possibility must be advanced that at least some of these sites began in the Iron Age, and lasted into the Roman period. The same must be true for the area around Chatteris Island, where a comparatively small number of dated sites of Roman and Iron Age date (seven in all) are supplemented by eight undated sites, some of which may have begun in the Iron Age. Undated sites also cluster on the Welney Tail, the silt fens north of March, and along the Fen Causeway.

Figure 6. 7 shows development in the area, with settlement on the islands remaining stable, but continuing expansion on the silts. This is clear from the distribution of sites apparent on Figures 6.6 and 6.7, and the greater stability of sites with Iron Age beginnings. Of 12 such sites in the central fens, nine were also active in the Roman period, suggesting a significant degree of continuity. A significant new feature of period two is the development of settlement along the lines of communication in the area. One block of sites is strung out along the Fen Causeway, running towards the eastern fen edge. The dating of this road is much debated (see Fincham 1999b: 25-29 for a summary), but the consensus is that there was certainly a route of some kind along this axis from a very early period (supported by the identification of Roman military sites). Figure 6. 7 suggests that this early route was a major influence on the development of settlement in the periods, which followed.

6.5

A Discussion of Status in the Community 6

As noted above, Community 6 has been defined by the distribution of portable wealth. Initially the rough regional coincidence between the distributions of sites with Iron Age activity, and those where portable wealth has been recovered must be recognised. This has already been discussed in the context of LPRIA traditions surviving into the Roman period, and on purely spatial grounds then we can argue that the coincidence between the area of sites of portable wealth in the Roman period, and sites of earlier LPRIA activity suggests that the two are linked.

Figure 6.8, period three, shows that although there was some site failure and foundation, the foci of settlement remained the same - unlike some areas of the Lincolnshire Fens where settlement was seen to shift over time. Both the core of pre-Roman occupation, and the road/river side settlements were relatively stable. However, the silt fen component of the central fen landscape thinned out considerably. We may postulate that this area suffered environmental deterioration, in common with areas of the Lincolnshire silts. However, the pattern of this decline took the form of fluctuation on the fringes, rather than shifts in settlement focus. This emphasises the fact that Community 6 was structured around essentially stable elements,

This picture is complicated by the existence of an official landscape, the nature of which has already been touched upon, and we can take this a step further by identifying the specific sites that belong to it. These can essentially be defined as sites exhibiting characteristics clearly intrusive in the area, and/or which are closely associated with the regional communications network. Although this

56

Chapter 6: The Central Fens: A Landscape of Continuity?

judgement may appear subjective, the extremely polarised nature of settlement in the central fens actually makes this division relatively simple. Turning to Table 6.1 we see that there are twenty-one status sites, eleven of which (excluding Stonea Camp) show signs of architectural elaboration. The most obvious sites of the official landscape, Grandford (39 14 02), Stonea Grange (49 14 01) and Flaggrass (49 14 02) account for the three most unusual, and site 59 23 05 lies on the Fen Causeway. This leaves us with three sites of the mixed tradition trend in the central fens, and only four where architecture is the only form of status display. Two of these latter four, 40 12 03 and 40 13 02 (both sites where brick has been recovered) are located in the area of the major Roddon upon which the exploitation of the silt fens north of March was based. Both of these are early sites, and it may be that this silt fen expansion from the island came under some form of official supervision. That would suggest that these two sites are analogous to the tiled roofed silt fen buildings in southern Lincolnshire (discussed in Chapter Five), and also belong to the official landscape. It can thus be demonstrated that most signs of architectural elaboration in the central fens can be interpreted as directly or indirectly as signs of official intervention in the area.

also brooches of this period on the Grandford site, one dramatically associated with a skeleton, face down in a silted ditch (Potter & Potter 1982: 6). The brooch was found just above the left shoulder of the male skeleton. Period two sees an increase in the incidence of portable wealth in this area, with a scatter of Roman coins found in uncertain locations in and around the town of March. Some are closely provenanced, coming from Grandford, Flaggrass and Stonea Grange. But most of the wealth that is recorded from the central fens dates to period three. Pewter is also a surprisingly well-represented class of fmd, and although difficult to date directly, is considered to be a late, and predominantly 'Romano-British form' (Peal 1967: 19-21). There are some well recorded pewter hoards, and up to four suspected pewter fmds in the area of W elney. Pewter fmds have also been claimed from Coldham in the silt fens north of March (Potter 1981: 96), and from an uncertain location on Stonea Island (see Figure 6.2 and Table 6.1). It is worth considering the sites around the Coldham area a little more closely, as several of these sites have wealth recovered from them. The Coldham complex, recorded by Potter (1981: 86) as one large concentration of occupation, but appearing in the FS as a range of smaller sites (Hall 1996: loose figure 96), appears to have early beginnings. By the end of period one there were two sites (40 12 03 & 40 13 02) in the vicinity of Coldham, from which evidence of architectural elaboration has been recovered, in both cases the presence of brick. As indicated earlier it is possible that these two sites belong to the official landscape, and represent the core of a supervised attempt to exploit the silts. As discussed when considering Figures 6.6 to 6.10, this settlement seems to be the result of the expansion of settlement onto the Roddon, which marks the ancient course of the Nene. Portable wealth of various dates is also present in the area in some quantity (Potter 1981: 93-98).

Table 6.1 also displays the evidence that we have for prestige objects and coinage in Community 6. Such wealth is defined as being anything from coins to brooches, hoarded items, or individual finds, giving the broadest possible data set. Few of these finds are closely provenanced and so the deductions that can be drawn from this information are limited. To address detailed questions concerning portable wealth, more examples are needed, and from stratified contexts, which are not at present available. However, a broad pattern does emerge from the information that we have. What identifiably 'Iron Age' wealth that we have in the Fens is concentrated, not surprisingly, in the central fen Iron Age nucleus. Allen (1970: 4) identifies two Icenian coin hoards in this area, and in addition to this, Jackson & Potter (1997) have published the Field Baulk hoard from March, and other Iron Age coins ( Chadburn in Jackson & Potter 1997: 271275). The two hoards that Allen identifies are, following his 'implied chronology' (1970: 17), late hoards, probably of the client kingdom period. This accords with the general conclusion advanced by Potter (Jackson & Potter 1997: 677) that the main phase of activity at Stonea Camp, was in this late period.

T.W. Potter has analysed the pottery from Coldham Clamp (site 40 12 03), and concluded that much of the pottery has affmities with Norfolk sites like Runcton Holm and Needham (Potter 1965: 33-36). These wares belong to Potter's Period I (1965: 14), which dates from c. AD 65 to c. AD 120. This supports an early pattern of central fen sites looking east, rather than west, and linked to the Icenian territory of Norfolk, as suggested by the number of Icenian coins recovered from Stonea Camp (Jackson & Potter 1997: 677).

The early Roman period is not well represented in terms of portable wealth, and what there is appears to be associated with sites linked to the official landscape, and specifically the possible vicus site at Grandford. Here the coinage fmds were taken by Shorter (in Potter & Potter 1982: 96) to indicate a military presence, now proven by aerial photography (Potter & Robinson 2000). There were

6.6

The Economy of Community 6

The main visible sign of an 'economy' in Community 6 is the 84 saltern sites listed on Table 6.2. These sites occur in clusters (mapped on Figure 6.2), the principal of which lies to the north of March Island. This complex of salterns is in the same area as the Coldham sites discussed earlier,

57

Chapter 6: The Central Fens: A Landscape of Continuity?

perhaps suggesting that the extraction of salt was a prime motive for the expansion of settlement in this area of the central fens. A second, though very loosely defined group of salterns is associated with the Fen Causeway, and is strung out along the section of this route that runs from Flaggrass to Christchurch. A third group is centred on Stonea Island.

focus based around Stonea Camp. First, we must consider the basic infrastructure, the main communications constructed in this area during the Roman period, mapped on Figure 6.2. The principal route is the Fen Causeway, the construction of which is problematic (see Fincham 1999b: 25-29, Jackson & Potter 1997: 51-53, Silvester 1992: 113, Gurney 1986: 135, Potter 1981: 131). The difficulty lies in the exact relationship between the construction of the road and the Boudiccan revolt, and in the fact that the road evolved out of a piecemeal sequence of road lengths, and canals of different dates.

The turbaries (the excavations left as the result of cutting peat for fuel, and now silted up and visible on aerial photographs) that have been observed in this area provide the obvious source of fuel for salt manufacture. They are also mapped on Figure 6.2, to contrast them with the distribution of salterns. The turbaries are relatively widely spread, with a large block of them on the March coast opposite Stonea Island, and a second large block of them south of the Christchurch field system. Scattered, but lesser, groups ofturbaries exist either side of the Rodham Farm canal/Fen Causeway Route and in Euximoor Fen, Upwell, to the North of the Fen Causeway. These are the probable source of fuel for the salterns, but as can be seen from Figure 6.2 there is no close spatial correlation between the two types of feature. It is clear that widely separated areas were being exploited at various stages of the salt production process. This area thus appears to have functioned in a less atomised fashion than the silt fen landscape in Lincolnshire, where the correlation between the location of saltern sites and the probable source of fuel was close.

Excavations across the western end of the Fen Causeway have revealed a three-phase structure to the road in the Flag Fen basin. The date of phase I is not securely known, and Potter (1981: 131) sees the building of the road as a military response to the Boudican revolt. It has been argued (Fincham 1999b: 27), however, that this first phase was a link with the early canal system, connecting it to the mainland in the pre Revolt (i.e. client state) period. What ever the truth of this early period, there is a good case for supposing that a communications way, comprised of lengths of road and canal was in existence by the Neronian period, and that in the aftermath of the Boudiccan revolt an eastern communication axis from the area of the Longthorpe fortress had been thrust across the central fens. The course of this road, and its accompanying canals, is highly irregular (Figure 6.2). The reason for this is not hard to understand; on one level it is an engineering response to crossing difficult ground, the road in effect 'island hops', taking a straight course across soft peat, and sticking to the more stable fen islands as much as possible. This is a useful interpretation, as far as it goes, but ignores why the road was built in the first place. If the only motive to build a road across the Fens was to 'get to the other side', it was a poor route to choose, and an unnecessary one in this early period. East Anglia could be reached along Margary 333 (the Icknield Way), or even Margary 23b (Akeman Street), which would cross a much shorter length of fen north ofLittleport.

In the silt fens it was considered that salt manufacture was conducted as a part time seasonally activity along side pastoral farming (Bradley 1975: 22-23). The interaction of stock rearing and salt production was explored, and resulted in the speculative economic calendar presented on Table 5.9. The existence of extensive field systems north of March (though this evidence largely fails on the islands), and salterns, points again to a mixed economy. As discussed in section 5.4.2, the evidence from Stonea Grange, principally the young age at death of sheep on this site, indicates that livestock was being brought onto the site to be slaughtered and jointed (Jackson & Potter 1997: 687). The joints were then perhaps being moved off site to be consumed elsewhere. A similar scenario can be hypothesised for the central fens as was advanced for the silts, though there may have been another element to the central fen economy, as indicated by the evidence from Grandford. Here it was suggested (Potter 1981: 130) that the older average age at death of sheep indicated that they were being primarily exploited for secondary products, principally wool. Given the quality of the data available it is not possible to refine this picture any further.

6.7

Thus on purely practical 'communications' grounds there was little reason for the Fen Causeway to be built at all, given that the terrain that it crossed was so difficult. The standard explanation of this road is that it was constructed as a military response to the events of AD 60 (Potter 1981: 131). However, even if the initial impetus to construct the communications system was as a tactical military route connected with the Boudiccan revolt, we must consider why, in its consolidated form, it survived the immediate post revolt period? The authorities invested considerable effort into keeping this route open, even into the Late Roman period, something clearly demonstrated by excavation (Fincham 1999b, Silvester 1992).

A Landscape of Control

We cannot interpret the central fen 'native' landscape without first considering the elements of the 'official landscape' which were superimposed upon the Iron Age

This can be explained if we move away from a strictly functionalist interpretation of why the road 'island hops'.

58

Chapter 6: The Central Fens: A Landscape of Continuity?

The road may have begun life as a tactical military measure, but having envisaged a LPRIA community in the central fens, we must recognise that this community would need to be policed and linked into the developing province. In building the Fen Causeway across the Whittlesey and Eldemell islands, and through the central fens, all of these marginal Fenland places and the people who inhabited them were made more accessible, and thus more controllable. In this way the island hoping can be seen as a symptom of the road's function, which was to link ( and allow the policing of) disparate, isolated communities. The road's course was in effect attracted by settlement on the islands, rather than being forced to the islands through engineering considerations.

practice? In answering this question, the spatial distribution of the physical signs of occupation is instructive. The Fen Causeway itself, the main communications route across the fens, 'makes contact' with the pre-Roman Iron age landscape, in that it runs across the north end of March island, and continues across the silt fens to the east. In doing so it runs through the Iron age site of Flaggrass but crucially it misses the core of the area, passing some considerable distance to the north of Stonea Island, and the Camp. We cannot explain this simply in functional 'engineering' terms as the best way to cross the Fens. It can be seen (Hall 1987: 42 & Hall 1992: 71, see also Figure 6.2) that a canal was constructed to link Stonea to Flaggrass, and another linked the March coast to Stonea Island. There was thus no practical problem in linl(ing Stonea Island into the communications network at an early date, but this arrangement marginalizes the important centre of the Camp (Hall 1987: 42). The fort at Grandford, located on the Fen Causeway, and the possible centre for any postBoudiccan revolt military control of the area (Potter 1981: 85 - 88, Jackson & Potter 1997: 677) also stands a little apart from what we know of the LPRIA structures of the central fens. The fort is located at a point where not only is there no known Iron age settlement, but is also spatially peripheral to the main areas oflron Age activity. It is, in fact, as distant from the Stonea complex as it could possibly be, whilst still being in the central fens.

This interpretation has implications for our wider understanding of the official landscape of the central fens. If the road was part of an active policing strategy, what other signs might we find of military supervision of the area? The fort at Grandford, thought by Potter to be early on the basis of its relation to the Fen Causeway, and the incidence of Neronian military metalwork is clearly an important part of this early Roman strategy. It is not known how long this fort was occupied, but the ephemeral nature of the evidence in itself suggests that occupation was not prolonged. Jackson & Potter (1997: 677) consider it possible that the central fens may have been 'briefly placed under army control at this time, perhaps based on a fort at Grandford'. The possibility has also been recently raised of a fort, or sequence of forts at Eldemell (Green, pers comm), also on the route of the Fen Causeway. This would strengthen the impression of a military road secured by forts, perhaps occupied by units responsible to Longthorpe. In the first instance then, the Roman mechanism for bringing the central fens into the sphere of Roman administration was a blunt military one, which rested upon the direct occupation of the area, though the effects of this policy upon the native population are less clear.

If the main elements of the official landscape in the immediate post-revolt period are positioned to marginalize structures associated with the LPRIA elite of the area, this perhaps suggests a sharp break with the past at the time of the Roman suppression of the Icenian client kingdom. There is no convincing evidence for violent take over/destruction at Stonea Camp, but it is possible that the local elite were killed during the revolt, or removed from power afterwards. Potter & Jackson (1997: 689) suggest that the events leading up to the revolt provide a 'plausible context for Imperial acquisition' of the Stonea Grange area, and in the suppression that followed the revolt itself such a hold over land in the area may have been consolidated by the imperial authorities. If this were so, the authorities would need to assume direct control of the area - a necessity if the pre-existing social structures had been destroyed, and a leaderless, elite-less, post-revolt population were to be governed, and this provides a context for Potter's period of military rule.

It can be noted that there is little evidence of continued activity at Stonea Camp after the military occupation. In

the face of a military presence in the area, it would appear that the social structure which was based around the Camp collapsed, something which we might expect, given traditional images of a 'Roman intervention with repercussions that were to last for generations to come' (Jackson & Potter 1997: 677). But was this really the case? The first thing that we must note is that there is no sign of a violent take over of this area. There has been consideration of Stonea Camp as a defensive earthwork (Potter 1997, and Malim 1992a; 1992b), but as was discussed above, it is not a structure that fits military logic well, and a more religious nature was advanced for this 'fort' in the early part of this chapter.

If we consider, for a moment, Millett's model of postconquest pacification (Millett 1990b: 49, figure 14, reproduced here as Figure 6.11) we see that the tactics involved in the positioning of the Grandford fort conforms most closely to the model advanced for the control of decentralised societies. The Roman response to such societies was to police them at the 'hillfort' level, implanting a fort in such a position as to supervise the local centres of power. In the case of Grandford, which served to replace a power structure largely destroyed, a

In this context we may re-evaluate the military presence in the Fens in the immediate post-conquest period, and ask what a military occupation of the area meant in

59

Chapter 6: The Central Fens: A Landscape of Continuity?

sites to 'hark back' to a past form of authority, and thus legitimise their own actions. The Stonea site may be seen as an official centre, even if designed by the provincial authorities, established to control the central fen area and the exploitation of 'new lands' opening up on the silt fen nearby. However, it can also be interpreted as a continuation of the Roman policy of direct administration of this area, whilst also representing an intensification of that policy. For the first time a major element of the official landscape penetrated the LPRIA core, and in a very visual and symbolic way. This may suggest that nonviolent resistance to Rome had continued in the central fens, despite ( or perhaps because of) the events following the Boudiccan revolt. If, as suggested earlier, local power structures were dismantled after the revolt, a native response to this action may have manifested itself in longterm hostility to Roman rule. An understanding of the functioning, and eventual fate of this landscape can be reached through a more informed understanding of the interaction between the Imperial authorities and the native population, which will be addressed in Chapter Eight.

similar pattern would be apparent. Millett (1990b: 56) argues that at the conquest the army would have tried to minimise disruption to the native population, but in the period immediately after the Boudiccan revolt such disruption would be inevitable. A closer engagement in the day to day running of an area would be necessary where the elite, usually used by the imperial authorities for this task (Millett 1990b: 65 - 69), were no longer in existence, no longer powerful enough, or simply not to be trusted. The next important development in the 'official' landscape is the construction of the tower, settlement, market and temple at Stonea Grange. The nature of this complex is much debated, with Potter claiming it as the administrative centre of the Fens (Jackson & Potter 1997: 686), though Mackreth (1996: 234) denies this, preferring Durobrivae. Mackreth's discussion of the structure says what it is not - but in no way advances an explanation for the construction of a unique (in a Fenland setting) complex which is clearly, from the affinities of its architectural style and material culture, linked to the outside world, rather that something generated by indigenous Fenland communities. J. Taylor (2000) takes something from either position, seeing this structure as an administrative response for the area, but one generated by those that have most to gain - the elite at Durobrivae. In function he sees it as a centre for the administration of the new lands opening up on the silt fens north of March, but interprets that development as one driven by the regional native elite, though if this were the case Grandford or Flaggrass would be a superior location. The important point for our current discussion, however, is that the building and the settlement, whatever its function, was clearly an external imposition. Its style of architecture and its use of amphorae, glass bottles, and other elements of imperial material culture (Jackson & Potter 1997), clearly links it to the official landscape. Its role as a regional market place has been discussed in detail elsewhere (Fincham 1999a), but in essence the practical catchment area of such a market is sufficiently large that one based at Stonea could cover the area of the LPRIA area of occupation, perhaps gaining control of a pre-conquest and early Roman period trading network that operated in the central fens. If Potter (Jackson & Potter 1997: 43) is right in seeing the Camp as in part an 'inland port of trade', then control of such trade would have fallen to Stonea Grange when the market place was built. J. Taylor (2000) also argues that the positioning of the tower directly between the Camp, and the location of the possible Iron Age shrine was highly significant. An extant earthwork would have been a powerful reminder of the past social hierarchy. The tower is therefore located at a position, which respects both past monuments, the Camp and the shrine, but which dominates them both because of its central location and its visual impact in a flat landscape. Taylor sees this as evidence for the regional elite using the continued relevance of these pre-Roman

60

Chapter 7 Fen Edge and Upland - The Fens in Context

7.1

constitute a regional landscape in its own right, neither was it part of a community confined solely to the Fens. Instead, it can be argued that the western Fens were part of a wider regional landscape, centred upon Durobrivae. Clearly the fen edge ran through the town's hinterland, and settlement along it was part of a wider rural landscape. This being the case, we must concede that the 'fen edge' as a unit is the least useful of the environmental categories for the analysis of the social structure of the available settlement data.

Defining The Fen Edge

Superficially the 'fen edge' seems to be a self-explanatory category, and Salway (1970: 2) places the boundary between fen and upland at the 25 ft contour. Thus the fen edge is not a block of land like the silt or peat fens, or even a more fragmented area like the fen islands; it is an ecotome that marks the transition from one environment to another. The current study area is based upon that adopted by FRT which encompasses the silt and peat fens, with a little of what Salway terms the 'skirtlands' (1970: 1). The initial setting of the boundaries for FRT allowed the fens and their 'skirtland' to be treated as a whole, with the exact limits of the study area defmed by OS grid lines. The area so defined was a geographical rather than a social entity, and the FS was also conducted within this paradigm. In both studies this Fenland 'entity' was bounded by the topographical feature of the fen edge, and treated as a landscape that was meaningful in a social sense.

Thus it can be seen that to analyse settlement on the fen edge, the upland areas that surround the fens need to be considered. Only by understanding this broad upland picture can we understand how the fen edge related to the wider social structures of which it was a part. The detail of these areas is outside the scope of this project, and a limited overview of the uplands can produce little more than landscape caricatures. However, this is sufficient to allow the construction of a framework within which to place occupation of the fen edge.

As has already been argued in the preceding chapters of this thesis, society does not function within geographically defmed boundaries. It is influenced by, but not rigidly constrained by them. Thus we cannot confidently talk about settlements on the fen islands without being aware that the wider communities of which they formed a part spread onto the nearby peat and silt fens. It follows from this that if the relevance of such topographical divisions to social structure in the Fens proper must be considered problematic, we must also reexamine the significance of the fen edge to past human landscapes.

7.2

Some Basic Landscape Structures

The fen edge stretches from the east coast to Lincoln, south to Peterborough, Cambridge, and then north again towards Kings Lynn, running through many sub-regional landscapes along its length and cutting through the possible territories of several Roman towns, with their hypothetical market catchment areas (see Figure 5.19). Settlement may cluster on this line, but the total number of fen edges sites in the study area cannot be interpreted as forming a single 'community', or even a cohesive group of communities. The western fen edge in the location ofDurobrivae serves as a good example.

The exact boundaries of the pre-conquest tribal territories that cover parts of the study area are not well understood, but the Corieltauvi occupied much of the area to the west of the Fens, the Catuvellauni part of the west and the area the area to the south, and Iceni the area to east. Thus the Fens were situated at the boundary of three tribes and control of the Fens themselves seems to have been shifting. Earthworks in the region have been interpreted as attempts to express power by rival tribes (Gregory & Rogerson 1992: 69), and in terms of the current study this interpretation has most obvious relevance to Stonea Camp (site 49 11 01). This site has been considered as an attempt to consolidate Icenian power in the central fens (Malim 1992b: 17), and this tribal identification of the camp seems secure given that it has produced a great many Icenian coins (Jackson & Potter 1997: 677). Thus, on the eve of the Roman conquest the bordering tribes had spheres of influence in the Fenland region, but the Iceni controlled the main focus of LPRIA activity in the Fens proper.

Discussion of the silt fen and fen island landscapes focused upon the hierarchical relationship between the Fenland region, and Durobrivae. The logic of the local official communication network suggests that such control was exercised from Durobrivae, and/or from the military presence stationed in the location of the town. Thus it can be argued that the western Fenland did not

The laying out of the road network in the early Roman period included a circuit of main routes that roughly mirrored the fen edge, and encircled the region ( see Figure 5.1). Some of these routes served important preRoman centres like Old Sleaford and Thetford, so may pre-date the conquest. The post-conquest road network incorporated these possible early routes, linking a string

61

Chapter 7: Fen Edge and Upland - The Fens in Context

of developing urban settlements down the western and southern fen edges. These settlements begin in the north with Lincoln, followed by Ancaster and Great Casterton (all are outside the scope of this study), continue with Water Newton (Durobrivae), Godmanchester, and end with Cambridge. All the roads that lead into the Fenland do so from this 'urbanised' fringe. This communications network provides us with a framework within which to examine settlement, and the clustering of sites (visible on FRT sheet K), is mapped in schematic form on Figure 5 .1. These clusters form a basis for the identification of three fen edge 'community groups', although as stressed above, these are not communities in the sense of those identified in the rest of the study area. Rather, they are sectors of the fen edge that can be seen to belong to wider rural landscapes, when placed in the context of the road system, and the location of urban centres.

iron production, and Nene Valley ware production all point towards Corieltauvian territory, then the boundaries offered by Branigan (1987: 36) for the Catuvellaunian tribal territory mean that whilst Durobrivae was located in one civitas, most of its hinterland was located in another. The area of the Nene and its watershed is traditionally seen as the boundary zone between the Corieltauvi and the Catuvellauni, so in any event Durobrivae is located in a position to exploit either tribal territory. Indeed if Millett (1990b: 127 - 156) is correct in his general analysis of the increasing economic importance of the periphery of civitas territories, then it was its peripheral location which was one of the key elements of Durobrivae's success. However, in the light of the preponderance of connections that the town appears to have with the Corieltauvai, and the lack of positive supporting evidence for Branigan's identification of it as a Catuvellaunian settlement, it seems sensible to reassign the town to the former of these two tribes. The fen edge settlement between Yaxley and Horbling can thus be identified as lying within the wider economic area of which Durobrivae was the focus, and is considered as Community 7.

Durobrivae, located on the Nene, rests upon what is traditionally considered to be the boundary between the territories of the Corieltauvi and Catuvellauni, but ascribing the town to one of these territories is perhaps more of a historical issue than an archaeological one. However, several points can be made. The general distribution of settlement in the area suggests that the influence of Durobrivae did not extended far to the south, with little settlement known from the fen edge south of Sawtry. Wild (1974: 147) identified an inscription (RIB 230) from Sawtry, south of Durobrivae, as a possible boundary stone of Durobivae's territory. In contrast, the economic interests of the town clearly extended westwards. There does exist what Mackreth (1995: 151) identifies as a 'lacuna' of sites to the north west of the town, which he believes to be the location of a tract of managed woodland that supplied fuel. But to take in the potteries and iron working of the area the town's influence must have stretched some way up the Nene Valley. As argued in Chapter Five, the town's economic hinterland also incorporated areas to the east and north, where the silt fen salt production communities were located.

The second feature to note is the arc of settlement from Godmanchester down the Ouse River valley, and ending roughly at the junction between the Cambridge Car Dyke and M 23b, or Akeman Street. This feature is distinct from the settlement on the western fen edge, a separate development within what we consider to be the territory of the Catuvellauni. This feature has been termed Community 8. Cambridge is the principal site in the locality, and is recorded as a possible oppida (Millett 1990: 25, and Cunliffe 1991: 146), or at least a substantial Iron Age settlement (Alexander & Pullinger 2000: 27 - 34). There is the strong possibility of an early Roman fort (A. Taylor 2000: 77), and information on the Roman town is scanty, but it was clearly what may be termed a 'local centre' (Ringley 1989). Ringley has also explored the role of such sites as markets (1989: 114). He has suggested that in pre-modern agricultural societies the practical limit that a small farmer can travel to market is 7 - 10 km, based upon the twin assumptions of i) travel by foot, and ii) the need to get there and back in a single day. When we plot these effective 'catchment areas' (see Figure 5.19) we see that the majority of sites on the western and southern fen edge fall within them. Although the catchment areas are shown as perfect circles, and are therefore 'ideal' market territories, rather than real ones, the coincidence between these catchment areas and clusters in settlement distribution cannot be overlooked. It suggests that the effective market hinterlands of such urban centres had a significant effect upon the development of the fen edge, and that the fen edge was exploited with a view to supplying urban market centres with fen edge produce.

The fact that these features all lay within the territory of the Corieltauvi and that the distribution of mosaics attributed to the Durobrivae school is confined almost exclusively to that civitas (Millett 1990: 175), are factors which should lead us to re-evaluate Branigan's (1985: 82 - 85) identification of Durobrivae as being located in Catuvellauni territory. Branigan himself offered no explination for including Durobrivae in the territory of the Catuvellauni, and other authors have tended not to address the issue (e.g. Burnham & Wacher 1990: 81- 91, Mackreth 1995: 147 - 156; 1996: 233 - 235), though Mackreth does point out that the economic orientation of the town lies eastward, towards the Fens. Woodfield (1995), like Branigan, ascribes the town to the Catuvellauni, but, also like Branigan, offers no justification for this. If evidence that we have of Durobrivae's economic connections, the salt industry,

62

Chapter 7: Fen Edge and Upland - The Fens in Context

It may also be seen (Figure 5.1) that the towns of the fen edge are mostly located on rivers running into the Fens. This would have given these towns access to the Fens and to the sea, as well as upland areas further inland. Perhaps the nature of these towns was partly that of inland ports. The wharves found on the Nene at the fen edge (Philips 1970: 187), along with the possible cargo oflamps from a sunken Roman barge, found south of Whittlesea in the peat fens (Philips 1970: 196) would seem to support this suggestion, at least for the case ofDurobrivae.

was argued for both the silt fens and the central fens, a group of sites which together perceive themselves to have some level of identity. This is because the real communities of which these sites form a part extend into areas beyond the study area (and thus the scope) of this project. Thus the following discussion of the fen edge should be viewed as an attempt to make sense of the survey data available for the area where the fens interacted with the upland, rather than rounded discussions of complete landscape features.

The landscape of the eastern fen edge was probably part of the territory of the Iceni, and is of a different nature. Whereas the western and southern fen edges are landscapes focused upon urban centres, the eastern fen edge is characterised by rural settlement. There is a string of small villa sites along the fen edge, often associated with a neighbouring village (Salway 1970: 12-13). A possible exception is the site of Hockwold-cum-Wilton (68 24 01), which may have reached a size and density of occupation to merit consideration as a 'small town' (Gurney 1995: 53-67). However, the site may also be interpreted as a major shrine that acted as a focus of rural occupation, perhaps with an additional function as a market. This interpretation fits better with the general character of the area; diffuse settlement lacking the urban focus of either the southern or western edge. Thus the eastern block, Community 9, is substantially different in nature to the other areas already described.

7.3.1

Although there has been little excavation at Durobrivae, many features from the site have been recorded as crop marks, and much of the basic morphology of the settlement is understood. The town appears to have been very much a working settlement (Mackreth 1995: 150), with many buildings evident in the walled area, and large extramural 'suburbs'. Mackreth (1995: 148 - 149, figure 13.1 reproduced here as Figure 7.1) produced a composite plan of the town from all known cropmark evidence. This complements the known nature of the town's hinterland of industrial activity, including iron working, stone quarrying, pottery production, salt making and the possible mosaic school. Community 7 is mapped in detail on Figure 7.2, and the sites included in this community are listed on Tables 7.1 to 7.4. The chronological development of this community is presented by period on Figures 7.3 to 7.7. Settlement was scattered in period one (Figure 7.3), before the development of the town, and of the 14 period one sites in Community 7, all were in existence in the LPRIA, indicating that the early Roman landscape was essentially one of continuity.

As has been seen, it is relatively straightforward to build a hypothetical model of fen edge communities. We can produce the picture presented on Figure 5.1 by considering basic landscape structures, urban catchment areas, and changes in the nature and density of settlement. The proportion of settlements across the fen edge communities thus established are: Durobrivae (Community 7): 48.3%, Cambridge/Godmanchester (Community 8): 34.2%, and the eastern fen edge (Community 9): 17.5%. We can use this model to check the variation of behaviour between these three communities, and this behaviour can be subjected to statistical significance testing. This basic pattern is explored community-by-community using the same methodology as has already been applied to the silt fens and the fen islands.

7.3

Community 7: Durobrivae and the Fen Edge

The pattern of settlement distribution across the three fen edge communities was subjected to X 2 testing, conducted by period. Although the null hypothesis for the distribution of period one sites was rejected in the test, the most significant source of error was Community 9 (prone to unusual error due to the high number of undated sites, therefore creating an effect which may be spurious). Community 7 produces no error in this test, and the distribution around the Durobrivae fen edge must therefore be regarded as being in accordance with the null hypothesis.

Fen Edge 'Communities'

During period two in Community 7 (Figure 7.4) settlement developed around the period one settlement, expanding to a total of 62 sites in the Durobrivae area. Once again the X 2 tests indicates that we should reject the null hypothesis, but as with period one, the Durobrivae group does not constitute a significant source of error. The observed number of 62 sites compares well to the expected number of 63.8. Significantly, these sites are arranged into five rough sub-groups (perhaps analogous

In the section that follows the division of the fen edge into three 'communities', numbered 7 to 9, is pursued. The difficulty with dealing with the fen edge is, as conceded in section 7 .1, that it is the least useful of the environmental groups as an analytical tool, and to a degree these fen edge communities are artificial. They are, perhaps, more an indication of sites performing a set function within the landscape (in this case sites which provide Durobrivae with access to the Fens, and vice versa), rather than, as

63

Chapter 7: Fen Edge and Upland - The Fens in Context

to the sub-grouping discussed in the context of silt fen Community 4), though here me must remember the true nature of the fen edge. As outlined in section 7 .1, and in section 7.3 with reference to individual fen edge communities, the fen edge is boundary zone between fen and upland, and Communities 7 to 9 are only incomplete parts of the wider landscape discussed in section 7.2.

foundation rate is a relatively even curve, and the failure rate is heavily skewed towards the end of the Roman period, which reflects the cumulative nature of site foundation in this community, and its sudden decline in the post Roman period. In its basic development over time fen edge Community 7

is not dissimilar to those on the silt fens, which, as was argued above, existed in a hierarchical relationship to Durobrivae. Both silt fen and fen edge mirror what is known about the development of the town itself: Durobrivae was essentially a period two development, growing as the Fens and fen edge developed (Macreth 1995 & 1996). The second century expansion occurred across the region, which supports the interpretation that the silt fens, fen edge, and Durobrivae existed as a unit, developing in response to the same economic trends.

As was established in Chapter Five, settlement on the silts can also be divided into five groups. In the light of a hierarchical picture of the regional landscape in which the five silt fen communities are essentially controlled from the fen edge, we must investigate the possibility that the fen edge sub-groups each relate to a corresponding silt fen community to the east. When we consider these features of Community 7 in relation to the local communications network, we see that there is a clear relationship between the fen edge clusters, and communities on the silts, with the communications routes which run eastwards from the Car Dyke or King Street, often connecting the two. This relationship is demonstrated on Figure 7.2. It can be suggested that Community 7, more loosely structured that the silt fen communities, and defined simply as fen edge sites within the probable area of influence of Durobrivae, provided a series of 'portals' for the silt fens, clusters of sites at the key entry points to the low lying areas to the east. Their function will be discussed in detail later.

The chronology of sites in Community 7 can assist us in understanding the development of the area, and its relationship to settlement on the silt fen. This picture is enhanced by a consideration of status display. We see from Table 3.15 that, of all of the environmental groups, the fen edge contains the highest proportion of wealthy sites. This might lead us to the general conclusion that the fen edge was a more 'wealthy' environment than the fens proper, but, as was discussed above, the fen edge is the least valid of the environmental areas as a conceptual entity. Therefore, the first task in understanding fen edge status sites is to analyse them in their 'community' context.

In period three (Figure 7.5) the aggregate figures show an

increase from the period two total of 62 sites to 78. The X 2 test for period three does suggest some significance in the difference between the expected figure of71.5 sites in fen edge Community 7, and the observed figure of 78. If we look at the breakdown by chronological group we see that sites founded in period three (chronological groups 33 and 34) number 32, but failures (groups 12 and 22) number only 16. Thus period three sees a substantial increase in the number of fen edge settlements. The relatively low failure rate indicates that this was a landscape that was developing, rather than one which was 'cycling' its settlement population with foundations balanced by failures. This increase in site numbers has the effect of 'filling in' some of the gaps between settlement clusters, especially in the northern half of the area. The clusters still persist, however, marked by the occurrence of high-density occupation.

There are a total of 170 sites in Community 7, 69 of which exhibit status indicators of some kind. These 69 status sites are broken down by status trend on Figure 7.9, and Tables 7.1 to 7.3, and the status trends of Communities 7 - 9 are presented in numerical form on Table 7.5. The most significant status trend is that of 'building material' (Table 7.1), amounting to 51 sites, some 31 % of all settlements in Community 7. Of the remaining 17 sites, six are of the mixed tradition (Table 7.2). Thus on 58 of the 69 status sites, architecture played a role in the display of status. On only 11 sites is portable wealth the only form of display apparent (Table 7.3), and this wealth is principally in the form of coinage. As with the period chronology, the statistical significance of the three identified status trends may be assessed using an X 2 test. Each trend was subjected to testing on the basis of proportional trend occurrence across the three identified fen edge communities. When examining Community 7, we see that for all status trends the null hypothesis (status distribution in proportion to gross settlement distribution) was rejected, and for all three trends Community 7 was a significant source of error. In the case of architectural elaboration 42 sites were expected, but 52 were observed. For the other status trends Community 7 was underrepresented, with 10.6 mixed trend sites expected, but only 6 observed, and 16.4

Settlement density in Community 7 dropped sharply during period four (Figure 7.6), but as stressed elsewhere; it is unlikely that this is a true reflection of the settlement pattern at this time. The distribution of undated sites (Figure 7.7) mirrors that of the clusters discussed above, suggesting that they fit comfortably into the pattern established by dated sites. The development trends for Community 7 are presented on Figure 7.8. From this figure we can see that Community 7 settlement peaked in period three. The

64

Chapter 7: Fen Edge and Upland - The Fens in Context

portable wealth sites expected, and only 11 observed. Architectural elaboration was thus significantly overrepresented in this community. This is important because architectural elaboration was the principal mode of status display in the area of the silt fen that I have argued was administered from Durobrivae. As a landscape that was essentially colonised during the Roman period, the silt fen did not have its own tradition of status display. Instead we wituess a situation where development on the silts was controlled by those located on the fen edge and the western uplands, and was pursued according to their practice. This explains the fact that the status sites on the silt fen are similar in form (i.e. in utilising architectural elaboration) to those on the fen edge, whilst differing from the tradition of the central fen area, which had an established pre-Roman practice.

As argued in Chapter Six, the whole industry could ultimately have been run, or monitored from Durobrivae, either by the civil authorities of the town, a direct military presence in the area, or officials organising military supply. Given the concentration of industrial activity in this area, and the exploitation of raw materials like the iron deposits of the Nene valley, we might even envisage a specific official, perhaps a Procurator, co-ordinating and developing local activities for official benefit. Salt, for example, is often claimed as an imperial monopoly (Salway 1970: 10), but such a monopoly may have been 'farmed out' (under supervision) to conductores, and their possible role in the running of the conjectured Fenland imperial estate is speculatively discussed by Salway (1970: 10 - 11). However, despite detailed information about the structure of estate management from other areas of the empire (for example Kehoe (1988) on North Africa, or Rathbone (1991) on Egypt), we have no such information from Britain.

When we look at the spatial distribution of status sites in Community 7 (see Figure 7.2) we see that the bulk of building material status sites are located on the fen edge opposite the main salt producing areas of the silt fen. Very few are located further south, opposite the peat fen. Although the fen edge location is often cited as an economic advantage for sites (Pryor 1984: 225), allowing them to exploit the resources of the uplands and the fens (in the case of the peat fens such things as fish, fowl, peat for fuel, and reeds for roofmg), this strategy clearly did not bring great wealth.

In line with the general model that we have of the administration of Roman Britain in which native elites were instrumental in the day to day running of the province (Millett 1990), we may perhaps suggest that high status individuals living on the fen edge were responsible for running the salt industry, under imperial supervision. Bailiffs, located in the status cores of the silt fen communities, and responsible to those living on the fen edge, may have managed the day-to-day running of salt production operations. The inhabitants of the fen edge may in tum have been responsible to the local elites, based in Durobrivae, or the villas in the Nene Valley to the west. The local elite may have become involved in the production of salt on the basis of contracts leased from the imperial government. However, our evidence cannot be pushed too far: we simply do not have the information to convincingly reconstruct officials and their titles and responsibilities. Furthermore, the lack of inscriptions from the area, an important feature in other, more demonstrable 'imperial' estates, may lead us to question the validity of such a comparative approach (J. Taylor 2000).

The location of substantial structures on the fen edge close to the silts (when such structures are much less common on other stretches of the fen edge) suggest that they were in some sense connected with the salt industry. They do not appear to have a direct involvement in the manufacturing process: of the 49 sites exhibiting architectural elaboration in Community 7 only four, 29 23 04, 11 23 14, 12 50 27, & 20 50 02 are industrial. Most of the fen edge status sites, then, were domestic in nature. These were sites like 11 23 02, located in the heart of the cluster of fen edge sites connected to silt fen Community 3. This site had building rubble recovered from it, and had access to a wide range of pottery including fme wares and mortaria. Perhaps we can see these sites as domestic establishments, constructed by those who controlled salt production. Not only would those with more wealth be separated from the physically unpleasant environment created by functioning salterns, but also being closer to a main communications route (King Street) would have allowed easy access to Durobrivae.

Further south in Community 7, there are fewer status structures known, but most of the purely portable wealth sites are located here. Of the 11 sites that exhibit signs of portable wealth, eight are in the southern half of the Durobrivae fen edge sector. Thus, although the distribution of building material and portable wealth is not as mutually exclusive as in the fens proper, there does appear to be a division of the landscape along similar lines. Portable wealth sites are concentrated on the fen edge immediately to the east of Durobrivae, but architectural elaboration and mixed sites being predominant to the north. Exceptions to this appear, as with the central fens, to be potentially 'special' sites, like Orton Hall farm (19 14 01), which according to excavator became official property in the later Roman period (Mackreth 1996: 236), or site 29 23 03 considered to be a

Furthermore, we must consider Simmons' (1979) conjecture that the principal function of the Car Dyke was control of the flow of fresh water into the Fens from the upland to protect the briny ground water upon which the successful manufacture of salt relied. If this were the case, the occurrence of high status sites on the upland side of the Car Dyke would suggest that the management of the Dyke ( and by implication the running of the salterns) was conducted from these sites.

65

Chapter 7: Fen Edge and Upland - The Fens in Context

wharf site by Phillips (1970: 187).

development. The need to pay tax may have dictated that a site operating such a subsistence economy, nevertheless produce something for sale at the market centre of Durobrivae, and this activity (vital if the site were to meet its obligations to the authorities) may have been very susceptible to local economic fluctuations.

This somewhat generalised picture can be brought down to a more human level through the consideration of individual excavated sites. There are four major sites on the fen edge, or close by, which merit particular attention: Fengate, Haddon, Orton Hall Farm, and Maxey. The sites of Fengate (see Figure 7.10) and Maxey (Figure 7.11) best illustrate low status sites on the fen edge. Fengate (Pryor 1984: 197 - 255) was a large site directly on the fen edge, with a shifting focus of occupation that dated back to before the period of the Roman occupation. The fact that the site was linked to an extensive field system, and that the prevailing environmental conditions were water logged, suggested to the excavator that the economy was a pastoral one (224-225), supplemented by Fenland resources. Some of the structures in the Roman period were substantial, being constructed out of brick and tile, but left few archaeological traces, suggesting that such buildings had either very shallow foundations, or were set directly on the ground.

Haddon (see Figure 7.12 for the site plan) is another such 'farmstead' site, yet again with LPRIA phases, and beginning with a pastoral economy (French 1994: 176). Here also a later shift to a more broadly based economy is evidenced, with an increase in arable production in the later period. Signs of a mid-Roman re-organisation were also detected at Orton Hall Farm (Macreth 1996: 233), but in that case to increase rather than decrease the element of animal husbandry in on-site activity. Thus, there would appear to be a chronological co-incidence, with changes of agricultural regime, and perhaps land ownership, occurring in Community 7 in the first half of the second century - period two in the chronological divisions used here. This is also the period of Durobrivae's rapid expansion, and the rise of industry linked to the town. It is likely that agricultural change from essentially Iron Age pastorialism to a more developed mixed economy, and the growth of urbanisation are connected, and we should probably view the changes in the organisation of the surrounding landscape as a result of the town's growth.

Similarly the site at Maxey (Pryor et al 1985 a; 1985 b) had pre-Roman phases, and practised a pastoral economy that became more mixed as the site developed. As the excavator points out, despite the general impression of wealth in the area, Maxey was a poor site that operated on a subsistence basis (Pryor 1985b: 310), and must thus be placed at the lower end of the social scale. Maxey expanded in the second century, with a range of products including soft fruit, apples, and cheese (Pryor 1985b: 309). Although Pryor suggests that fluctuations at Maxey were driven by local environmental changes, which doubtless played a role, they can also be seen to be part of a wider economic cycle pertaining to the whole Durobrivae region. It was suggested by the excavator that Maxey, with its subsistence economy, might not have interacted very much with the region around it (Pryor 1985: 310). However, if this were true generally of low status sites (status group one), not only would the chronology that has been advanced here only relate to more wealthy sites, but the picture of sub regional communities might only apply to the upper half of the status scale. If this was the case then lower status sites might well have been comparatively isolated.

Orton Hall Farm (Figure 7.13) also provides us with a good example of a higher status site, perhaps giving some insight into the process by which settlements in the area developed. Intensification of activity on site, and the increase in the number of buildings, was linked with the increasing economic importance of the settlement (Mackreth 1997: 221). This was ultimately followed by a suggested 'official' takeover (Mackreth 1997: 235 - 237). If we were to apply the model that Orton Hall supplies more widely, it would appear that status sites developed at a later Roman date, growing naturally out of economic success, perhaps with occasional official involvement. North of Peterborough the gradual intensification of activity on the fen edge, and an increase in status architecture, may have been fuelled by the developing salt industries, as well as more intensive agriculture. The above analysis allows us to draw some general conclusions not only of relevance to the fen edge, but also to the economic hinterland of Durobrivae generally. Firstly, is the fact that the Fens were clearly orientated towards the town, and specifically to the fen edge, which explains the near monopoly Nene Valley Ware had on the supply of pottery to the area (Macreth 1995: 51). If we accept the contention that both the Fens and the fen edge/upland were part of an economic unit based around Durobrivae, then the supply of locally made pottery to other parts of the same hinterland makes sense. Given that the pottery industry functioned through the town, it is not unreasonable to assume that the elite of Durobrivae had

This hypothesis may be doubted, because in the analysis above most sites appear to obey the same fluctuations in fortune, as well as clearly belonging to the structured landscape of communities and sub-community clusters discussed above. The second century expansion of Maxey, in tune with that in the wide economic hinterland suggested for Durobrivae, strongly argues against a site or group of sites functioning in a fashion that was independent from the wider landscape. The site at Maxey may not have been particularly affluent, and there may not have been much in the way of 'Roman' style material culture being consumed/used on site, but that does not mean that the site was isolated from regional

66

Chapter 7: Fen Edge and Upland - The Fens in Context

some involvement in it. These may well have been the same (or similar) people to those who ran the silt fen salt production sites. Using privileged access to the workers in one industry (salt production) to guarantee that a second industry has a captive market would be natural in the context of wider regional economic framework. Such an interpretation of the local landscape must lead us to question Mackreth's interpretation of the Car Dyke (1996: 233 - 234), as the boundary between two different administrative units, one ruled as an imperial estate, the other constituted as the territory of a native civitas.

of the Catuvellauni. It must, therefore, be considered marginal to the main focus of this study, and as such this community has not been studied in the same detail as the area surrounding Durobrivae. Nevertheless, interesting patterns of relevance to our wider investigation are still discernible. Figures 7.15 to 7.19 illustrate the distribution of Community 8 sites over time. As Figure 7.15 shows early activity was focused in the general vicinity of Cambridge. This initial activity clearly acts as the focus for later settlement, as most period two sites are focused upon this area (Figure 7.16). Although by period two settlement was occurring over a broader area, the area of densest occupation was that were period one sites had been most common. This pattern remains basically stable in period three (Figure 7.17), though as discussed bellow, this broad picture conceals important fluctuations. As elsewhere, the settlement pattern contracts radically in period four (figure 7.18). Unlike Community 7, undated sites (Figure 7.19) appear to peripheral to the areas of dated sites in the Cambridge areas of the fen edge.

The Fens may or may not have been imperial land, but as J. Taylor (2000) suggests, this is not a question that we can properly resolve through archaeology. However, the whole traditional conception of an imperial estate as a monolithic entity covering the whole of Fenland and perhaps some of the fen edge ( Salway 1970: 10-13) must be questioned. If we are to take the example of Africa, we see that the pattern of ownership and exploitation may be much more fragmented (Kehoe 1988, but esp. 229-234). This is a situation even more clearly demonstrated in Egypt, where the Heroninos archive reveals the fragmented nature of the large private estate of Appianus (Rathbone 1991). These are, of course, examples from other areas of the empire, and it may be argued have no relevance to the situation in Britain, but we have evidence of an active land market, dealing in surprisingly small parcels of land (Tomlin 1996), even from this province. Thus we can see that patterns of ownership were more fragmented and complex than the simplistic picture of a single estate, stretching from one side of the Fens to the other will accommodate.

7.3.2 Community Cambridge

8:

Godmanchester

Turning to the statistical breakdown of Community 8 we see from a consideration of the development trends (Figure 7.20) that the settlement history of the Cambridge region followed a slightly different course to that of Community 7. When development trends were analysed for Community 7 (Figure 7.8) we see that the number of fen edge sites in the Durobrivae area peaked in period three. The late Roman acceleration in the failure rate was balanced by a high period three foundation rate. However, a similar calculation for Community 8 produces a different picture, with a much sharper decline in the foundation rate during the Roman occupation, and the total number of sites in this community peaked earlier than the total for Community 7. The most telling chronological groups are 22/23 and 33. In Community 8 there were 9% of sites in group 22 (compared with 6.5% in Community 7), 25% in group 23 (21 % in Community 7), and 9% in 33 (15.5 % in Community 7). Thus, when we compare the two communities, we see a consistent picture of earlier development, and a correspondingly earlier decline in the Cambridge region the reverse being the case in period three.

and

Community 8 is mapped on Figure 7.14, and its sites are listed on Table 7.6 to 7.9. Community 8 is somewhat divorced from the rest of the study area, being separated from the Stonea/March, and the Whittlesey/ Eldernell areas by extensive peat fen (see Figure 5.1). The projected line of Akeman Street (M 23b) from Cambridge to Littleport, over Ely Island does provide a route into the eastern part of the central fens, assuming a transfer to river transport down the Old Croft river at Littleport, but the General Distribution Map from FRT (Sheet K) shows a probable section of road north of Cold Harbour Farm, which would carry Akeman Street to Denver on the fen edge. The principal function of this route would therefore have been to give access to Norfolk from the Cambridge area, rather than the Fens proper. The Cam would ultimately have given Cambridge access to the sea through the Fens, but there is no direct route to the important site of Stonea, or the communities of the silt fen. This reinforces the conclusion reached earlier that the Fens were orientated towards Durobrivae, and suggests that this southern area looked more towards the territory

This pattern was subjected to X 2 testing and, as noted in section 7.3.1, all tests rejected the null hypothesis at a chosen level of significance of 95%. However, the value for period two sites in fen edge Community 8 is a significant source of error, with more sites observed (58) than expected (45.1). Thus we can see that Community 8 varied from the null hypothesis to a greater degree in the early Roman period, than it did in the later. This is in contrast to Community 7, where early development was in line with expected values, thus confirming the statistical significance of the impression that the Cambridge area developed at an earlier date than the Durobrivae area.

67

Chapter 7: Fen Edge and Upland - The Fens in Context

The Roman period settlement at Cambridge (Alexander & Pullinger 2000, and Burnham & Wacher 1990: 246 -249) is poorly understood, but what is known appears to suggest rapid expansion in the second century, period two (A. Taylor 2000: 77), and contraction in the third century, or period three (A. Taylor 2000: 80). This mirrors the development and decline of fen edge settlement in the area. Although Community 8 is divorced from the fen proper, it is an interesting comparison with Durobrivae, and Community 7. When Durobrivae was developing, settlement foundation in the surrounding area continued strongly, but in Community 8 with the local centre at Cambridge in decline, the foundation rate on the fen edge declined sharply.

products by the local urban centre. 7.3.3 Community 9: Mildenhall to Hockwold cum Wilton

This section considers the eastern fen edge, mapped on Figure 7.22, and the sites that comprise Community 9, listed on Tables 7.10 to 7.13. As with the sites of the southern fen edge, Community 9 was distinct from the fens proper (see Figure 5.1), and as such has been studied only superficially, to provide a contrast with those areas more intensively examined. The distribution of Community 9 sites over time is mapped on Figures 7.23 to 7.27, though it must be noted that the high incidence of undated sites in this area makes the chronological picture less reliable than for other communities. As Figure 7.23 demonstrates only a few scattered sites are known in period one, and does not appear to indicate any intensive pre-Roman occupation of the fen edge. This is followed by a modest expansion in periods two and three (Figures 7.24 and 7.25 respectively). This is followed by the usual period four decline (Figure 7.26). Undated sites (Figure 7.27) do cluster, with a significant group in the area of the famous site at Hockwold-cum-Wilton (site 78 24 01).

Turning to a consideration of status on the southern fen edge, we see that the trends show marked differences between Communities 7 and 8. The Community 8 status trends are displayed pictorially on Figure 7.21, and numerically on Table 7.5. In both Communities 7 and 8 the principal trend in status display is architectural elaboration, but the percentage of sites in Community 8 expressing wealth in terms of portable wealth, listed on Table 7.8 is much higher (14%, rather than 7%). The X 2 tests for status by trend all reject the null hypothesis, and Community 8 is the most significant source of error for both the building material, and portable wealth trends. The southern fen edge is significantly under represented in terms of architectural elaboration (19 observed sites compared to 29.7 expected, see Table 7.5), and significantly over represented in terms of portable wealth ( 17 observed sites compared to 11.6 expected).

The poor chronology for this area creates problems when we attempt to breakdown this aggregate period picture. Analysis of development trends would seem to indicate that there was most occupation on the eastern fen edge during period three (Figure 7.28), though numbers are small, with only 16 sites in existence during this 'peak'. The failure rate accelerated during period three, but was offset to a degree by still relatively high foundation rates in the late Roman period.

As demonstrated by the FS (Hall & Coles 1994: 98-100), there was a strong Iron Age presence in this area. Many sites on the southern fen edge show LPRIA origins, as was also the case for Community 7. In both communities the Roman period occupation clearly took place in the context of continuity from the LPRIA, but unlike the Durobrivae area, there was also the major pre-Roman occupation at Cambridge (Cunliff 1991: 146). The adoption of 'Roman-style' status display, relying on architectural rather than portable wealth may have been limited by the existence of a more clearly defined LPRIA cultural identity in the Cambridge area. This is supported by finds of possible votive offerings from the fen edge in this area (Taylor 1985: 46-48), which indicate a continued Iron Age tradition of the veneration of watery places, similar to that discussed for Community 6, the central fens, in Chapter Six.

The eastern fen edge does not appear to have been a particularly poor area. Half of the sites known (29 out of 61, see Tables 7.10 to 7.12) were status sites, and the trends are displayed pictorially on Figure 7.29 and numerically on Table 7.5. The dominant group of status sites is that of architectural elaboration (Table 7.10), with 26 sites in this category. There were seven mixed trend sites (Table 7.11), and six where portable wealth was the only form of status display (Table 7.12). However, this is off set to a certain degree by the size and quality of local finds of portable wealth. The two principal examples are the Mildenhall Treasure (Painter 1977) and, from slightly off the fen edge, the Thetford Treasure (Johns & Potter 1983). Thus the eastern fen edge may conform to a 'Roman' pattern, with a high degree of architectural elaboration, more so than the neighbouring Cambridge region, but it is by no means lacking in finds of prestige objects. The later development of the landscape in this area and the lack of a significant LPRIA presence, may have lead to the adoption of more Roman style status display, or, as the material from Hockwold-cum-Wilton and the five ritual diadems discovered in the area (Phillips 1970: 248) perhaps indicate, 'Romanised' religious

In summary, Community 8 would appear to support the

suggestion that the development of fen edge sites is related to the activities of their local centre. The coincidence in the fortunes of the southern fen edge settlements with those of the town of Cambridge mirrors the relationship between Durobrivae and its fen edge settlements. This perhaps indicates that the fen edge developed in response to the demand for Fenland

68

Chapter 7: Fen Edge and Upland - The Fens in Context

practice. In this context, we should note the religious nature of some of the Mildenhall treasure, with items of both pagan and Christian significance (Painter 1977: 18). Given the probable existence of a Roman building close to the treasure's fmdspot (Painter 1977: 11), it may well be that these items were the property of a wealthy family who had adopted Roman pagan religion, but who had now converted to Christianity (Painter 1977: 18). Pagan associations are also apparent in the objects of the Thetford Treasure (Johns & Potter 1983: 70 - 71). Thus we have a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that this part of the fen edge and upland at least utilised material culture that bore the symbols of Roman religion.

7.4 Summary

The fen edge, rather than being a single unitary community of sites, was in fact three separate and very different communities. Community 7 was focused upon Durobrivae, and contained the sites along the Car Dyke from which the Lincolnshire Fen salt industry was administered. This community was composed of scattered sites in the early Roman period, remaining an essentially scattered rural landscape, until the rise of Durobrivae. The developing urban centre had a significant effect upon the western fen edge, which from period two developed in sympathy with the town. In terms of status display we see a marked emphasis on building elaboration in the Durobrivae area, which fits what is known about the hinterland of that town to the west (Wild, 1974, 151-153), where large villas dominate the landscape of the N ene Valley.

How does this area compare to the other fen edge areas already analysed? The most obvious difference is that this area is not based upon an urban centre, and there is less indication of an LPRIA or period one landscape. Perhaps the later development of this area reflects the lack of an urban focus, with no local town to provide for there was less impetus to develop the fen edge in the early period. As is observed elsewhere, this fen edge is probably part of the civitas of the Iceni, and if the picture generated for the silt fens is correct, these fen edge sites mark the eastern limit of that tribe's territory in the Roman period, with the territories to the west looking towards Durobrivae.

Community 8, focused upon the Godmanchester/Cambridge area, retained more of its preconquest nature, due to the existence of a LPRIA centre at Cambridge. The use of portable wealth to display status appears to have been more important in Community 8 than in the area around Durobrivae. Looking at the comparative chronology, we see that the development of Communities 7 and 8 took slightly differing courses. Where as Durobrivae was at its height in period three, Cambridge was an early development, which went into decline in the latter half of the Roman occupation.

The important site of Hockwold-cum-Wilton is key to interpreting the area of Community 9. Gurney (1995: 6166) even goes as far as suggesting that when the Fen Edge began to develop in the second and third centuries, the complex of settlement at Hockwold-cum-Wilton (78 24 01) was so substantial as to merit being considered as a small town. This settlement was equipped with its own temple, at the Leylands farm site, from which a great deal of portable wealth has been recovered. Although not a 'town' on the scale of Durobrivae or Cambridge, it does suggest that a centre of a sort developed in the absence of a more formalised urban foundation. Salway (1967: 55) provides a possible reason for the formation of this centre, suggesting that square arrangements of postholes found at Hockwold-cum-Wilton were market stalls. If this were so, then Hockwold may have functioned as an estate-based market for the fen edge area, perhaps provided as part of the local estate infrastructure during the attempt to open up this fen edge area.

The eastern fen edge, Community 9, is poorly understood, though its character seems to have influenced by the lack of a local urban centre. The absence of such a centre may have been a contributing factor to the more dispersed nature of settlement in Community 9, though the site at Hockwold-cum-Wilton went some way to fulfilling the functions of a town with a (major?) shrine and a possible market. Status display in the area seems to suggest a later, more 'romanised' development in this area, with a strong emphasis on architectural elaboration, though as discussed, portable wealth is by no means absent, as the Mildenhall Treasure (Painter 1977) and the Thetford Treasure (Johns & Potter 1983) illustrate. In the next chapter the interaction between the various

fragmented elements of the regional landscape will be analysed. This will provide the basis for a theoretically informed discussion of what these archaeological landscapes may have meant to the people who inhabited them.

The arguments outlined for Community 7, that the silt fens were essentially administered from status sites clustered along the car dyke, is in contradiction to Salway's assertion (1970: 17) that status sites in Community 9 like Hockwold were the villas of bailiffs who ran areas of the putative imperial estate in the Fens. Salway's interpretation no longer seems a likely explanation for the development of the eastern fen edge. Rather, sites like Hockwold represent the hierarchical organisation of a rather underdeveloped/late developing landscape with no urban centre.

69

Chapter 8 Interpreting the Regional Landscape

8.1

Introduction

The detailed examination of features in the Fenland settlement pattern that has been conducted in preceding chapters has established a clear picture of sub-regional structures such as, for example, the silt fen salt production communities. It has also been established that some parts of the original study area, notably the southern and eastern fen edge, do not form an integral part of the Fen landscape proper. This is to be expected as the boundaries of this area were established on geographical, rather than historical, grounds: the original study was based upon the topographical unit 'the Fens', rather than the communities that inhabited the area. To reach a detailed understanding of these areas of fen edge they must be seen in the wider context of central Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, a study that is outside the scope of this current project. This chapter will thus focus on the western silt and central fens, and the relationship of these areas with the western fen edge.

8.2

From a National to a Regional Model

Interpretation of the landscape of Roman Britain has tended to revolve around the essential division between the 'civilian' landscape of the south and east, and the 'military' landscape of the north and west (see Dark & Dark 1997, or de la Bedoyere 1993 for general accounts of the countryside). This difference has been articulated in varying ways, by Millett (1990b: 40 - 64, but particularly 49) in terms of centralised and decentralised' societies, and how this was reflected in the conquest of the province, and by Dark & Dark (1997: 11 - 12) who re-named the two landscape blocks 'native' (as opposed to military) and 'villa' (as opposed to civilian). The Fens are located in this 'villa' landscape, even though (as we have seen) generally lacking villas. Thus we will begin with a short consideration of these structures. There are many general accounts of the villa and its socio-economic role in the landscape (see Rivet 1969, Todd 1978, Percival 1976 & 1982, Black 1987, Smith 1999). Percival (1976) sets the villa form in the wider context of the western Roman empire, but in adopting this broad approach encounters the difficulty of defining a term which covers such a wide range of structures (13 - 15, 51). These many forms may be broken down using a system of classification by plan (e.g. Richmond 1969). Even so, comparison between a relatively modest site like Barton Court Farm (Miles

1984), a large working agricultural site like Orton Hall Farm (Mackreth 1996), well appointed houses like Woochester (Clarke 1982) and Great Witcombe (Leach 1998), or the 'proto-palace' at Fishborne (Cunliff 1971), must lead us to question what factors actually link these four structures, each with different architectural pretensions and a different social function. Thus the term 'villa' remains problematic, something that has implications for the way in which we consider the landscape of the South East, and the place of Fenland within that area. The broad dualistic model of villa/non-villa landscapes on a provincial scale is, of course, simplistic, and the real situation was much more complex, as most commentators acknowledge (e.g. Percival 1976: 119). Firstly, villas were not distributed across the whole of this so-called 'villa' zone. Basic distribution maps of villa type-sites illustrate the fact that there are significant gaps within the distribution of villas (Jones & Mattingly 1990: 241). These gaps occur notably in large areas of Salisbury Plain (Millett 1990b: 120), Sussex and Kent (Black 1987: 199), and in the Fens. In the latter case the absence of such structures is offered as an indication that land was in imperial ownership (Salway 1970: 10, Hall & Coles 1994: 121), though this is disputed by Mattingly (1997d). The second point to make is that villas were not the only structures in the rural landscape of Roman Britain. This may seem self evident, but it is something that needs to be remembered when whole swathes of territory are characterised by reference to a single type of (elite) structure. The 'villa and village' complex at Stanwick, Northants (Neal 1989), is an example of a more complex picture than a concentration simply on villa structures will allow. Consideration of the civilian zone in terms of the villa needs to take account not only of farms and villages with a possible connection to the villas themselves, but also unconnected non-villa settlements in the same landscape ( see Dark & Dark 1997: 51 - 64 for a summary). In the East Midlands we must contrast 'villas' with sites like Werrington (Mackreth 1988), an Iron Age and Roman enclosure north of Peterborough. This variability is a crucial aspect of the rural landscape, and is evident over even relatively small 'regional' landscapes (Hall 1982: 345 - 348). The simple 'dualistic' model can even be seen to break down at the level of individual sites where both low status (i.e. 'umomanised') structures and villas may occasionally be found together, representing different phases of the same site, or even different aspects of the same phase (Friendship-Taylor & Friendship-Taylor 1997). As discussed in Chapter Three, there have been recent moves to categorise 'high status' structures in other ways (Taylor 1996: 209 - 210). The architectural 'status ranking'

70

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

of this current project is an example of such an approach which allows the identification of structures which may not rank highly in architectural terms, but which within their own local context may be more significant than their physical remains would appear to merit (Fincham 2000: 34). Here, it has been argued that the presence of a tiled roofed building in the fens is more significant than it might be in a comparatively villa rich landscape. This essentially means that smaller scale studies are necessary to the understanding of landscapes, and that in the case of the Fens difference is very localised. However, it is not enough to study sub-regional variation in isolation. In studying romanisation, it has been argued that it is comparative study that is illuminating, it being the relative difference between two areas, rather than their absolute qualities, which are important (Reece 1990: 32 - 34). Thus, although detailed sub-regional pictures have been advanced, these can only be developed fully through a regional model in which the disparate landscape elements are tied together and the individual parts contextualised as a functioning whole. It is equally important to provide a temporal model, as well as a spatial one. It is a danger inherent in studies

of archaeological landscapes, where often the dating of evidence is relatively poor, that complex patterns of development over time are collapsed into a crude 'episodic' framework. This results in an essentially ahistorical vision of landscape in which consideration is often focused upon the fully developed 'Roman' picture, with little consideration of how that stage was reached, or how it came to an end (Fincham 1999d: 113). Landscape evolution is continuous, not confined to discrete chronological horizons, and although limited by the quality of data, an effort is made in the following sections to present a picture of development, i.e. a dynamic model of change over time rather than a series of static pictures. This results in a series of models that represent an interpretive evolution of the Fens from the LPRIA to the fifth century. These models outline the changes in the settlement hierarchy, how the landscape was controlled and to a lesser degree how prevailing regional economic systems may have shaped development.

8.2.1

The late Pre-Roman Iron Age: AD 1- 46

The refmed study area (principally the western fen edge and the central fens) falls across the boundary between the Corieltauvi and the Iceni. A model of the possible social structure of the study area in the LPRIA is represented by Figure 8.1, but is essentially two models, relating to the two tribal areas. We will examine the western fen edge and the Lincolnshire silts first.

Salt production was a seasonal activity (Bradley 1975), and given the evidence for Iron Age salterns in the silt fens of Lincolnshire, but the lack of accompanying domestic evidence (Hayes & Lane 1992: 218), this activity was probably conducted by the occupants of the fen edge moving into the fens during the summer months. The location of the Lincolnshire saltern sites in relation to the territory of the Corieltauvi strongly suggest that they were controlled by that tribe (Whitwell 1970: 7, 10), and this further suggests that the wider demand for salt, or associated products like salted meat, lay to the west. This demand was perhaps focused at Old Sleaford, the site best located to act as a 'gate way' for the Iron Age silts (Todd 1991: 4, figure 2). The evidence for Old Sleaford is fragmentary, however it seems likely that it was culturally affiliated with sites like Dragonby, achieving a degree of sophistication in the late Iron Age, with the minting of silver coinage and the importation of amphorae (May 1996: 644). The salt and salt meat produced in the silt fens may well have been traded here. By contrast, in the central fens (as outlined in Chapter Six), an Iron Age population inhabited the fen islands, focused around the local centre of Stonea Camp. Iron age coinage recovered from the camp was predominantly Icenian (Jackson & Potter 1997: 677), strongly suggesting that the people of the central fens constituted a peripheral sept of the Iceni tribe located to the east, in East Anglia. This central fen population also engaged in salt production. If, as discussed in Chapter Seven, section 7.2, the later town of Durobrivae fell within the territory of the Corieltauvian Civitas, this may have reflected the LPRIA situation in the area. If this was the case, then the Catuvellauni perhaps controlled the fen edge south of the Nene valley. This area, however, faced directly onto the large expanse of the southern peat fen, and would have given them little or no access to the silts of the north. Thus, one of the principal features to be recognised in the pre-Roman organisation of the area is the east/west division of territory north of the Nene between the Icenian and Corieltauvian tribes. If the interpretation of Stonea Camp as an inland 'commercial centre' (Jackson & Potter 1997: 677) is even partially correct it suggests that there may have been a high degree of contact across this boundary, despite the difficulties encountered in attempting to traverse the peat fen which lay between Stonea and the western fen edge. Catuvellaunian influence on either the silt fen salt working areas of Lincolnshire, or the central fens, appears to have been very limited.

8.2.2 From the Conquest to the Icenian revolt: AD 47 -

60 The region under consideration had fallen under Roman control by AD 47 (Salway 1981: 95), and the immediate post conquest situation is represented by Figure 8.2. The early fortress at Longthorpe (Frere & St Joseph: 1974),

71

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

acted as the major military base in eastern England. It was located at the junction between the territories of three tribes, the Iceni, the Catuvellauni, and the Corieltauvi. It was thus placed in an influential location, allowing units based at, or commanded from, this site to maintain a watchful presence on the borders of Icenian territory, whilst policing much of the conquered territories of the Corieltauvi (Todd 1991: 24 - 30) and the Catuvellauni (Branigan 1985: 35 & 38 39). The location of Longthorpe close to the river Nene suggests that its positioning may have been influenced by a desire to control riverine access to the western areas of Icenian territory. Although the Fens lay between the fortress and the Icenian heartlands in Norfolk, the Nene would have been an important means of communication with the central fens. By positioning a fortress on the Nene the imperial authorities not only controlled the Corieltauvian and Catuvellaunian population of the vicinity, but could also monitor the eastern edge of Icenian territory. In addition, by controlling the Nene the army would also have controlled contact between the Iceni and the territory of the western uplands, and such a possibility is supported by the suggestion (Fincham 1999b: 27) that the western section of the Fen Causeway may have been constructed in this early pre-Revolt period. This early road, later incorporated into the Fen Causeway proper, would have linked the islands of Whittlesey and Eldernell to the mainland, suggesting that Longthorpe acted as an early Roman base from which control was extended eastwards into the Fens. This pattern of control is also evident in the location of the fort at Durobrivae. Wild (1974: 142 - 143) and Todd (1991: 27) both suggest that the principal function of the fort was to guard the Nene crossing. The dating of the site is problematic, as there have been no excavations. However, Wild (1974: 142) points out that it is part of the early Roman fort and road network, and on this basis it is probable that the fort should be assigned to the first years after the occupation. Given the site's proximity, and possibly similar date, to Longthorpe, it is probable that the fort at Water Newton was a satellite of the fortress. Thus, as Figure 8.2 illustrates, both direct control over the western fen edge, and some peripheral supervision of the central fens was provided by Longthorpe and the associated site at Water Newton. In this model the central fens remained an essentially separate entity from the rest of the study area, belonging to the client state in the east, rather than the directly administered territories to the west. By contrast, sites known from the Lincolnshire fens, part of the conquered Corieltauvian territory, and sites on the southern fen edge around Ely and Cambridge, probably associated with either the Catuvellauni or the Trinovantes (Todd

1991: 27), would have been brought under direct Roman control.

8.2.3 After the Icenian Revolt: AD 61-100

Important changes in the organisation of the area appear to have occurred in the mid-first century, as illustrated on Figure 8.3. Although there is no direct evidence linking the two events, the logical point at which to locate these changes is in the aftermath of the Boudiccan revolt (Webster 1993: 101 - 102), the revolt providing a context in which to place a drastic intervention by the Imperial authorities, and the disruption to LPRlA social structures which appears to have accompanied it. Management of the fen edge appears unchanged, still focused upon the fortress at Longthorpe and the fort at Water Newton, though both sites were abandoned in the late first century. The chronology of these abandonments is unclear, but a smaller fort is known to post-date the Longthorpe fortress on the same site (Frere & St Joseph 1974: 38 - 39), and may have continued the functions of the earlier establishment. It is also possible that the fort at Water Newton (Wild 1974: 142 - 143) outlasted the main phase of activity at Longthorpe by some years. Even so, if Mackreth (1996: 234 - 235) is correct that Durobrivae is an essentially Antonine foundation, then there is a gap of several decades between the end of the heavy military presence in the area, and the establishment of any recognised civilian administrative structure. Indeed, the traditional claim that the military moved north, and civilian government was established (e.g. Wacher 1979: 76 - 77), fails to properly explain the transition from one form of government to another. In the case of the area around Durobrivae one option is that, given the presence of valuable resources, official (i.e. military) control continued in limited form. After the area had been pacified following the Boudiccan revolt, a military presence composed of small groups of soldiers involved in tax collection and light policing may have been all that was required for continued military control, and continued exploitation of the regions resources. Involvement in official supply may have allowed the regional elite to generate wealth for themselves, the accumulation of which eventually lead to construction of the Nene Valley villas and assisted the growth ofDurobrivae. In this scenario the land holdings and wealth of the native elites may initially have been quite small, growing after engagement with the authorities economic requirements. Essentially, the elites seized the opportunities presented to them by the empire, and in doing so generated considerable wealth. Thus we may suggest that the combination of a light military presence, supporting continued direct administration of the area, alongside a co-operative elite, led to the developed villa economy of the mid-to-late Roman period and the more obvious signs of 'civilian government' following the rise ofDurobrivae. A significant development at this time occurred in the

72

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

central fens. As discussed in Chapter Six, it is clear from later ceramic preference in this area (Mackreth 1996: 235), and from the development of the regional communication network, that by the second century the central fens was orientated towards the western fen edge and Durobrivae, rather than the Civitas of the Iceni. How this came about, however, is less than clear. At some early date, probably immediately after the Boudiccan revolt (Fincham 1999b: 27, Jackson & Potter 1996: 51 - 53, Gurney 1986: 135, & Potter 1981: 85) the Fen Causeway was extended east through the central fens into East Anglia, and for a short time the fort at Grandford (probably a second satellite of Longthorpe) provided a possible base for the military policing of the March/Stonea area (Potter 1981: 87, Potter & Robinson 2000). It is possible that this area was detached from the Iceni in AD 47, following a relatively minor uprising (Potter & Jackson 1997: 677), however, the Grandford fort, and the road linking the area directly with Longthorpe, only emerge after the later Boudiccan revolt. The continued vitality of the pre Roman centre at Stonea Camp from AD 47 to 61, evidenced by the large numbers of late Icenian coins (Potter & Jackson 1997: 677), and the shared characteristics with the site at Thetford (Gregory 1991) (e.g. both experienced sudden closure in c. AD 61), also points to the later date. This makes sense: the opportunity to detach the central fens from the Iceni, and re-organise the area would have been greatest in the years following the failure of a widespread uprising. One motivation may have been to remove the potentially valuable salt production industry of the area from the control of a hostile tribe, and place it under the same authority as the South Lincolnshire saltern sites. This, however, still leaves the status of this area in the years following AD 61 unclear. As considered above, Potter & Jackson (1997: 677) have suggested, that the central fens were directly administered by the military for a period of some years (perhaps about a decade?) after the revolt. As argued in Chapter Six this suggests that the local elite were severely weakened at this time. The situation in the central fens thus conforms to Millett's (1990b: 49) model for the control of a decentralised society, a fortress located near a local, rather than a regional centre. This does not mean that we should consider the region to lie within an area of decentralised social structures - if the central fen area was divorced from the wider tribal unit of which it was originally a part, then the 'decentralised' character of its post conquest occupation was a function of the Roman re-organisation aimed at weakening the Iceni. The need for the fort at Grandford thus supports the suggestion that the area was removed from Icenian control at this time - without a wider tribal framework the central fens required direct military supervision. After the Grandford fort was abandoned, we know little

about what was occurring in the central fens. However, as with the upland, the lack of a fort need not infer that the area had reverted to civilian government. The later construction of the Stonea Tower, and the probable presence of the military at that site (Jackson & Potter 1997: 685 - 687) suggest continued official interest in the area. This does not mean that all land remained, or indeed was ever, state property in the manner of an imperial estate, but does indicate that the degree of control exercised over this area was comparatively close, perhaps because of the salt production industry, and the ability of the central fens to produce salted meat for official supply. Between the abandonment of Grandford fort and the construction of Stonea, it is possible that the area remained under close supervision, maybe in the form of small numbers of soldiers assisting the work of officials. This level of presence would be similar to that suggested by Jackson & Potter, though without the purpose built 'administrative' complex that Stonea was later to provide. Such a phase provides the natural link in the evolution of the areas administration from the military occupation based at Grandford, to the construction of the Stonea complex.

8.2.4 The Mid-Roman Period: Second and Third Centuries

Developments in the region in the latter half of the first century AD established the basic structure of the area for the rest of the Roman period, although that structure continued to evolve. The mid-Roman phase, roughly the second and third centuries, is represented by Figure 8.4. It was suggested in the previous section that following the abandonment of the military bases in this area, an interim administrative system existed which was comprised of a light military presence supporting Roman officials who governed with the co-operation of the native elite (who had become economically engaged with the empire). Such engagement led to the accumulation of wealth by the native elite, and ultimately the emergence of the villa economy based upon the villas of the Nene Valley and the town of Durobrivae, which eventually came to support the civil administration of the area. To examine the outcome of this process of development we must begin at the provincial level using the wider model provided by Millett (1990b: 127 - 151). Millett suggests that small towns, located on the peripheries of civitas territories achieved significant economic growth by the latter half of the Roman period (1990b: 143 - 151). He ascribes this to a decentralization of tax collection and the emergence of small towns as market centres (1990b: 149 - 151), as well as a desire to engage in economic activity outside the sphere of control exercised by elites based in civitas capitals. This had the tendency to encourage growth in the vicinity of small towns, like Durobrivae, which were located near civitas borders (1990b: 168 - 169). This is consistent with the development of urban settlement

73

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

along the western fen edge. Old Sleaford continued as a relatively sizable settlement into the Roman period, but never became a walled town (May 1976: 168), perhaps because it was largely by-passed when the early road network was constructed (Burnham & Wacher 1990: 9). However, Durobrivae expanded in size, becoming large enough to earn the classification of 'Potential City' from Burnham & Wacher (1990: 81- 91), a growth linked by Esmonde Cleary (1987: 148) to the towns links with the Fens. The evidence for the development of Durobrivae over time is lacking in detail, but a basic sequence for the mid-Roman period has been established (Burnham & Wacher 1990: 83). The original vicus (Wild 1974: 145, Burnham & Wacher 1990: 81 - 83), developed as a ribbon settlement along Ermine street, with side lanes, and one substantial building. The side lanes expanded, and a possible major re-development took place in the western part of the town. At some point a circuit of defences was laid out, though by this point Durobrivae had reached a considerable size, and only the original core was enclosed within the new walls (Esmonde Cleary 1987: 148). A section through the defences revealed that the bank sealed second century pottery (Richmond 1958: 139), suggesting a late second or third century date for the walls themselves (Burnham & Wacher 1990: 90). Given the broad pattern of development of fortifications around British towns (Wacher 1995: 71 - 81), generally constructed in the second or third centuries, there seems little doubt that those at Durobrivae should be allocated to this period. Two suburbs, one on either bank of the Nene, grew up along the course of Ermine street, and are considered in detail by Esmonde Cleary (1987: 142 - 149). These would appear to have expanded in the mid to late second century (Burnham & Wacher 1990: 87) and to the north of the river at least may have been of a principally industrial nature (Dannell 1974), though this activity appears to have declined in the third and fourth centuries to be replaced by occupation (Burnham & Wacher 1990: 89). These suburbs are important to our understanding of Durobrivae because, as Wild (1974: 147) notes, their expanse is comparable to the area of some of Roman Britain's large towns. The curious character of Durobrivae has led some to consider it as a possible civitas capital (Stevens 1937: 199). This is, however, a question unlikely to be settled by archaeology, and, somewhat like our consideration of the problem with defming the villa, we encounter problems when attempting to classify Romano-British towns in a framework which revolves around classical legal categories that may not reflect the physical framework of the towns particularly well. The study of Roman small towns is traditionally seen in these legalistic terms (Rivet 1973), an approach which has influenced national (Wacher 1995, de la Bedoyere 1992), and regional (Crickmore 1984: 13 - 15) studies.

Here, however, rather than engaging in an inevitably inconclusive debate on the legal status of the town, we will assess its significance in the light of archaeological evidence for the regional economy. A principal element of the economy will have been agriculture. This was probably the case for all small towns (Burnham & W acher 1990: 44 ), as well as the chief interest of villa owners, and the chief source of their wealth (Percival 1976: 145 -165). This is an important point to remember because there is usually very little direct archaeological evidence for agriculture, as opposed to 'industries' like pottery production. Attempts have been made to reconstruct villa estates, like that at Gatcombe (Branigan 1977: 192 - 197), but these are highly hypothetical, and as they tend to reconstruct villa land as continuous tracts, ignore the possibility of fragmented holdings (Finley 1985: 112), local variation in size (Duncan-Jones 1976: 20 - 21), or the processes of 'acquisition and alienation' (Crawford 1976: 40 - 41) which must have acted upon all estates. Attempting to recreate estates on the basis of the information that we have is probably pushing the nature of our evidence too far, and this is as true for the Fens, and their identification as an imperial estate, as it is for villas. Thus models of the Fens as an imperial estate (Salway 1970: 10 - 12), traditionally accepted, are problematic. The archaeological identification of land holding patterns is a notoriously difficult pursuit, and even a historical approach is fraught with difficulty (Finley 1976: 1 - 6), given the anecdotal nature of much of the available data. The certain information that we have for imperial land holding in Britain is very limited indeed (Crawford 1976: 36), and in the specific case of the Fens the three main supporting elements of the identification of the area as such an estate, salt production, land reclamation and lack of villas combine only to make this identification 'plausible, never certain' (Crawford 1976: 36). In fact, each of these three supporting strands is now under question. Millett (1990b: 121), doubts that salt production constituted an imperial monopoly, given how widespread this activity appears to be. It is also less and less certain that the Fens were 'drained', as opposed to being opportunistically occupied following a fall in sea level (Hall & Coles 1994: 121), and fmally, it is considered questionable how significant the apparent lack of villas in the area is for the consideration of land holding patterns (Mattingly 1997, Fincham 2000). Landholding patterns were not static, and imperial land, like private land, was constantly being bought and sold (Crawford 1976: 40 - 44), though in general the size of individual holdings seems to have increased over time (Finley 1985: 102). This picture of an active land market is based largely upon information from Rome and provinces other than Britain, and we must question to what degree this was true of the Fens and the area surrounding Durobrivae. Certainly there is evidence that the pre-Roman situation had an influence on the shape of Roman period landholding

74

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

patterns, though this influence is not consistent. The location of imperial estates in Asia is predominantly inland, perhaps the same land owned by the crown in the Hellenistic period, but Roman imperial estates appear to avoid areas previously dominated by Temple land in Egypt (Crawford 1976: 37). Thus in Britain we might expect to see the pre-conquest tribal situation reflected, though perhaps indirectly, in 'Roman' landholding. If, as suggested in Chapter Six, the elite in the central fens was weakened after the Boudiccan revolt, then we might expect too see a high level of Imperial land holding in this area, the crushing of the revolt providing the context for the acquisition of land (as suggested for Stonea by Jackson & Potter 1997: 689). However, this does not mean that land in the area remained in imperial ownership - evidence of an active land market makes this unlikely, nor does it suggest that all land in the area was held by the Roman state, and that there was no private ownership in the area at all. This has been an implicit assumption in the argument that lack of villas in the landscape equals a large estate. Instead we might envisage a situation of mixed ownership, with land owned by the local population, some owned by members of the regional elite, and some (perhaps a higher proportion than elsewhere due to land seizures after the Boudiccan revolt) by the authorities. The need to administer this concentration of imperial properties, in addition to the value of the local production of salt and salted meat for official supply, may explain the high degree of interest shown by the authorities in this area. The aftermath of the revolt, a combination of ingrained hostility to Roman rule and the weakness of the native elite as a consequence of their defeat, may explain their failure to take on the running of the complex for the authorities, and thus it's eventual failure. However, this still does not require that we envisage the Fens as a single imperial estate. If a monolithic imperial estate now appears an unlikely interpretation of the Fens, we must consider the role of private ownership in the region in more detail. The argument advanced in this thesis is that whatever the exact legal status of the Fens, it functioned as a defacto part of the economic hinterland of Durobrivae, and it can thus only be understood in the context of the town, and developments in the Nene Valley. Here, large villas (Wild 1974: 150 - 157, Esmonde Cleary 1987: 146 - 147) are well known, and were clearly the residences of a small group of wealthy individuals. These structures, and their spatial relationship with the town, are mapped on Figure 8.5. The complex of villas around Durobrivae in general is discussed by Branigan (1985: 122 - 126), touched upon by Percival (1976: 98), and the information for individual villa sites is summarised by Scott ( 1993: 31 45), alphabetically by site in her chapter on Cambridgeshire. What Scott's gazetteer reveals is the

concentration of sites at Ailsworth (1993: 31 - 32) and Castor (1993: 34 - 35). Although dating evidence for villas in this area is often slight, most seem to be no earlier than the later second century (Branigan 1985: 123), like, for example, the structures at Sacrewell (Challands 1974: 13 16) and Helpston (Challands 1975: 22 -23). This period is thus one of villa-growth, following on from the expansion of Durobrivae in the early second century. Many of the villas are within a relatively short distance of the town, and it is thus to be expected that they were associated with, and given the chronological sequence, dependant upon, its development. In this context, it is also important to note that the most elaborate of these structures are the closest to Durobrivae (Wild 1974: 151). This clear relationship with the town makes it likely that the villa owners were generally of the class of people responsible for the running and administration of Durobrivae. As Branigan (1985: 126) suggests, talking of the owner of the large late structure discovered under Castor village, 'we might expect the nearby town of Durobrivae to have benefited from his patronage'. Such people may also have owned much of the property in the town, thus increasing their control over activity there (Garnsey 1976: 131 - 132). The above discussion has created an outline of the development of Durobrivae and its hinterland, and provided us with a relatively good idea of possible patterns of ownership. However, local 'production' is a notable element in the regional economy, and must also be considered. Durobrivae was clearly the focus for several major forms of craft production that developed during this period (Esmonde Cleary 1987: 145 - 146, 149). The one of most immediate concern to a study of the Fens is salt extraction. The linl( between this industry and Durobrivae can never, of course, be anything other than hypothetical, but it is supported by the slight indications in the evidence that we do have. It was suggested above that Old Sleaford acted as the local focus for salt production, but the importance of the centre declined in the Roman period. It passed from being a politically and economically important site (Cunliffe 1991: 177, Whitwell 1970, 7 - 10) to being a relatively marginal site, by-passed by main Roman roads (Burnham & Wacher 1990: 9), and eclipsed by other locations (Millett 1990b: 87). This contrasts with Durobrivae, which was of increasing importance throughout the Roman period. The layout of local communications in the Fens reflects this, linking areas of salterns with the upland: the only urban centre that had ready access to all of the salt production areas (both in Lincolnshire and the central fens) was Durobrivae, via Kings Street or the Fen Causeway. If, as we have argued, the regional villa owing elite of the N ene valley controlled Durobrivae, it is probable that they also had some influence over salt production. This influence may have been direct, perhaps holding contracts from the imperial authorities to work the saltern fields and being involved in the running of the industry, or indirect, through control of the facilities of the town. An alternative arrangement would be that imperial officials used the town

75

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

as a base for the continued direct control of local production. This is certainly possible, but what we know of the organisation of Roman procurement (Whittaker 1994: 98 - 131) suggests that it is less likely than the farming out of responsibility for the day to day running of industrial activity on a contract basis. It was suggested in Chapter Five that the silt fens were

organised along 'modular' lines with up to five discrete blocks of settlement in control of areas of saltems. Each of these communities was linked to a cluster of generally higher status sites on the fen edge, which might each have been responsible for the administration of an area of silt fen containing a salt production community. Each community was provided with a 'status' core, perhaps to provide day-to-day administration. Thus we see a very clear hierarchical structure in the silt fen that is outlined on Figure 8.4, which allows us to consider the question of market access. As discussed previously, Ringley (1989: 114) proposes a limit to the distance people in pre-modem societies will travel to attend a market. The limit that he proposes is 5km there and back, making a round journey of no more than 10 km. When this distance is applied to the silt fen communities, we see that it is insufficient for anyone living in Communities 2 to 5 to even reach the upland and return in a single day, and for no one living in any of the communities to reach any known location for a market. Access to Durobrivae can thus only have ever been on an occasional basis. Although the actual produce of the silts may have found its way to Durobrivae (via the status cores and fen edge settlement clusters) this still leaves the question of how the natives were supplied with the goods that they could not produce for themselves. One answer, given the distances involved, is a system of travelling nine day, or 'nundinae' markets (Frayn 1993: 17 - 23, 74, 158- 164), the individual status cores perhaps playing host to markets sequentially. Such markets, perhaps attracting itinerants 'selling on' goods available at Durobrivae, would have been an important contact with the outside world for the isolated inhabitants of the silt fens, whilst also acting as a further mechanism of control. Kehoe (1988: 215 - 220) argues that North Africa markets were often allowed on estates, as this facilitated the control of tenants. As well as these developments on the silt fen, the tower at Stonea Grange was constructed in the central fens at the beginning of this period, after Durobrivae had begun to expand but before the Nene Valley villas had begun to develop. It is unclear whether Stonea represents direct official control of the area (Jackson & Potter 1997: 685-687), or an attempt by the regional elite to control the population of the central fens (Taylor forthcoming), and both of these possibilities, which need not have been mutually exclusive, are

illustrated on Figure 8.4. Thus, as discussed earlier, the construction of the tower may have represented the intensification of the official phase of control that followed the military administration of the area from Grandford (Jackson & Potter 1997: 677), or a reaffirmation of external control in a new, perhaps civil, guise. In either scenario the tower may have served as an outpost to supervise the surviving local elite of the fen islands, as a focal point at which to collect tax contributions, a location to hear legal disputes, and also may have facilitated the extension of the Durobrivae based elite's economic interests in the area. As well as salt production in the near-by Fens, Durobrivae was the natural centre for both the pottery industry (Swan 1984: 95) and the iron mining of the Nene Valley (Wild 1974: 165 - 167). It can be seen from Figure 8.5 that the area of villas coincides with the area of pottery production and it is thus probable that the same class of individuals who ran the town were involved in the control of the pottery industry (Branigan 1985: 123 & 126). Mining took place in various locations in the Nene valley (Wild 1974: 165 - 167, Condron 1996: 86 - 87), and it is possible that the regional elite would also have had a stake in this activity. At the very least, evidence for the smelting of iron ore in the suburbs of Durobrivae (Wild 1974: 165) makes it highly probable that ore was brought to the town for re-working into iron items. In addition, the occurrence of small scale smelting operations near several of the N ene Valley villa sites (Wild 1974: 165 - 167, Challands, A. 1974 & 1979) makes it clear that major sites in Durobrivae's hinterland has access to ore, perhaps via the town. This economic sketch is illustrated on Figure 8.6. We may explore this figure through the device of a hypothetical local landowner, perhaps based at a site like the villa at Sacrewell (Challands 1974). His or her wealth, as was typical of this class, was generated mainly through agriculture. This example assumes the personal involvement of this Nene Valley villa owner in the running of a small number of N ene valley kilns, located on his land, perhaps like those known from Stibbington and Sibson (Wild 1974: 163). In addition to this, our villa owner is involved with some salt production sites, like the saltern 12 23 26 in Community 2, perhaps belonging to a group who hold a contract to extract the salt under licence. His land holdings are not concentrated in one block of land, but made up of smallholdings, both owned and rented, scattered across the region as discussed in our consideration of land holding patterns above. These fragmented estates would have traded their surplus through the market centre at Durobrivae, or through more local periodic markets, at the same time acquiring the goods to fulfil other requirements that could not be met from this estate. In this model our elite member does not have an involvement in Nene Valley iron mining (representing the fact that not all land owners would have had involvement in all aspects of the regional economy), and must purchase all his iron artefacts from an external source.

76

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

In addition Figure 8.6 includes 'small holders', individuals running independent farms, perhaps exemplified by sites like Maxey (Pryor et al 1985 a & b ), selling their produces in the town. It has been suggested that a significant re-organisation of landholding occurred in the region, perhaps with the rise of larger estates at the expense of these small holders (Wild 1974: 153). This may have begun in the first century AD, (Mackreth 1996: 232 - 233) and was presumably an on-going process throughout this period, and we might expect their numbers to have declined overtime.

8.2.5 Late Roman Fenland: The Fourth Century

The situation in the fourth century was essentially similar to that in the second and third centuries presented upon Figure 8.4, but certain features became accentuated. Evidence from Durobrivae mainly relates to the suburbs (Esmonde Cleary 1987: 143 - 145), but these were still in use 'well into the fourth century' (Burnham & Wacher 1990: 91). The villas of the area had also become highly developed by the fourth century, the 'palatial' structure at Castor being a prime example. It is considered by Mackreth to be the headquarters of the comes Britanniae (Mackreth 1996: 236), though Branigan (1985: 126) thinks this unlikely, and prefers to interpret the site as the home of a wealthy late Roman landowner. Other villas also show evidence for late Roman prosperity, like Great Weldon, with mosaics dating to the second half of the fourth century (Branigan 1985: 177). The increasing wealth apparent in villas in this area may be evidence of consolidation of landholdings, each villa owner controlling growing estates, a phenomenon noted generally by Finley (1985: 102). Even so, the evidence that we have strongly suggests continued economic vitality. The presence of a local mosaic school based at Durobrivae from c. 350 AD (Branigan 1985: 178), and the continued strength of the Nene Valley pottery industry, with a lowered standard of production, but relatively wide range of products (Howe et al. 1980: 9), illustrate this. Our understanding of the changing condition of the rural population is conditioned by two complimentary trends. Firstly, as mentioned above, is the apparent decline of small farmers, and the complimentary consolidation of landholding into larger estates. Secondly, those who worked upon these estates may have become tied to their landlords (i.e. to the local/regional elites) as bondsmen (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 114). It is traditionally suggested that this increasing oppression of the peasant class by landowners, combined with various military catastrophes led to an increasing desertion of the land, and to a decline in agricultural production (Jones 1964: 1040 - 1042). Agri deserti have certainly been

considered as a problem in Fens (Salway 1970: 17). It has, however, been doubted how significant the problem really was (Whittaker 1976, Salway 1981: 546 - 548), and it has been suggested that the appearance of this 'motif' in the sources had more to do with the early Christian obsession with the end of the world, than with late Roman reality (Whittaker 1976: 137 - 140, Esmonde Cleary 1989: 28 30). Certainly the increasing opulence of villas in the area, which we have already noted, belies the suggestion that there was any great crisis in the fourth century, a picture supported by Reece (1980: 90) when he proposed a transitional period between urbanised Roman Britain and 'England proper'. This transitional period, dating from 250 to 750 allows consideration of a gradual shift from a countryside based upon villas and villages, through a period of 'estates', to a system of parishes and villages. Millett (1990b: 210 - 211) offers an alternative interpretation of this late period in which the peasantry remained largely free, but wealth was concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The peasantry perhaps provided labour for this elite for wages, or on a customary basis, but as the elite turned inward, focusing on private consumption rather than public display, low status rural society developed different forms of organization that resulted in the increasing nucleation of rural settlement. This offers a context for both the increasing nucleation in the Fens over time (Hallam 1970: 57 - 63) and the increasing prosperity of the villas. The lack of good dating evidence for late Fenland sites makes it difficult to assess the condition of the area during the fourth century. Indications are that the number of sites was declining rapidly (see Chapter Four, section 4.3, particularly pages 77 - 78), but very few sites have pottery analysed in sufficient depth for us to place much weight upon this suggestion. Cooper ( 1996) has also outlined circumstances under which late/post Roman populations may have led an aceramic existence due to failures in supply. Going (1992) has certainly cast doubt upon the reliability of using ceramic evidence to infer abandonment. Given the close link in the observed economic fortunes of the fens and the upland areas to the west, it would perhaps be surprising if at a time when the Nene Valley villas and Durobrivae were increasingly prosperous, the Fens were being abandoned. It is possible that the observed decline in the Fens in the fourth century is a product of pottery supply, rather than real decline.

8.2.6 The End of Roman Fenland: The Early Fifth Century

Figure 8.7 illustrates a potential scenario for the immediate post-Roman period, having reached a situation where the town of Durobrivae had developed under the control of a localised elite based at the edge of the civitas territory, and was relatively independent of regional structures (Millett 1990b: 180). Ifin the fourth century the provincial economy had indeed become more decentralised, and the civitas

77

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

capitals were exercising less influence than they had, it is easy to envisage how the collapse of that central authority would lead to the rapid 'balkanisation' of the province. Figure 8.7 illustrates a range of scenarios, not necessarily mutually exclusive. If regional elites survived, we might see the retention of most of the levels of organisation present in the late Roman period. If the regional elite collapsed, then smaller units would survive. The evidence of villas in the area around Durobrivae gives some support to a somewhat mixed picture, with much evidence of decline on particular sites like Sacrewell (Challands 1974) and Bancroft (Bambrook 1979). Though some sites may have begun to decline, the buildings falling into gradual decay, many estates and farms continued to function until the end of the fourth century (Branigan 1985: 178 - 179). If the excavator of Orton Hall farm (Mackreth 1996: 237 - 239) is correct in interpreting that farm as a site that passed intact into Anglo-Saxon hands, a piecemeal process of decline and fragmentation appears the likely situation at this time. Dark & Dark (1997: 137) suggest that the 'end' of Romano-British villas was a long process of decline running from about AD 350 to c. 500, and this must also be the case for the structures of low status rural society upon which villa economies were ultimately based. Indeed Reece (1980: 88) suggests that the estate structure outlasted the villas themselves, perhaps persisting for several centuries. Models of continuity from the Roman into the AngloSaxon period have been suggested for the countryside (Taylor 1974), and the wider landscape including towns (Johnson 1980: 150 - 177). In addition, the end of industrial pottery production has been seen in more (Fulford 1979) or less (Gillam 1979) abrupt terms. If Cooper (1997) is correct, pottery supply may have ceased relatively suddenly, but, as mentioned above, this does not imply disastrous de-population. Indeed, although Durobrivae probably did not survive long after the collapse of Roman rule, the surrounding countryside may have remained relatively intact (Burnham and Wacher 1990: 91). Archaeology is, in any case, a notoriously bad guide to levels of population (Jones 1979: 244 -245). What is certain is that the Fens were abandoned either suddenly (Salway 1970: 18 - 19), or more gradually, and as argued in Chapter Six, it is possible that occupation in the fens continued for some time into the fifth century, steadily retreating to core areas based upon fen islands.

8.2. 7

Summary

The above sections outline a possible model for the creation of a Fenland landscape within an integrated economic hinterland focused on the town of Durobrivae. It also suggests how the economic development of that hinterland may have led to social and political changes which culminated in the

emergence of a weakened late Roman structure, and eventual collapse after the Roman withdrawal. This model is, however, clearly a structural scenario and deals with the broad picture of an economy and political system run by the imperial authorities and the regional elites. It does not consider the pattern of everyday life on in the Fens, or examine nature of the 'lived experience' of the Roman Empire from the perspective of the lowest levels of society.

8.3

Lived Experience in the Roman Fens

As discussed in Chapter One, a principal problem with traditional interpretations of the Roman Empire is that they tend to be Romano-centric, concentrating on the viewpoint of the hegemonic controlling identity which is 'Rome'. The problems are two fold. Firstly, such a hegemonic identity for 'The Romans' almost certainly did not exist, but more crucially for the current discussion, such an approach in no way addresses the perspective of the conquered population. Using the broad analysis presented in section 8.2 as a framework, we will now consider this issue. A major difficulty is the lack of evidence for people at the lowest levels of society: there are no written texts that relate to their experience. What we do have is the archaeological record, which, when read in the right way, may be regarded as a text with relevance to precisely those people whom we wish to understand (Mattingly 1997b: 15). We can therefore reduce the problem of the representation of low order groups in society to the problem of reading an at best ambiguous text of material culture. Mattingly ( 1997b) advances a model of provincial landscapes that revolves around a central dichotomy, that of opportunity/resistance, the underlying concept of which is discrepant perspective. This amounts to the realisation that different people view the experience of the Empire in different ways. Such perspectives will not usually be characterised in the bi-polar terms of opportunity or resistance, but will be located at some point in the spectrum of possibilities that lies between these two extremes, a point generally applicable to historical enquiry (Said 1993: 35, Mattingly 1997b: 19-20). Therefore we must identify where along this spectrum the various sub-regions of the Fens lie. Scott (1990: 1 - 16) conceptualises the different arenas of social being as 'transcripts'. Thus the reahn of social being which involves the dominant elite, their public ceremonies, and the public relations of subservient classes with that elite (i.e. one of subservience) is called the public transcript (Scott 1990: 1-5). In this transcript, especially in a situation as asymmetrical as the one with which we are currently dealing, we would expect to see compliance from the subordinate classes. However, a subtext exists, which is the subordinate response to the elite, a response that occurs off the public stage: the hidden transcript (Scott 1990: 4 - 10). The hidden transcript is an articulation of non-violent resistance which exists wherever there is a secret gathering,

78

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

a whispered comment out of the hearing of the elite, or indeed any private expression of a shared view that is not in accordance with the public behaviour of subordination (Scott 1990: 36 - 44). That there should be no private expression of resistance is unlikely, as this relies upon accepting the concept of hegemony, and assuming that the elite have been successful in the naturalization of their power amongst the people who are subordinate to them. Scott (1985: Chapter Eight, 304 - 350 & 1990: 77 - 85) offers a compelling critique of hegemony, noting the frequency with which appearances of hegemony break down, revealing that behind the public fa;ade, subordinates reject the inevitability of their domination by others. The 'public transcript', mediated by the worldview of the dominant, simply does not represent the lived experience of the subordinate (Scott 1990: 87). To investigate that, it is the hidden transcript that we must attempt to recover, and this may be achieved through consideration of the archaeological record, in a framework structured by our earlier consideration of the area's social hierarchy.

8.3.1

Life on the Silts

In our general discussion of the landscape it has become clear that as far as the perspective of the imperial authorities is concerned this was a landscape that needed to be controlled. Many elements point in this direction - the atomisation of the landscape as a whole, the deliberate linking of each community to the upland by a road or canal, and status cores to control and monitor activity in each social unit. This is an unsurprising approach to a landscape from which a valuable commodity like salt could be extracted, and which, in conjunction with the field systems discussed in Chapter Five, may have produced substantial quantities of salted meat. This was a landscape of policing, surveillance and control, a realisation which suggests that when we consider the silt fens from a native perspective it emerges as an extreme landscape of domination which is likely to have provoked resistance. It is also important to recognise at the outset that this was almost certainly a landscape of extraction, and thus, from the perspective of the population, one of exploitation. Salt, a key commodity in the past (Nenquin 1961) should have generated wealth, but there is little trace that that wealth filtered back into the communities of the silt fen in any great quantity. As was illustrated in Chapter Five, prestige objects and coinage occur in negligible quantities in this area, and the signs of architectural elaboration that do appear, seem to be associated with the organisation of the landscape and the mechanisms for its control, not with the wealth of the salt workers. If the profits from salt making were being transferred almost in their entirety out of the region, this suggests a high degree of

inequality between those who controlled the salt production, and those who actually worked the salterns. Evidence is thin for the class of society with which we are dealing, farmers and salt workers, but given that the landscape was one of domination and inequality, can we say anything about the native attitude to living in such a circumstance? On the surface the fact that Roman pottery has been discovered on the majority of the sites under discussion might lead us to the conclusion that these people had been 'romanised', had accepted the hegemony of the Roman Empire, and accepted rule from Rome. We might further conclude that in doing so, they had become acculturated into the new imperial culture. However, the fact that the relationship between Roman authority and Fenland salter is asymmetrical, and very much in favour of the imperial authorities, should not blind us to the possible options open to the subordinate population for non-violent resistance. One of the important factors in the formation of a hidden transcript is a shared experience of domination that creates a community of interest amongst the subordinate class. Such a community of interest will be most extreme in what Scott (1990: 134-135) describes as a community of fate, socially distinct and isolated, typically living a life of hardship which provides a layer of internal shared experience that assists in the bonding of the group. Scott offers several examples of such communities, including miners and merchant seamen, but the saltern communities of the Fens can also be seen in this light. Thus, those engaged in the production of salt and salt meat may well have had a shared sense of community generated on the basis of the work that they did - the general environment of a salt marsh compounded by the conditions created by the firing of salterns cannot have been pleasant. In addition, living in an isolated and marginal area would have had the tendency to generate an inward looking and self-sufficient community. This is, as will be argued later, demonstrably the case for the central fens, where a LPRIA community existed, served by its own ritual complex of long duration. I would argue that the same can be said for the silt fen communities, separated from each other by creek systems, from the upland by peat, and where the main routes of communication were official roads and canals. The second necessity for the development of a hidden transcript is a place in which it can be enacted. This may have been indoors, as buildings can easily be converted into safe places for the enaction of the hidden transcript (Scott 1990: 120 - 121), but here we may raise a possibility with slightly wider implications. Anywhere remote from surveillance may act as a site for the hidden transcript, and Scott offers secluded woods, clearings, gullies, thickets, and ravines, as examples. As has been noted, all of the community groups with the exception of four and five are isolated in the landscape - there was no lateral communications route between them, and each community is separated from its neighbours by creek systems. In a silt fen landscape, these areas will have been difficult to

79

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

traverse, but even more difficult to police, and it is in this creek zone that much of the salting will have taken place. In each case, the boundary between the communities is formed by a zone of separation, which consists of between one and three km of estuarine creek. The inhabitants of the individual communities will have been intimately familiar with these areas through their salt working activity and cutting for peat. On this basis, the creek systems between communities may have been a key social location for the hidden transcript. The creeks would have provided a 'safe' location easily accessible to those living on the fringes of the silt fen communities, or engaged in salt production. This would have been well away from the status cores, a place in which to meet those from your own and neighbouring communities, and to enact the hidden transcript. The use of these spaces would, in a very real sense, be a negation of one of the principal strategies of control that of atomisation. If the landscape was designed to separate communities by leaving creek areas between them, the use of those very spaces to generate a hidden transcript has an ironic flavour that can have only reinforced the sense of resisting domination. Having raised the possibility of a hidden transcript, and tentatively identified at least one social space that it may have occupied, we may further reconstruct the character of life in the silt fens. If we are correct about the basic tenor of social relations here, then we can be fairly confident that there was a range of mitigation strategies that may have been adopted by subordinate workers (Scott 1990: 188), even though they are undetectable archaeologically. • Hiding of produce (salt being valuable, but relatively compact would be a prime candidate for such re-appropriation) to avoid its appropriation by the authorities. • Untruthful reporting of the volume of production. • Theft. • The small-scale sabotage of salt working operations. • Inefficient, 'lazy' working. • Desertion. The first two of these options are perhaps the most likely in the context of the silt fens, given that salt making was an established activity in the pre-Roman period, and that the Imperial authorities were exploiting a population engaged in their traditional occupation which, as argued above, may have formed an important part of their identity as a group. It may thus be suggested that any resistance to Roman rule centred upon salt production took the form of re-appropriation, rather than outright sabotage. In this scenario we may envisage a continual 'battle', a hostile sub-text to colonial negotiation, between, on the one hand, those who's responsibility it was to regulate and supervise the

salt works, and assess and perhaps keep records of the volume of production for tax purposes, and on the other, those who desired to limit official knowledge of the quantities of salt produced, in order to re-gain control of the basis of their traditional way of life. These actions illustrate one side of resistance, but do not offer the complete picture, as Ghandi's salt march of March to April 1930 (Brown 1977: 100 - 116) illustrates. The ostensible basis of the march was a protest against the British authorities monopoly on salt production, though the monopoly was never seriously threatened, and the real function of the protest was to demonstrate resistance to oppressive colonial authority (Brown 1977: 115 - 116). The choice of salt as a point of confrontation with the British was in part guided by the fact that salt was a necessity for life, and it was easy to portray the taxing of this key commodity as immoral (Brown 1977: 94 - 95). Ghandi's public breaking of the salt laws on the 5th of April at Dandi, when he led volunteers in illegal salt production (Brown 1977: 106), was, in effect, a public reclaiming of a necessity as an act of open resistance. The illicit production of salt in the Roman Fens may well have been an element of a hidden resistance which aimed not simply to reclaim a 'necessity', but also to act as a negation of imperial control over the very reason why the silt fen communities existed. From this discussion we may suggest that the silt fen landscape was one of control and domination, a situation resulting from the close imperial/regional elite control of salt manufacture. There is no evidence of a direct military presence in this landscape, but as outlined in my earlier discussion of the tradition from military to civilian rule in this area, an official or 'military' presence is not necessarily dependant upon obvious military instillations. As Rathbone (1991: 21 - 22) illustrated on estates in Egypt, even apparently private estates may have called upon the assistance of small groups of soldiers in order to enforce obedience. Perhaps in the silt fens we should envisage periodic, but intense, intrusions of authority into the area, perhaps in support of an official 'doing the rounds' to assess the volume of production during the salt making season. In this context, one of extreme power asymmetry where all the benefits of salt production were extracted from the region ( a situation was enforced by small military detachments), a culture of passive resistance may well have been common amongst the low status members of Fenland society. In the face of Roman technologies of domination, control and reorganisation of the landscape to effectively atomise the population, the army, the bureaucracy, even the ability to keep records of production, small acts of non-violent resistance may have been the only option salt workers had to show defiance. The tortuous creek systems that separated the various communities, well away from the status cores, would have provided an ideal location for the creation and enactment of this 'hidden transcript'.

80

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

8.3.2 Life in the Central Fens As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the area of the central fens underwent important changes as it was incorporated into the Empire. As these changes are important to understanding how lived experience evolved in the area, it is worth recapping on them here. At the time of the initial conquest of the region, it is likely that the central fens were part of the Icenian tribal territory, and thus remained outside direct Roman control. Following the Boudiccan revolt, however, it appears that the region was placed under direct military control based upon the Grandford fort. When this fort was abandoned some official supervision may well have continued until the construction of the Stonea tower. At some point the area may have been transferred to the territory of the Corieltauvi, or simply remained under the direct control of the imperial authorities. The existence of a well established pre-Roman population in this area makes this situation more complex than the silt fens, where although there was pre-Roman activity, the full-scale colonisation of the area does not appear to take place until the second century. This, combined with the more difficult incorporation of this area into the province, means that the re-construction of the subordinate population's hidden transcript is in part dependant upon understanding the position of the local elite. This issue hinges upon their fate after the Boudican revolt, and here we must examine two scenarios. The first is that some form of native elite survived, albeit reduced in status, power and numbers. The second scenario is the complete destruction of the local elite. The principal evidence that we have for this issue is the observed deposition of prestige objects as the principal form of status display in the native component of this region. Status display is essentially part of the 'materialisation' of ideology (Earle 1997: 151 - 157). This is the translating of abstract concepts connected with power and social relations into a physical reality that can be manipulated to articulate control over wider society. This may take place through public ceremonies, symbolic objects, or public monuments (Earle 1997: 153 - 157). Symbolic objects, amongst which we might include the portable wealth observed in the central fens, are 'strong candidates for symbolic communication among and within social segments and between political entities' (Earle 1997: 154 - 155). However, if communication is to be effective, the 'language' must be mutually understood between the subordinate classes and the native elite (see Scott 1990: 118 - 199 on 'The Importance of Mutuality'). Millett ( 1990b) has suggested that elites formed a community of interest with the Roman authorities and adopted the symbols of 'Romanitas' to express

themselves, but the necessity of earring their own people with them suggests that elites must have maintained sufficient continuity with the pre-conquest language of status to ensure that their actions were still intelligible. In the changed circumstances after the conquest elites would only have stayed in power if ratified by the Roman authorities, and some adoption of Roman style may have been required to demonstrate acquiescence. However, total change in the method of status display would indicate a total break with all past structures, so if we are to advance a model of limited elite continuity we must also look for a level continuity in status display. Thus one interpretation of the clustering of prestige objects in the central fens is as direct continuity with the political structures of the central fens in the LPRIA - evidence of 'mutuality' in the language of status used in this region between elite member and ordinary native. The ambiguity implicit in the position of any surv1vmg members of the native elite in the immediate postBoudiccan revolt power structure is thus clear: they were attempting to look both ways. It would have been necessary to demonstrate loyalty to the new regime in order to maintain what they could of their local control, but also to demonstrate continuity to their followers in order to retain the co-operation of the populace. They were, in essence, mediators in the colonial negotiation between the expectations of the imperial authorities and attempts by the natives to retain a pre-conquest cultural identity. Millett's model of an elite community of interest functions, but only as a representation of the public stage. Upon that stage the elite were subordinate and owed the imperial authorities visible actions which underlined their subservience and reinforced the dominant group's self-image. Such actions may well have superficially amounted to a display of 'Romanitas'. However, ifit can be said oflow status groups that they must wear different faces in different situations (a concept underling the whole of Scott 1985 & 1990, but see specifically 1990: 25-27), then this must also be so for native elites under Rome, who had two relationships to manage, that with Roman authority and that with their own people. In this situation we can postulate that the elite engaged in a 'hidden transcript' of its own, one that embodied the frustrations inherent in maintaining the difficult balancing act required to retain power. There remains the scenario of the complete destruction of the local elite following the Boudiccan revolt. The destruction of the elite would explain the need for close official control of this area, first in the form of the Grandford fort, then perhaps through small troop detachments supporting imperial officials, and ultimately through the construction of the Stonea tower. As argued in Chapter Six, this may have created a situation where a sense of resentment to Roman rule came to be an important element of the way in which the native population engaged with the imperial authorities. The use of portable wealth as the principal mode of status display in the central fens may have harked back to a previous regional tradition, albeit

81

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

expressed in terms of Roman artefacts, as an act of cultural resistance, an attempt to re-inforce a local identity in the face of an aggressive Roman presence. Such depositions did not resume until the second century, but then did so using Roman-style material culture - ensuring that Roman elements had entered the local language of power, creating a veneer of 'Romanitas', but in a context which maintained a native style of usage. This may indicate that it took until the second century for a new elite to emerge in the place of the one destroyed in the Boudiccan revolt, and even then local status was based upon the position/deposition of small-scale items of material culture, rather than potentially expensive architectural symbols. The poverty of the region, itself a function of the suppression of the Boudiccan revolt, would reinforce the divide between 'Roman' and 'Native' symbols of status, but in adopting a traditional form status display (i.e. the deposition of prestige items), the new elite would both articulate local cultural resistance and consolidate their position through a mutuality of status language with the ordinary native population. Such a minimal engagement with Roman symbols, using Roman-style material culture but in a traditionally native way, were sufficient to allow the area to become superficially 'romanised', but created room for the maintenance of a non-Roman identity. The role of the Stonea Grange site is important to consider, and in itself may have played an important part in reconciling the competing demands upon the area. It has been argued elsewhere (Fincham 1999a) that the tower itself was an external imposition, and the low level of material culture evident on what was clearly an architecturally impressive site suggests that it was at least partly conceived as a symbol. Its tower like form, visible for a great distance in the flat landscape of the Fens, would have functioned well as an advertisement of imperial power. It was built at the end of the first century, at a time when we might expect the local population to be showing relatively slender enthusiasm for an empire that had defeated their tribe in the Boudiccan revolt. However, the tower was ultimately dismantled (Jackson & Potter 1997: 689690), the natives having failed to take on responsibility for running it. If it was a symbol, then one reason for its withdrawal could have been that it was no longer needed. Perhaps the authorities had become resigned to the superficial fusion between native and Roman in the region, but recognised that it posed no threat, or felt able to cease direct administration after the slow reforming of the local elite. The significance of Grandford in this period is also worth considering. A small vicus settlement, one of the earliest identifiably Roman sites in the central fens (Potter 1981: 85 - 88) grew up in association with the early fort. After the fort had been abandoned, the

civilian settlement developed into a moderately prosperous roadside community. Its very location ( directly on the main Roman road of the region), and its origins in a fort/vicus settlement mark it out from the native settlement pattern. Such a settlement would instantly become the focus for people following in the wake of the army, but also for natives willing to take advantage of the opportunity that supplying the army offered. Even after the army was gone, the location of the settlement on the Fen Causeway would have ensured that it retained a relatively 'metropolitan' nature. Perhaps Grandford represents the embodiment in the landscape of the opportunities presented by the colonial experience, evidenced in the different nature of the site from others in the area. We only have to compare the 'Welney house' (59 24 01), a thatched building with clay sill walls (Phillips 1970: 232 - 233), with the tiled roofed buildings at Grandford which were provided with wall paintings and window class (buildings later rebuilt in stone) (Potter & Potter 1981: 125), to realise that there were two distinct traditions of architecture at work. Thus we have a landscape that was split. Most sites in the central fens were struggling to retain an identity at odds with changed circumstances after military occupation and separation from their natural tribe. However, unless Grandford was populated entirely by people from outside the region, some natives must have chosen to join the new settlement, identifying themselves with the invader. What social tensions arose around this situation we can only guess, but the strong possibility must be that the 'outsiders' at Grandford were unlikely to have been well integrated and natives who chose to live and trade there may have aroused the hostility of those still fully embracing their LPRlA past. Scott (1990: 128 - 135) describes the length to which hidden transcripts, and the identities which they articulate, are policed in situations of domination. A unity of identity and transcript is important to surviving domination, and those that reject this identity are marginalized - their actions essentially imperil the communities survival in the face of the threat posed by oppression. Grandford may well have been a focus, then, for outsiders and marginal natives, its social marginality reinforced by its spatially peripheral location relative to the area's LPRlA focus. This situation would clearly change with the creation of the trading centre and market at Stonea, which would have brought a trading centre with strong extra-regional affinities into the heart of this community. The abandonment of this attempt to impose alien structures upon the region when the tower was dismantled was an ambiguous event, simultaneously a testament to the strength of the hidden transcript, and the success of the imperial authorities in controlling a once hostile area in which a direct presence was no longer considered essential. As the statistical analysis of the area demonstrated in Chapter Six, when settlement began to retreat in the fourth century the sites that lasted the longest were those that had been there at the beginning. This suggests that essentially an LPRlA community outlasted the Roman occupation, in part through

82

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Regional Landscape

a determined maintenance of a non-Roman identity. Indeed, it is probable that there were still people living at Stonea in the seventh century, long after the surrounding Fenland had become little more than a derelict landscape (Jackson & Potter 1997: 692-693).

more stable situation, may simply have accepted local 'cultural resistance' in exchange for compliance. By the third century the central fens had negotiated it's place in the Empire.

What has emerged from this discussion is that whether or not there was a measure of elite continuity in the central fens, it is clear that the events of the Boudiccan revolt, and the events that followed, shaped the region's long-term relationship with the Roman Empire. The violence of the revolt and its suppression endangered the survival of a hitherto isolated community with a strong sense of identity, and generated a discrepant experince of empire dominated by a passive, but hostile view of Roman rule. When under threat, perhaps with its leadership destroyed, this community responded with cultural conservatism, as observed in continued adherence to traditional methods of status display. A combination of hostility and conservatism, aggravated by the long period of direct administration of the central fens by the imperial authorities (perhaps from the end of the Boudiccan revolt to the dismantling of the Stonea tower) may have prevented the bulk of the native population from grasping the opportunities that the empire offered. Military rule may have been harsh and exploitative, and this will have only re-inforced a reluctance to co-operate fully. Some of the population may have rejected this approach however, and removed themselves to the vicus settlement at Grandford, or the planned settlement at Stonea, where opportunities to make money from official supply would have existed.

8.4

Conclusion

In this chapter a broad framework for the functioning and developing of the landscape of Roman Fenland has been created. This has served to explain social and economic changes over time, and placed the Fens in the wider context of the hinterland ofDurobrivae. In addition to this, the Fens have been examined from the perspective of those who actually lived there, and informed, if still highly speculative, caricatures of the 'hidden transcripts' of the silt and central fens have been advanced. This has illustrated the utility of the concept of discrepant experience in providing a more holistic framework for our understanding of the interaction between Roman and native, and the potential of survey data to provided detailed insight into the social structures of an area. In the next chapter the Fens will be placed in their context as part of the W estem Roman Empire, with an examination of landscapes of Roman imperialism from other provinces. The area will also be considered in their context as 'wetlands', and compared to other topographically similar areas in the province of Britannia, and on the near continent.

This may also be considered from the Roman perspective. Reprisals following the Boudiccan revolt, fuelled by suspicion and a desire to revenge the loss of life and property, may have fallen heavily on the native elite and their lands. The destruction of that elite would have removed the one group who might have taken on the role of administration. If some had survived, they probably would not be trusted, given the events of the revolt. This led to the prolonged direct administration of the area, which certainly would not have been aided by local hostility. The local sense of passive resistance would only have discouraged any early winding down of the official presence in the central fens, and may even have engendered harsher forms of exploitation and domination than would otherwise have been the case. Ultimately, by the time that the Stonea tower was demolished, accommodation may have been reached. If, as suggested earlier, the tower was a symbol of dominance that was eventually withdrawn, this perhaps indicates a gradual easing of hostility in the area. Once the local elite began to consolidate their weakened position, or re-emerge after their destruction, the identity of the central fen community will have become more secure. The authorities, perhaps responding to a

83

Chapter 9 The Fens in Context

9.1

Introduction

Hitherto I have considered the Fens in relative isolation, or in a tightly defined regional context. The function of this chapter is to set the Roman Fenland in the wider context of the empire of which it formed a small part. Firstly I shall consider other wetland landscapes in the Western Empire, and in this context there are two principal questions to consider. Firstly, did Rome adopt similar approaches to 'wetlands' in different areas of Britain, and in other provinces? Secondly, to what degree did the 'wetland' nature of the environment influence, or constrain human life style, and the ability of an imperial power to exploit the landscape? Wetlands, and the options available to Roman for their exploitation will then be located within the range of imperial strategies open to Rome, by comparison with other landscapes of a non-wetland nature. Were the Fens, or wetlands generally, particularly harsh areas in which to live politically or economically? How would experience of a silt fen salter have ranked against life in Mattingly's (1997c) North African landscape of opportunity, or Alcock's (1997) Greek landscape ofresistance?

9.2

The Fens as Wetland

The Fens are the major wetland of the United Kingdom, but not the only one. The Gwent/Somerset levels and Romney Marsh are two British examples that are examined below (see Figure 9.1). These two areas of coastal wetland were chosen as comparative studies for two principal reasons. Firstly, they are regions for which accessible synthetic accounts of activity during the Roman period are available (see Rippon 1997a for the Gwent/Somerset Levels and Cunliffe 1988 for Romney Marsh), as well as amounts of survey data, or other significant pieces of research, which allow meaningful discussion. Secondly, Romney Marsh and the wetlands either side of the Severn Estuary are geographically widely separated, both from each other, and the East Anglian Fens. This ensures that any comparison is broadly based, and province wide. The nature of these studies is, of course, limited by the available data, but even such impressions are sufficient to allow broad comparisons between these different landscapes. Rippon (1997a: 47) suggests that during the Iron Age, before large-scale alterations of the landscape were possible, the inhabitants of wetland regions were landscape exploiters. During the Roman period, superior technical skill allowed the authorities to act as landscape modifiers, altering the environment through

drainage works. Before proceeding to the case studies, we must summarise the Fens in these terms to allow comparison. In the Iron Age the silt fens were of marginal political

status, their principal value being the seasonal provision of wetland resources. In the central fens there were significant ritual monuments, and the island of Stonea may have been of local political importance. Salt production was also practiced here. In both areas there is little evidence for agricultural potential in the Iron Age, but we might suspect that it was limited, perhaps confined to stock rearing and the use of fen areas as summer pasture. As for the Roman period, we may suggest that modification occurred in several phases. The first phase we may term 'consolidation'. The conquest was followed by a period in which infrastructure, roads and canals, was constructed. This allowed easier access to the Fens, and perhaps permitted a police presence to consolidate control of resources, in this case salt working sites. We may characterise the second phase as one of 'intensification'. If we follow the argument presented by Simmons (1979) in his discussion of the Car Dyke, we must characterise the nature of Roman intervention as 'management' of the environment, aimed at maintaining or increasing the exploitation of wetland resources. Thus, in constructing the Car Dyke, a feature designed to protect the Fenland salt works from inundation by fresh water runoff from the uplands, a 'modification' to the landscape allowed an intensification of a pre-existing form of 'exploitation'. The final stage, probably occurring in the second century, was one of 'management' where the landscape was effectively managed to allow a mixed economy, combining the acquisition of wetland resources (principally salt) with agricultural activity (the raising of livestock). These activities combined to produce one product, salt meat, of interest to the authorities for army supply. The question to be asked of this model of phased exploitation is whether or not it was widespread? There are a range of wetlands in the U.K., many of which will have confronted the Roman authorities with similar opportunities and difficulties to those found in the Fens. Therefore we must next consider whether the pattern of exploitation observed in the Fens was a solution specifically evolved in that one particular context, or whether it represents one example of a consistent Roman approach to wetland landscapes.

9.2.1

Comparison One: The Somerset and Gwent Levels

Either side of the River Severn are expanses of low-lying landscape termed 'Levels' (Figure 9.2). Comparison

84

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

between these wetlands, and those of the Fenland, is problematic, as we have no systematic survey data for this area comparable with that provided by either FRT or FS, although Rippon (2000) presents us with new information for the North Somerset Levels. However, several recent studies summarise what is known from either bank of the river. 'Gwent Levels: the Evolution of a Wetland Landscape' (Rippon 1996) provides such an overview for the Welsh wetlands, and 'The Severn Estuary: Landscape Evolution and Wetland Reclamation' (Rippon 1997a) performs this function for the Somerset Levels. Together, these works provide a framework for comparison with the Fens. At the time of the Roman conquest these areas were a combination of seaward salt marsh/alluvium, inland freshwater peat fen, fen islands, and fen edge environments (Rippon 1997a: 31-46). In very broad terms this can be seen as similar to the Fenland, which also has inland peat fen, and seaward silt fen. Like the Fens, where occupation concentrated on the seaward silts, freshwater 'backfen' lay between the fen edge and reclaimed areas of salt marsh (Rippon 1997a: 25-30). The Somerset Levels lay on the boundary between several Iron Age tribes, namely the Durotriges, the Dobunni and the Dumnonii, and there are many hill fort sites along the fen edge (Rippon 1997a: 47-48). The fact that that wetlands should occur at boundary locations both in the case of the Fens and the Somerset Levels is not surprising - they are large areas of landscape which were only seasonally accessible, and which would have presented a significant obstacle to travel. There is some evidence for Iron Age salt production on the Somerset Levels (Leech 1977: 89-96, Rippon 1997a: 56). Such salt production is being recognised as an increasingly common activity in coastal wetlands during the Roman period in Britain (Millett 1990b: 121), and is not uncommon in other times and places like, for example, pre-colonial West Africa (Curtin 1984: 17 - 18), and on the Gujarat coast of India (Brown 1977: 103), both before the colonial period and under British Rule. This reflects the importance of salt as a staple: its production was an attractive way of exploiting coastal wetland environment when intervention to alter the nature of the landscape was not an available option. The fact that the Levels were contested (as demonstrated by the fact that they were surrounded by defended hilltop enclosures), illustrates that they may have been highly desirable in terms of the natural resources that they could produce. In the Roman period, military occupation of the English side of the levels appears to have been confined to the first century, and based on fort sites like Ilchester and Charterhouse (Rippon 1997a: 52). The upland areas to the south and east of the levels were dominated by a string of urban settlements at Ilchester, Bath, Cirencester and Gloucester, each with

an associated group of villas within their immediate hinterlands (Branigan 1977: 26, figure 5, reproduced here as Figure 9.3). It must be noted that the majority of villas along the fen edge are outside of these urban hinterland groups, perhaps indicating that the economy of the area was not wholly dependant upon the local towns. This suggestion is supported by the fact that, in general, there was very poor communication from the upland into the wetlands (Rippon 1997a: 105). There are possible exceptions to this, like Ilchester, where areas liable to flooding were to be found far inland close to the urban centre itself. There is also a road from Ilchester to Crandon Bridge, a port site at the mouth of the River Parrett, which gave access to the Severn and the Levels (Aston and Burrow 1982: 64 & 72). It may also be suggested that Bath, with its communication links to the port at Sea Mills (Abonae ), acted as a market place for products of the Levels, and/or goods shipped across or along the Estuary (Aston & Iles 1987: 52 - 54). On the Welsh side of the Severn military occupation persisted into the second century (Rippon 1997a: 52). The upland fringe of the Gwent levels was less 'Romanized' than its English counterpart, illustrated by the limited development of Caerwent (Wacher 1995: 378 - 91, Rippon 1997a: 50). There are relatively few villas known from this area, mostly clustered within the hinterland of this urban settlement (see Figure 9.3), suggesting that the rural settlement pattern developed in a different way to its counterpart on the English side. The contrasting histories of either side of the Severn Estuary under Roman rule highlight an important difference between the Levels and the Fens. The Levels, which formed either side of the Severn, were broken down into small, and more manageable areas than the Fens, which formed one very large tract of territory that was difficult to manage. This not only ensured that the Levels as a landscape were more accessible than the Fens, but that each 'sub-unit' of the Levels may have been subject to a different strategy in its exploitation. Against this background we must consider the Levels in the light of the exploitation model established in section 9.2. It seems clear that both the Gwent and Somerset Levels were subject to an extensive military presence in the first century. Any consolidation phase in the local pattern of economic exploitation will have occurred during this period, as local communications were constructed, and control of the region established. In the absence of detailed survey data, evidence for the consolidation phase is sketchy, but may perhaps be seen in the expansion of settlement in the first century AD, perhaps motivated by a desire to step up salt production (Rippon 1997a: 72 - 74), and the cross estuarine shipping of iron ore from the Forest of Dean (Allen and Fulford 1987, Rippon 1997a: 119), which suggests that need for such resources had intensified, perhaps in response to official requirements. It is the management phase of exploitation for which we have the best evidence in the Levels. The area saw

85

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

extensive reclamation (though Allen (1996: 69) prefers the term 'land-claim') during the Roman period (Rippon 1997a: 107-117), and this may be interpreted as the establishment of key elements of a mixed wetland exploitation strategy, as occurred in the Fens. Although there is no evidence to support systematic drainage in the Fens, there was a marked intensification of settlement on the silts and islands, and a spread of field systems. FS failed to recognise any analogue to the intense drainage efforts apparent in most areas of the Levels, either in specific areas (Allen & Fulford 1986, Allen & Fulford 1990a, Allen & Fulford 1990b and, Allen & Fulford 1992), or on the wider, regional scale (Rippon 1997a: 107 - 113). However, the transformation of the Fenland landscape in the second century resulted in an essentially similar managed situation of exploitation of wetland resources and some farming. The situation around the Severn leads Rippon to consider the scenario of an 'imperial estate', and although there is certainly evidence for military involvement in the drainage of the Gwent Levels (see below), there is no such evidence for the English side of the Severn (Rippon 1997a: 114). The reclamation of the Somerset Levels was 'piecemeal', and may have been driven by the growth of upland villa estates (Rippon 1997a: 115). If this were the case, such estates need not necessarily have been continuous (Todd 1989: 15 - 16), perhaps being composed of scattered holdings. Such holdings may have been in different areas of the Levels, and perhaps even on opposite banl(s of the river (Rippon 1997a: 115 -117). If the villa owning class chose to live on the English side of the estuary, perhaps drawn by the facilities supplied by the urban centres in that area, this may in part explain the lack of villas on the fringes of the Gwent Levels. This is similar to the situation advanced for the Fens, in which Nene valley estate owners, working through the local centre at Durobrivae, may have expanded their interests in the Fens, leading to the developed Roman landscape of dense settlement. However, this landscape, at least in the early period, was based upon widespread salt production and this does not appear to have been the case in the Somerset Levels. The salt production industry in Somerset seems to have been relatively restricted in area (Rippon 1997a: 67 figure 16, see Figure 9.4), perhaps largely confined to the Brue valley (Rippon 1997a: 121). The reclamation of the levels may have been in response to an intensification of demand for agricultural land, and perhaps mirrors general re-organisation of the wider provincial landscape at this time (Rippon 1997a: 110). Thus, in terms of the exploitation strategies offered earlier, the landscapes of the Fens and the Levels were both modified, but in different ways. In the Levels there appears to have been more official interest in expanding the area of agriculturally productive land, perhaps because of the limits imposed upon salt

production by the nature of the Severn (Rippon 1997a: 121), but this can only have followed the initial period of consolidation, where the focus of an exploitative strategy will have been establishing secure control over pre-existing activities like the Brue Valley salt production sites. Although it is difficult in the absence of systematic survey data to make detailed comparisons about landscape organisation, it would appear that the landscape of the Somerset levels themselves were dominated by small, nonvilla rural settlements, perhaps like those at Banwell Moor and Kenn Moor (Rippon 1996: 40 - 44 & 1997b), again similar to the situation in the Fenland. Again, as with the Fens, villas in the area of the Levels were largely restricted to the fen edge and upland. However an important exception to this is the Wimberham Villa, located on the North Bank of the Congresbury Yoe on the Levels proper (Rippon 1997a: 80 figure 20, see Figure 9.5). Information concerning this structure is limited, but it was certainly a large and wealthy villa-like complex (Rippon 1997a: 81-82) is quite unlike anything else found in the Levels. Its landscape context, however, is similar to that of Stonea, in that it is a large structure constructed in a manner which is clearly indicative of wealth of status, isolated in a predominantly non-villa landscape. It must be a possibility that its function was also similar to that of Stonea: the base for an official, perhaps partially military, presence in the area, directed towards the management of local resources for imperial benefit, and perhaps the administration of any local landholdings held by the Roman state. This may appear to contradict the possibility, offered above, that the reclamation of the Levels was driven by the growth of villa estates based on the fen edge, but it must be remembered that imperial/private landholding will almost certainly have occurred side by side in 'plots'. The arguments in favour of monolithic estate holdings were seen to be unlikely in the Fens, and they are no more likely in the Levels. It is thus possible to envisage a mosaic of ownership, with the substantial (but not universal) agricultural and industrial interests of the State supervised from the Wimberham villa. Like Stonea, this structure may also have acted as a centre for local administration and tax collection. Turning to the Welsh side of the estuary, there is evidence of Iron Age activity, where it appears that by the LPRIA a marine transgression had lead to the retreat of settlement. Late Iron Age activity is focused upon the dry location of Goldcliff, with the possible use of wooden trackways to maintain communications in increasingly deteriorating conditions (Bell & Neuman 1997: 26). It is in this context that Roman drainage efforts took place, and there would appear to be a significant military involvement, a major piece of evidence for this coming in the form of the Goldcliff stone (RIB 395). The stone carries an inscription of the second century, referring to military work upon some unspecified linear feature, though the exact nature of this feature is disputed (see Rippon 1996: 32 & 1997a: 100 103 for a summary). It has been argued (Boon 1967: 126, 1980: 28-9 & Wacher 1995: 379) that the function of this feature was to define the territorium of the Roman Fortress

86

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

at Caerleon. This implies that the Caldicot level was associated with the fort, perhaps not reclaimed, but defined as a tract of land valued for the wetland resources that it could provide (Rippon 1997a: 100). The W entlooge Level may also have been associated with the fort, perhaps to provide horses to the army (Allen & Fulford 1986: 114-116, Rippon 1997a: 98). This may thus represent a deliberate effort to manage the Gwent Levels to maintain some areas of wetland resources, whilst at the same time exploiting the agricultural potential of some areas within that landscape. This is interesting, because it illustrates the possibility that the landscape was actively managed to allow the two principal strategies for the exploitation of wetland, either for its wetland resources, or drainage for agricultural land, to occur side by side. The field systems in the Fens suggest that a similar mixing occurred there ( allowing stock rearing in conjunction with salt production to produce salted meat), and such a managed situation lies at the heart of the agricultural and salting economy suggested for the area in Chapter Five. Prolonged military involvement in the reclamation of the Gwent Levels is in apparent contrast to the situation observed in the Fens, where direct military involvement in the shape of the forts at Longthorpe and Grandford was probably over by the last quarter of the first century. However, as argued in Chapter Eight, official involvement in the Fens may have continued in the shape of a light official presence after the forts were gone, and was ultimately behind the construction of Stonea Grange, and of the canals and roads, as well as the possible imperial control of salt production. This illustrates a long-term interest by the authorities in both the Gwent Levels, and in the Fens. The Fens have been interpreted as a landscape of domination (Chapter Eight), control enforced through a highly structured hierarchical settlement pattern which allowed close supervision of a valuable ( and in origin pre-Roman) industry, initially directly by the military and perhaps later more indirectly, by the authorities at Durobrivae under contract. In comparison, the Gwent Levels may have been in the nature of an area drained to provide specific commodities for the army on a long-term basis, and it may have been this direct military aspect to the reclamation and management of the Gwent levels that led to a conspicuous lack of wealth (Rippon 1997a: 99). The structures on the W entlooge Level would have resembled those of the Fens in many ways, with little evidence of substantial architecture, and few personal artefacts. Thus, a situation on the Welsh side of the Severn similar to that in the Fens cannot be ruled out. Rippon (1997a: 105) suggests that the Somerset Levels were focused to the west, on the estuary. Road links to the east and the upland were weak, but cross estuary trade was strong, a conjecture supported by finds like the boat and jetty discovered at Harland's Farm, Magor (Lawler & Nayling 1993: 110, Nayling & McGrail

1994, and Nayling, Maynard, & McGrail 1994) and the transportation of iron ore from the Forest of Dean to the English side (Allen and Fulford 1987, Rippon 1997a: 119). Pottery was also being shipped, in the opposite direction to iron ore, BB 1 from Dorset being a good example (Rippon 1997a: 98, 121-122, Fulford, Allen, Rippon 1994: 208, Allen & Fulford 1986: 104). Recent work on BBl distribution suggests that the Welsh coast of the Severn Estuary may have been an area of particularly high BB 1 use (Allen & Fulford 1996: 246), the pottery possible commodity that may have been shipped from the port of Crandon Bridge (Allen & Fulford 1996: 258-259). This led Rippon to conclude that the Levels 'had become a focal, wealthy, and economically dynamic region' (1997a: 105). However, if we consider the model of exploitation offered here alongside the general absence of status structures in the levels themselves, and the large numbers of military installations known from this area, we may offer an alternative interpretation where this apparent 'economic dynamism' was the function of Roman structure for the exploitation of the region. As with the Fens, there is little sign that the 'wealth' created by this activity filtered down to the inhabitants of the Levels, and this suggests that the basic relationship between ruler and ruled in this region was one of 'extraction'. This leads us to consider the relationship between the Levels, and the uplands that surrounded them, an issue hitherto touched upon, but not explored in detail. On the Welsh side, as already discussed, the Levels were probably dependant upon military bases, and the settlements that followed them. The lack of Roman-style development in south Wales (Rippon 1997a: 50), and the long-term nature of military involvement in this area suggest that the Gwent Levels never developed beyond this role. On the English side the situation is a little more complex. Rippon (1997a: 105) suggests there was very poor communication between the Levels and the upland, and that the coastal areas were not wholly dependant upon the towns of the upland. However, the communications in the Levels are similar to those in the Fens, with a few major roads penetrating the wetlands laterally. In the Fens we have the Fen Causeway, which crosses the wetland from one side to the other, and the Baston-Spalding road, which ends in the possible port at Spalding (see section 5.3.7). In the Levels, there are two possible ports at Crandon Bridge and at Sea Mills, both by road connected to upland settlements (Ilchester and Bath respectively). If Sea Mills, and presumably Crandon Bridge as well, acted as a market place for products shipped across and along the estuary (Aston & Iles 1987: 52 - 54), and these ports were linked directly to the upland, this is in essence a similar relationship as the link between the market at Stonea, and Durobrivae, or Spalding and the upland. The ports gave the upland settlements access to trade across and along the estuary, and by implication tie the Levels into the hinterlands of the upland towns, as the Fens were tied into the hinterland of Durobrivae. Presumably, as again was the case in the Fens, this would have taken place alongside continued official involvement in the Levels, perhaps based in the towns and administered through sites like the

87

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

Wimberham Villa. Finally, we must also consider ritual in the landscape. Rippon suggests that the occurrence of hoards in the Somerset levels 'might represent a continuation of the prehistoric tradition of ritual deposition in watery places, seen for example in the Thames and Fenland' (Rippon 1997a: 107), but there are key differences between these areas that argue against this. In the first instance both the Fens and the Thames Valley had established Iron Age traditions of such deposition, and clearly played a significant role in ritual activity, but this was not the case in either the Somerset or Gwent levels (Wait 1985: 48, figure 2.13 see Figure 4.18). In addition, of the nineteen hoards mapped by Rippon (1997a: 106, figure 31, reproduced here as Figure 9.6), fourteen of them are actually in fen edge/upland locations, rather than in the fen areas of the levels. The distribution of temple sites is perhaps more convincing with three out of seven being on Fen Islands, but these are, of course, properly part of the Roman landscape, and thus do not offer support in themselves for any suggestion of a strong sense of ritual continuity. What may suggest such continuity is the concentration of sites around the levels where a Roman temple was constructed within, or close to, an Iron Age hillfort (Rippon 1997a: 107 and Rodwell 1980: figure 18.2). Such sites are located around the fen edge, like Henley Wood and Cadbury-Tickenham, and on islands in the Levels, like Worlebury, and Brent Knoll. This may suggest the continuance of a different kind of Iron Age ritual activity, based upon place ( enclosures and temples), rather than principally involving watery deposition. To summarise our comparison of the Severn Levels with the Fens, we can see that there were strong similarities in the approach taken by the authorities to these areas. It can be seen that the Fens was a landscape where Roman intervention was aimed at intensification of the LPRIA salt production industry to allow increased exploitation of natural resources, at the same time as developing a managed wetland that allowed a mixing of activities, including the raising of livestock. In the Levels we see a similar strategy. Different areas of the Levels were developed in different ways, with the Brue Valley maintained as a wetland to allow continued production of salt, but an area like the Gwent levels drained to allow the raising of livestock. In both areas we see, or may surmise with a high degree of likelihood, a sustained official ( quite possibly military) presence. This reflects the importance of such areas in producing a select range of produce important to official supply. The apparent difference in the ritual significance of the landscape that seems to occur between specifically the central fens, and the Levels mirrors pre-Roman practice. This underlines the probability that the similarities in regional development that occurred in the Roman period occurred in spite, rather than because of the pre-

Roman nature of these areas, and are therefore likely to have occurred as a result of a consistent official approach to wetland areas in Britain. The evidence from the Levels is consistant with the three-phase development of exploitation outlined in section 9.2.

9.2.2

Comparison Two: Romney Marsh

Romney Marsh is located on the Kent coast (Figure 9.1), and a more detailed map is presented on Figure 9.7. The topography of Romney Marsh is increasingly well understood (Green 1988): it appears to have formed behind a shingle barrier, with the rivers Rother, Tillingham, and Brede draining through it (Cunliffe 1988: 83). The exact extent of the marsh is problematic, as recently fmds of Roman material have been made on soils traditionally thought to be post-Roman. This suggests that most of the area protected by the shingle barrier was land surface in at least the first and second centuries AD (Reeves 1995: 86). There are difficulties in using Romney Marsh for such a comparison, mainly the lack of detailed survey evidence. Much less is known about the local settlement pattern here than in the Fens due principally to the burying of sites by later sediments, and what is known is recorded to varying standards (Woodcock 1988: 177). Despite this, enough is known of the history of the area in the Roman period to provide some measure of comparison (see Eddison 2000: 42 - 52 for a recent summary). Romney Marsh itself, and the area to the west (Black 1987: 199), is devoid of villa structures. They occur along the coast, and there are some possible sites to the north of Romney Marsh, in the vicinity of the fortress at Lympe. This is a Saxon Shore Fort, but Cunliffe (1988: 84 & 284 - 5) has suggested that it was preceded by earlier military activity. This may be connected to the development of the weald iron production sites to the west of Romney Marsh, which has been associated with the activities of the Classis Britannica (Cleere 1974 & 1976). Iron making was occurring in the region in the late Iron Age, though production occurred at a much larger scale from the late first century to the mid third century, when the industry declined, perhaps in favour of new production centres focused upon the Forrest of Dean (Cleere 1974: 172 - 177). The nature of the relationship of the Roman Fleet to iron making in this area is not understood in detail, but Cleere (1974: 186 - 190) suggests that the expansion of iron production occurred under military auspices to provide supplies for the army. The occurrence of tiles bearing the CL BR stamp of the Classis Britannica (Brodribb 1969) on iron producing sites like Bardown, Beauport Park and Little Farnham farm (Cleere 1974: 188) supports this interpretation. Cunliffe (1988: 84) links this iron production and the presence of the fleet, to the development of settlement on the marsh, suggesting that bulk commodities were shipped from the Weald through Romney Marsh, to be transported

88

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

by sea (see Figure 9.8). Although not the only method of shipment, Cleere (1974: 182-184), in a detailed consideration of the communication links of the Weald iron producing sites, suggested a principal shipping route for the ore from Bodium, across Romney March, to Dover. The possibility of an early military site in the same location as the later fort at Lympe has led to the suggestion that this was perhaps a base for fleet (Cunliffe 1988: 84; 1980: 284-5). In the marsh itself during the first and second centuries, there was a flourishing salt production industry (Reeves 1995: 86, Cunliffe 1988: 85-86), perhaps supplying near by military installations with salt and/or salt meat. The first and second centuries would appear to be the principal period of occupation on the marsh, with little evidence to suggest that significant activity occurred after this date (Cunliffe 1988: 86). It is suggested that the two principal causes for this were inundation and raiding, and this is a picture supported by the limited survey evidence. Some third century pottery was recovered from field wall(ing, but it was located in areas less vulnerable to inundation (Reeves 1995: 82). There is no evidence that there were any Roman drainage efforts to reverse this retreat. Even in this brief survey of the evidence for the Roman occupation of Romney Marsh, key similarities with the Fens are evident. First, as with the Gwent and Somerset Levels, is the combination of the production of salt and livestock rearing, pointing to the production of salted meat as a principal element of the local economy. Cunliffe (1988: 85-86) links salt production in Romney Marsh into a local system of seasonal transhumance in which salt and pottery were produced during the summer months whilst livestock were being fattened, to be slaughtered and salted in the autumn. This compares well with the 'economic calendar' hypothesised for the Fens in Chapter Five (see Table 5.9), and suggests that Romney Marsh was a managed wetland with a similar mixed economy to that discussed in both the Fens and the Levels. Iron production on neighbouring uplands is reminiscent of both the links between the Fens and iron production in the Nene valley, and those between the Forrest of Dean and the Levels. Pottery production would also appear to be a common feature, with the Saxon Shore fort at Lympe receiving most of its pottery from unlocated local sources (Cunliffe 1980: 282).

Romney Marsh remained under direct military control throughout the Roman occupation, providing a consistent official presence similar to that observed elsewhere. The lack of villas in the area, but their occurrence on the northern upland fringe of the marsh (Black 1987: 199), suggests a similar relationship between the villa and wetland as was observed in the Fens and the Levels. Villa owners may have had held plots on the wetland, along side imperial landholdings, and benefited from the requirements of the authorities. Alternatively, the villa estates may have conducted the salt-winning operations on the marsh under contract from officials. It is also interesting to note that each wetland considered had small (purpose built?) ports, or possible ports, attached to it. In the Fens there was Spalding, in the Levels Crandon Bridge, Sea Mills and perhaps Magor Pill, and Romney Marsh was served by Bodium (see Figure 9.8). The provision of small ports in these areas, where there was little to ship except what was produced in the adjacent wetlands, is suggestive of systematic exploitation and the extraction of wealth. Like the other areas discussed, Romney Marsh shows little sign that the wealth created through salt production filtered down to those working the salterns. The pattern of exploitation here appears to have a different emphasis to that observed in the Fens and Levels, focusing upon iron production, with salt and salt meat a secondary activity. However, the lack of comprehensive survey data from the Marsh (Woodcock 1988: 177), combined with a high level of interest in the iron working of the region (e.g. Cleere 1974; 1976) may have created this impression artificially. Alternatively, this situation may reflect different priorities in this region. Even so, the exploitation patterns remain essentially the same character to that in other areas, with pre-existing Iron Age iron production activity attracting official attention. The establishment of the local communications system in the Weald appears to have been laid out to connect iron producing sites with the port at Bodium (Cleere 1974: 182 - 184), and equates to the 'consolidation phase' discussed in the context of the exploitation of the Fens and the Levels. During the intensification phase iron (Cleere 1974: 172 - 177) and salt (Reeves 1995: 86, Cunliffe 1988: 85 - 86) production appear to have been increased. This culminated in a managed wetland/upland economy producing a combination of iron, salt, salt meat, and possibly pottery (Cunliffe 1988: 85 - 86).

9.2.3 Romney Marsh never became attached to an urban centre - as Cunliffe (1988: 84) points out no urban foci ever appear in the coastal strip between Chichester and Canterbury. However, as was seen with the Fens and the Levels urban involvement in these landscapes took place at a distance, and it is quite possible that surrounding towns had an interest in the economic exploitation of the area. Also, given the possibility of an early site associated with the British fleet at the same location as the Saxon Shore fort, it may be that

Comparison Three: The Coastal Wetlands of Gallia Belgica

The most obvious continental comparison with the British wetlands are the coastal areas of Belgium and the Netherlands that fell within the Roman province of Gallia Belgica (see Figure 9.9) In this area there is evidence of Iron Age and Roman salt production (Thoen 1975). The region was dominated in the late Iron Age by a tribal structure not unlike that discussed for the Fens (Chapter Eight), made up of federations of subgroups which were in

89

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

turn made up of numbers of households (Roymans 1983; 1990: 19). The territory of the Cananefates, Frisiavones and Menapii all contained significant areas of coastal wetland (Willems 1983: 107), and it is here that the evidence for salt making is concentrated. The saltpans of the coast were an important part of the Iron Age economy (Wightman 1985: 29), and clearly continued to be so following the conquest, judging from the activity at sites like Zeebrugge and Raversijde (Thoen 1975: 58 - 60). Salt refining was a major activity at Ardes, and in some coastal villages it may have been the principal function of the settlement (Wightman 1985: 94), a situation perhaps reminiscent of the silt fens in East Anglia. The importance of the coastal salt production sites perhaps declined in the Late Roman period (Wightman 1985: 274), as a result of late Roman marine transgressions.

The important issue in the light of our above discussion of the exploitation of wetlands is the manner in which this area was integrated into the wider regional landscape of Gallia Belgica. Early military activity in the region included several short-lived forts at Velsen, north of the area under discussion (Brandt 1983) and the establishment fortress at Nijmegen (Keppie 1984: 160). The establishment of the Rhine frontier in the mid first century (Willems 1983: 113) will have ensured a continued military presence in the region, although the first century saw re-organisation that distanced the military from the coastal wetlands (Keppie 1984: 192 -196, but in particular compare figure 50 with figure 51). However, as argued earlier in the context of the western fen edge (see section 8.2.3), once the military had established systems for the extraction of supplies in a given region, the decommissioning of local military establishments did not necessarily result in the end of supply gathering. In other parts of the province there is evidence of the economy profiting from the chance to supply the military with items like wood, wool, leather, iron and grain (Wightman 1985: 156), and it is not umeasonable to suggest that the Roman period salt industry may have been geared to supplying military units of the Rhine frontier with salt/salt meat. There is possible supporting evidence for this suggestion from inscriptions in the area (Hassan 1978), and Wightman's discussion of this is worth quoting in full as it emphasises the various possible links between salt production and the army. That salt-production went well beyond local needs is shown by first-century inscriptions set up at Rimini by the salinatores of Morini and Menapii [both groups with an interest in the costal marshes and salt production], to honour as patron an ex-centurion from the legion at Neuss. The three negotiatores salarii of Colijnsplaat, one of them a Treveran, may also have had army connections, for two of them had headquarters at Koln. Wightman 1985: 141

Colijnsplaat, located on an island in the coastal marshes, and probably the civitas capital of the Frisiavones (Willem 1983: 107), would appear to have been an important centre for the trade in salt. If the three mentioned negotiatores salarii (salt merchants) were based in Koln, we may envisage Colijnsplaat acting as a local centre where salt, salted meat, and other goods were gathered, to be traded down the Rhine with the army. The involvement of the exlegionary from Neuss in organising the trade is suggestive, indicating, perhaps, that the military were pro-active in managing the exploitation of the coastal wetlands south of the mouth of the Rhine. We may therefore suggest a substantial military involvement in the exploitation of the resources of this area, a situation similar to that outlined for the three British wetland case studies. As with the British wetlands the higher status or more 'Romanised' building forms like villas, and in the case of Gallia Belgica, aisled buildings, avoid the areas of wetland (Bloemers 1983: 181, figure 8.17, reproduced here as Figure 9.10). The area of villa distribution lies well south of the coastal wetland, and no upland town appears to have strong connections with the area, as was the case with Durobrivae and the Fens. Thus, there does not appear to be the same upland/wetland linkage as was observed in the case of the British wetlands. In the Fens it was postulated that after an initial period of direct military control, exploitation may have become indirect, managed through local villa owners. It may be that in Gallia Belgica the proximity of the Rhine frontier negated the requirement to establish a developed system of indirect exploitation. We may summarise the situation in Gallia Belgica in the following way. There appears to have been an intensification of existing patterns, as with the Fens, a process that the evidence from Colijnsplaat suggests was managed either by the army, or by individuals with close military connections. The occurrence of such a pattern in Britain as well as on the continent would suggest a constancy of approach to wetlands on the part of the imperial authorities. They were valuable areas and were to be systematically exploited, either by drainage, utilisation of their natural resources, or a combination of the two. This was conducted usually by the military, or at least with significant official involvement.

9.2.4

Comparison Four: Italy

Finally we must consider the Roman attitude to wetlands in Italy itself. The Pontine Marshes are a major example of an Italian coastal wetland (see Figure 9.11), for which we have a published survey (Attema 1993 a & b). A string of Roman colonies were established in the area in the fourth century BC, perhaps based upon earlier centres (Attema 1993a: 230). Attema focuses upon three examples, Cora, Norba and Setia, arguing that such towns, and the construction of the Via Appia, linking the area to Rome itself, were fundamental to the changes that took place in the landscape of this area. At Cora the Roman period agricultural system

90

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

represents an intensification of the pre-Roman pattern. That around Setia was based upon intervention in the wetlands, in the form of drainage and reclamation. (Attema 1993a: 235). The towns thus formed the focal points of colonisation of the area. The road, built in the late fourth century, was at least in part a symbol of Roman hegemony, but its physical construction required the draining of parts of the Pontine Marshes (Laurence 1999: 15). This had the dual effect of allowing easy access to areas already under cultivation (with some land divisions laid out along parts of it's route before the road was actually constructed) and improving local communications (Attema 1993a: 235 236). Although the full drainage of the marshes was not achieved until modem times (Potter 1987: 149), we can see that the value of the area to Rome was as an 'agricultural resource zone during the phase of its early expansion' (Attema 1993a: 237). The draining of the Pontine Marshes fuelled the development of Rome at a time when agricultural land was more in demand than wetland resources, prompting substantial alteration of the natural environment. The Pontine Marshes are thus an early example of Roman intervention on a large scale, illustrating the long history Rome had of controlling such landscapes, and the development of techniques to convert them into productive agricultural land. The impressive scale of such projects may, however, distract us from something more interesting than the practical details of drainage and water management: the important place that such environmental manipulation had in the Roman perception of their world. Purcell (1996: 180 - 212) argues that Roman control over wet environments is rooted in the very origins of the city itself. Rome was situated in the Tiber flood plain, was thus prone to flooding and much of the cities immediate surroundings were marshland. From the perspective of the people who lived there, Rome was a 'good city in a difficult place' (Purcell 1996: 189). The long relationship between the city and the local marshes, attempts to drain and use such land and ultimately Rome's physical expansion onto former wetland (Purcell 1996: 184 - 189), provides a context in which to consider Roman attitude to the control of wetlands. Areas like those of Gallia Belgica, the Severn Levels, Romney Marsh and the East Anglian Fens, may be perceived in terms of the control of nature used to express Roman power over the world (Purcell 1996: 206). This is not to suggest that the Fens, or any of the other wetlands considered here were simple symbols of Roman power: their exploitation had a practical function. However, control of the landscapes and the modification or preservation of environments on such a scale clearly contains an element of symbolic power. If the tower at Stonea Grange had a principally symbolic

value (Fincham 1999a), the symbolism was rooted not simply in the domination of the people who lived there, but the landscape as well: a tower in flat wetland was the presence of Rome made visible for miles around. Roads also played an important part in taming nature, negating one of a wetland's principal characteristics. Untamed wetlands are hard to cross, but the Fen Causeway, as with the Via Appia (Laurence 1999: 13 - 21), was a road driven through marshland, which made such an area accessible. Not only was the act of construction an illustration of Roman power through engineering, but its continued re-building along most of its length in the face of flooding and subsidence (Fowler 1950, Hall 1987, Silvester 1992, Jackson & Potter 1996, Fincham 1999b) may also be read as a continued restatement of dominance over the landscape.

9.2.5

The Exploitation of Wetland Landscapes

Throughout the above discussion of wetlands key similarities emerged between the East Anglian Fens and the areas chosen for comparison. However, can it be said that these similarities represent a pattern of exploitation that is particular to wetlands, or are they indicative of more widespread conditions under Roman rule? We will consider this question in the context of Britain with a general comparison between wetlands and other low land landscapes. Firstly, it may be noted that there is a general absence of urban settlements in wetland areas. Although this may have as much to do with the difficulties of large-scale construction in a wetland environment, it non-the-less has a significant influence upon possible trajectories of social and political development in these areas. The second general feature to be noted the absence of villas in wetlands. As already considered, the significance of this is much debated, but as with towns, the very fact of their absence hints that wetlands areas were of a different nature socially to areas where the villa was a common form. A further feature which sets wetlands in general, and in the fens particular, apart from other lowland rural landscapes of Roman Britain is the comparatively small numbers of local centres (Ringley 1989: 124). This affects the potential market coverage of these areas, and although an alternative to markets based at fixed local centres has been discussed (see Chapter Five, section 5.5), the lack oflocal centres supports a suggestion that wetland landscapes were of a generally different nature to other rural landscapes in Roman Britain. As to the actual nature of settlement in Fenland, it is, as has already been discussed, generally characterised as a 'girdle pattern' form. This is not unique to the Fens (Ringley 1989: 95 - 101), so the nature of low status occupation here does not appear to be specific to wetlands. The difference between wetlands and other areas is not, then, in the style of occupation, but in the organisation of the landscape. If wetlands can be legitimately separated from other

landscapes on the grounds of their organisation, is their mode of exploitation consistent as a group? Within all the

91

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

wetland areas considered, salt production was a factor, perhaps because it is the most archaeologically traceable part of an economic system linking the salt itself with stock rearing, to supply salted meat. This was by no means confined to the three comparative case studies advanced here. Salt 'winning' was a common activity along the Kent and Essex coasts, using essentially similar technology to that apparent on Fenland sites (de Brisay 1975 & Rodwell 1979), as well as the coastal zone of the Hampshire/Sussex border (Bradley 1975) Chichester Harbour (Bradley 1992), and Poole harbour in Dorset (Jones & Mattingly 1990: 226 & 228) to give just a few examples. As we have seen, such a connection between salt production and coastal wetlands is also found on the continent, for example on the coast of northern France and Belgium (Thoen 1975), and a similar context for Roman period activity, army supply, has been argued. This apparent consistency in exploitation strategy illustrates the contradiction embodied in such landscapes: they provide opportunities not available elsewhere (to produce salted meat), but at the same time their nature is constraining - they are difficult areas which require a large effort to exploit on any scale. As mentioned above, even in the Fens, which were not drained, the maintenance of communications (like the Fen Causeway) required to facilitate exploitation, necessitated frequent re-building. The scale of reclamation apparent in the Levels suggests a great deal of investment, a need that presumably did not end with the completion of the initial project. Land reclaimed must be maintained, dykes cleared, sea walls repaired. Wetlands were thus environments that offered choices to a power like Rome with the ability to engage in large drainage/construction projects, though these choices were confined within a narrow range by the basic nature of the environment. Rippon (1994: 70) notes that salt marsh environments in their natural state are unstable, a situation transfonned by reclamation, which aside from providing pasture, may even allow the more effective exploitation of some of the available wetland resources. However, as Rippon (1997a: 121) himself noted in the case of the Brue Valley, the choice had to be made between reclamation, and probably the most economically valuable activity allowed by a salt marsh - salt production. In the Brue Valley, on the English side of the Severn Estuary, land was reclaimed to the north of the River Siger, but to the south of the river the salt marsh was retained. Rippon (1997a: 121) suggests that this area was left unreclaimed because 'its wetland resources were more highly valued than the arable/pasture that would result from drainage'. This illustrates both the clear choice in a specific area between drainage and natural resource exploitation, but also the fact that different approaches may be relatively 'localised', the wider landscape being a mosaic of wetland and reclamation projects. When dealing with regional wetland landscapes, it is important to

remember that there may be a range of approaches, and it is unlikely, for example, that any wetland was reclaimed to the point where it became nothing more than a simple agricultural landscape. Alongside salt, salt meat, and exploited wetland resources, iron production would appear to be common feature of the regional economic frameworks within which the three British wetlands considered were integrated. In the case of the Fens we have seen (Chapter Eight) how the salt production industry was only part of a variety of activities focused upon Durobrivae, two of which were the Nene Valley pottery industry, and iron production (Schrufer-Kolb 1999a; 1999b; 2000). This is also the case with the Severn levels, where evidence for the exploitation and working of iron around the estuary is 'considerable' (Rippon 1997a: 119-120). In terms of pottery production, a local greyware industry was located at Congresbury, on the edge of the Levels on the English side (Rippon 1998: 121), and pottery was also produced on the Welsh side, at the fen edge site of Caldicot (Barnett et al: 1990, Rippon 1997: 121). This conjunction of activities may also occur in the vicinity of Romney Marsh. As discussed, there was clearly salt making and stock rearing, combining to produce salt meat, and the Iron production industry of the Weald. The possibility of locally produced pottery has also been discussed in the context of the late Roman fort at Lympe, though as already mentioned, the location of the production site is unknown (Cunliffe 1980: 282). An important element in any comparison between these different wetlands is explaining the similarity in economic activity on, or in the region of, such landscapes. In the three areas examined there is evidence of an early military presence, and a postulated link between salt production and the army exists in each case. The most important sites in the vicinity of the Fens were probably the forts at Longthorpe and Grandford, but there was also the auxiliary fort at Godmanchester (Britannia 13: 363) and the auxiliary fort at Saham Toney (Britannia 17: 1 - 58). As discussed in Chapter Eight, the well established LPRIA salt production industry in the Lincolnshire Fens would rapidly have fallen under military control from Longthorpe after the conquest, and salt production in the central fens may well have come under similar management during the period of the Grandford fort. In Somerset the evidence for LPRIA salt production is slight (Rippon 1997a: 56), with only one saltern site known at Bagworth (Leech 1977), but this at least demonstrates that the activity was known in the area. Rippon ( 1997a: 122) suggests that in the light of this small indication of pre-Roman activity, salt production in the Brue valley may owe its existence to military demand. On both sides of the Severn Estuary there was military occupation in the first and second centuries at a variety of sites (see Figure 9.2), a presence that supports Rippon's interpretation. In Romney Marsh, the evidence is too slight to develop any chronological model for the start of salt production. However, as Cunliffe (1988: 84) suggests, iron and other bulk items like timber and stone would in all probability have been shipped out of the Weald, through the

92

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

marsh. The development of salt production may well have been encouraged by the British fleet, which constituted a long-term military presence in this area. In all three areas, expansion in exploitation can be linked to sustained military/official activity. This leads us to consider the link between other products, iron and pottery, with salt production, and the military presence. The most clear cut example of this linkage is perhaps Romney Marsh. As Cunliffe (1988: 84) suggests, the hypothesis that the Weald iron production was under military supervision is in accordance with an imperial policy of state control of mineral production. If, as suggested earlier, iron was a principal motivation of the activity of the fleet in this area, then the development of the salt working in Romney Marsh may have been seen as an important secondary development. In the Fenland region, the stationing of military forces in this area would have allowed control of pre-existing salt making sites in the silt fens. The garrison would, however, also require supplies of iron, and evidence of small-scale iron processing at the Longthorpe Fortress (Dannell & Wild 1987: 106) may suggest the developing of a local resource, initially to meet military needs. Around the Severn Estuary the evidence for the cross-estuarine shipping of ore from the Forest of Dean (Rippon 1997a: 119) suggests that the exploitation of this resource was an important activity. Given the fact that large amounts of slag have been recovered from Rumney Great Wharf, located within a landscape considered to have been part of the territory of the fortress at Caerleon, military involvement seems likely (Rippon 1997a: 120). All three areas have some connection with pottery production. Around the Severn Estuary Rippon (1997a: 121) suggests that a fen edge location for pottery production may be based upon the availability of the resources required. Whilst all such requirements must be met, this neither explains why such industries developed when they did, nor why pottery industries did not automatically develop in all areas where clay, water and fuel were available. In the Fens there is the early production at the Longthorpe military worksdepot (Dannell & Wild 1987: 133), and the later development of the Nene Valley industry. The initial production is clearly inspired by the army, the second developed in a civilian context. If the suggestion that Lympe was also receiving locally produced pottery (Cunliffe 1980: 282) is correct, then pottery production in this area may also have been in response to military demand. In all three cases state involvement may have been the catalyst for the development, or at least expansion, of the industries in question, and the occurrence of iron, pottery and salt production in the same region may well have been due to a military presence intent on acquiring a range of specific supplies. An overview of

the way in which supplies were acquired for the army has been provided by Whittaker (1994: 98 - 131). Much of the supply network functioned over considerable distance, a necessity in areas where there were great concentrations of troops, like the Rhine frontier, and the local population could not provide the volume of food required (Whittaker 1994: 99). As recent research on building materials used in military installations in Britain has demonstrated (Allen & Fulford 1999), such long distance acquisition was not confined to food-stuffs, although building material, like pottery, may be seen as a proxy indication for the patterns of trade in perishable items, and as the Vindolanda tablets have demonstrated, military requirements were highly varied (Bowman 1994: 68 -72). The formation of acquisition networks formed outside of what passed for a market economy under Roman rule (Whittaker 1994: 106 - 107), or even straightforward logistic considerations. Supplies were even gathered from beyond the Roman frontiers (Elton 1996: 79 - 81). This makes sense in the context of the picture presented here of the connection between Roman Army supply, and the development of wetlands. Once established, military bases may well have aimed to develop local resources for their own benefit, and when the bulk of the military had moved on, areas already geared to army supply may have continued to attract the attention of those seeking to fulfil military supply contracts. That goods could be shipped considerable distances is illustrated by the trade between Britain and the Rhine provinces ( du Plat Taylor & Cleere 1978), with trade links most interestingly demonstrated by the epigraphic evidence (Hassall 1978). This evidence suggests (Hassan 1978: 45) that the negotiatores from the Rhine mouth area (including those discussed earlier from Colijnsplaat) traded with Britain, exporting pottery and perhaps wine. As well as local trading, the negotiatores also had dealing with the east coast of England, importing fish sauce and, significantly, salt (Hassan 1978: 43 & 45). The source of this salt may have been Romney Marsh, the saltem sites of the Kent and Essex coasts, or the Fens themselves. Areas developed under military control to increase official supply would continue to be exploited once links to the army had been created, even if the local military presence had been slimmed down. Such exploitation might continue out of official inertia, or because, having been organised to provide specific items for the army, it was easier to maintain logistic connections with these areas, even over long distances, than to attempt to organise the acquisition of such supplies closer to where they were required. This may in tum suggest that the linkage between military deployment, military supply and wetlands, far from being accidental, was a conscious discussion on the part of the Roman authorities. It may be that the Roman military was specifically attracted to wetland areas, in the knowledge that there were valuable resources to be extracted. As examined above, the Roman state had a particular relationship with wetlands, and in the early Romano-British context only the army was capable of developing them beyond a basic

93

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

opportunistic exploitation. They thus provided areas in which by doing something that the natives could not, i.e. managing wetlands on a large scale, a specifically 'Roman' control of the landscape was exerted, and resources were acquired in greater quantities than had ever been the case before. This achieved the duel result of a very visible demonstration of imperial power, whilst reducing disruption to the civilian population of the new province by extracting important elements of military supply from areas that were marginal to the essentially late Iron Age structures of early Roman Britain. The continued development of these industries after the conquest period suggests either less visible forms of official involvement, or the opportunistic development of a civilian economy, taking advantage of economic patterns established by the military. A similar situation has been suggested in North Africa, where Mattingly (1997c: 130) suggests that collection of the annona created regular state subsidised transportation of agricultural produce, a situation of which the African population took advantage. Once state officials were acquiring tax in kind in a particular area, they were a potential market for surplus of other kinds: the existence of state collection mechanisms encouraged other types of production. The same may be true for Britain, with military establishments shaping the later development of regional economies. It has been suggested that the Roman relationship with the Fens was one of economic exploitation. Wetlands were not of marginal interest to the imperial authorities, rather the consistency of military or official involvement and the constant exploitation of available resources, albeit with differing emphasis in different locations, illustrate their importance as valuable assets. This would appear to be reflected in the fact that the situation in the coastal wetlands south of the Rhine frontier bears comparison with the British case studies that we have examined, and that a consistent range of environmental intervention strategies, limited by the nature of wetlands, can be discerned. Rome's draining of the Italian wetlands was the early stages of a long history of intervention in, and management of, such environments.

product of complex processes of coercion, negotiation, accommodation and resistance' (1997c: 117). In the particular context in which this dualism is offered (Mattingly 1997b), the two ends of the spectrum are set by Africa (a landscape of opportunity), and by Greece (a landscape of resistance), but clearly the potential for a great deal of variety lies in between. In addition, both case studies are broad pictures generated at a provincial level, but even at this scale the possibilities of sub-provincial variation in the lived experience of empire are indicated (Mattingly 1997b: 130-133). At a supra-provincial scale Alcock recognises that Greek 'identity' within the empire meant different things to different people (1997: 113), adding an extra level of interaction with the imperial presence, and greater variety in the possible response by the conquered to the conqueror. The imperial authorities also had decisions to make themselves, choices over the particular methods of exploitation to be adopted as well as choices over how to manage to the native response to conquest. It is such a sequence of response and counter response that we see in the central fens with the construction of the tower at Stonea Grange, the native refusal to accept it, and its fmal dismantling (Fincham 1999a). Political compromise is one way in which the full intention of imperial authority may fail to be translated into reality, physical limitations, or the failure of a project is another (Purcell 1996: 208). Consideration of the development of landscapes within the Roman empire must, therefore, take full account of the constraints upon imperial power, as well as the fact that that power, by defmition, was in a position to dominate the discourse of colonial negotiation.

Opportunity, Resistance and Landscapes of Imperialism

Taking Africa first, there are important differences between the development of that area under Roman rule and that of Britain. Involvement of elites in the power structures of the Empire was much greater in Africa: from the late first century wealthy Africans become increasingly involved in the Imperial machine, taking on roles, amongst other things, as senators (Raven 1993: 122-131). Even this level of integration within the empire was to be eclipsed by the accession of Septimius Severus, an Africa emperor in AD 193. However, if such involvement gave Africa a greater part to play in Imperial affairs, it was not the only mode of engagement. A marked growth in olive oil production occurred in North Africa following the Roman conquest (Mattingly 1995: 138-140), an expansion that is attested archaeologically through survey work in both Tunisia and Libya (Mattingly 1988).

The response to the empire of those who were subject to it may be characterised by the opposition 'Opportunity and Resistance'. This characterisation of landscape, in essence a crude duality, as Mattingly states (1997b: 117-118), carries with it the danger that 'we may obscure the 'discrepant experiences' and changing perspectives of Roman imperialism that they [landscapes of imperialism] encapsulate'. Mattingly further suggests that 'provincial landscapes were the

This expansion of economic activity may have principally benefited the local elite, based in the urban centres, and running large scattered estates as absentee landlords (Mattingly 1985: 32 - 34). Expanded olive oil production extended far to the south of the coastal strip, well into the pre-desert, as the work of the UNESCO Libyan Valleys survey (Barker et al 1996) demonstrates. The landscape of this area was changed radically after the Roman conquest and Mattingly (1997c: 134) concludes that the native

9.3

94

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

involvement in its re-organisation was considerable. Although the imperial authorities exploited the region through the extraction of agricultural surplus, Mattingly (1997c: 134 - 135) suggests that the Africans seized the opportunities implicit in this situation, rather than adopting a course of resistance. This is not to suggest that the whole population grasped the opportunities presented by the Empire, and other systems of social and economic organization can be identified like the landscape of nucleated villages beyond the villa dominated hinterland of Caesarea, a difference which may infer resistance (Mattingly 1997c: 130-133). How does this relate to activity in the Fens? Superficially, the great expansion of settlement and salt production on the silt fens is analogous to the expansion of olive oil production in North Africa. Both industries expanded under imperial influence to fulfil an apparent 'official demand'. In the Fens, and as we have seen, wetlands generally, the strategy was one of exploitation of resources under official control, expansion driven by the requirements of the state. If Mattingly is correct, then the expansion of North African olive oil was driven by the engagement of the North African elite with the empire, albeit in a context created by Imperial demand in the form of the annona (Mattingly 1997c: 130). If the model advanced in Chapter Eight is correct, then it is certainly true that the elite based in Durobrivae had a considerable stake in the running of the Fens, undoubtedly benefiting personally from this activity, but they did so within an economic framework determined by the imperial authorities and their chosen exploitation strategy. The expansion of occupation in the Fens at the end of the first century, and at the beginning of the second, is extensive. The sudden increase not only in occupation sites, but also in the number of saltems, has been interpreted in this project as a direct response to Roman needs, a process picked up and carried on after the departure of the military, and maintained by the local civilian authorities. The discrepant experiences of those involved in the exploitation of the Fens would thus have been very different - this process was a source of wealth and prestige to a villa owner in the Nene Valley, but provided a life of constraint and supervision for those working the saltems. The central fens provide us with a slightly different pattern of events. Roman period occupation of this area is clearly based upon a pre-Roman community, with traditions of its own. In failing to adopt symbols of Romanitas, we may perceive a sense of resistance to Rome, and the ultimate failure of the Stonea tower implies a deep-seated refusal to 'become Roman' (Fincham 1999a). This strong sense of non-Roman identity may be compared to the province wide conceptualisation of 'Greekness' identified by Alcock (1997). The relationship between Greece and Rome

was problematic, and for Woolf (1994: 130) 'Romans were never wholly reconciled to Greek culture, and Greeks never stopped being Greek'. In Greece a strong regard for the past and the retention of traditional social forms may have resulted in the failure of the province as a whole to embrace the opportunities presented by Roman rule (Alcock 1997: 110). We may see a similar process at work in the central fens, where the proto-urban centre at Stonea failed to develop. The desire to retain traditional forms in this community was too strong to allow their abandonment in favour of embracing Roman structures. Had they done so, the history of the Fens might have been very different, perhaps with greater wealth, the development of Stonea Grange into a small-town, and the spread of villas. Rather, the natives retained their identity, and ultimately the authorities accepted this, the tower was withdrawn, and the area settled into long-term 'decline'. How the natives regarded this is a matter of conjecture, but given the evidence of cultural survival from this area discussed in Chapter Six, their encounter with Rome was characterised at last in part by successful resistance. From the perspective of the natives this was quite possibly a more positive lived experience of empire than that of the inhabitants of the silt fen, even if it was ultimately based upon a degree of hostility to imperial rule. Alcock (1993: 220 - 222) stresses the 'lack of uniformity', both in the response of subordinate populations to their incorporation within the Empire, and of the approach of the imperial authorities to different areas within their domains. As with the Fens, other wetlands and Roman North Africa, we must recognise the parameters that limited the Roman response to a provincial landscape. The status of Greece within the Empire, at least until the third century A.D., may have owed much to their characterisation by the Romans as a people to be valued for their past, rather than the present, a decadent people in need of 'tactful' assistance (Woolf 1994: 135). Thus, in the scenario painted by Woolf, the limits upon Roman action in the case of Greece may have been cognitive. This was re-inforced by the Greek's own continued sense of identity, rooted in a Hellenistic diversity which allowed it to continue to exist within the structure of the Empire. In the case of Greece, maintenance of preRoman identity combined with an unusual respect for that identity on the part of the Imperial Authorities to make the province a 'landscape of resistance'. Like Greece, the central fens owed its character to an accommodation between the local population and the exploitation strategies adopted by the Imperial authorities that dominated them. Alcock (1997: 112 - 113) leaves open the question of whether or not later changes in Greece, which may have led to the opening up of the province to change in a way in which it had never been before, was a good thing from the perspective of the wider population. Certainly the same question is pertinent in the central fens, where what we might term cultural resistance may ultimately have had a positive outcome for the actual inhabitants of the region.

95

Chapter 9: The Fens in Context

This leaves us with a range of possibilities. Outside the economic reahn, those who engaged in passive resisted seem to have had a more positive than those who embraced opportunity. Our desire to rank provinces, or sub-provincial landscapes, in terms of their economic profitability is a modem pre-occupation: the apparent 'failure' of Greece in the early Roman period is a possible example of this. Such ranking does not allow us to address the question of whether, for example, the 'resistant landscapes' beyond Caesarea in North Africa (Mattingly 1997c: 130-133), were a better place to live for low status members of society than areas with expanding olive oil production. However, we must always remain aware that for those who chose to seize the opportunities presented to them by the empire, there was great wealth to be made, as the extraordinary expansion of settlement and olive oil production in the Libyan pre-desert illustrates (Barker et al 1996). It is equally true to suggest that cultural resistance denied many the chance to tum a situation of imposed Roman rule to some benefit. These contradictions are embodied in the vicus at Grandford, and the apparent retention of traditional status display that occurred in the landscape that surrounded it. For some, no matter what the possible benefits, perhaps too close a cooperation with the Romans was unpalatable: the imperial authorities were to be resisted, even to the detriment of the local population. If I am correct in suggesting that a relatively metropolitan site like Grandford would have attracted those who wished to gain what they could from Roman rule (Chapter Eight, section 8.3.2), then those who lived there had made a choice, equally as valid, to at least moderate their instincts for maintaining a past identity, and to profit from the Roman occupation if they could.

9.4

As to the second theme, this project has illustrated how post-colonial thinking can enhance our treatment of data, and refines our interpretation of that data after it has been analysed. It has gone some way to improving models of contact and culture change, and added to the debate on interaction between Roman and native. Finally, it has advanced the use of such concepts in a landscape archaeology context - though this process still has a long way to go. With a better understanding of the processes behind the formation of 'landscapes of imperialism', we may aim for a better understanding of the empire, both from the perspective of conqueror, and conquered. The analysis of the Fenland that has been offered here has been generated primarily from survey data, a constraint imposed by the lack of recent excavation in the area. However, the model that this analysis produced has implications for future excavation, in that a better understanding of the landscape will allow intelligent sampling of sites for more detailed investigation. It is also the case that there are many wider questions raised by this project that have been touched upon, but not fully explored, and which may offer directions for future research. Those questions, and the implications of this project for future fieldwork in the region, will be considered in the next chapter.

In Conclusion

The intention of this work was two fold. Firstly, it was to provide a better understanding of the interaction between the Roman authorities and the native population in Roman Fenland. Secondly, it was to explore issues related to Roman Imperialism and postcolonial theory, which have recently begun to have an impact upon the way in which we 'do archaeology', in the context of the Fenland landscape. The first of these objectives has certainly been achieved. Limits were set by the quality of the available data, but within those confmes a model of Roman Fenland can now be placed within its regional context. This model, with landscapes of domination in the silts and elements of cultural resistance on the central fen islands, will of course be subject to revision as new data comes to light, and differing interpretations emerge. However, we now have a better idea of how the Fens were organised, and perhaps a better idea of their historical development.

96

Chapter 10 Future Work

10.1

create at least a generalised understanding, and is a realistic amount of excavation work to be undertaken in a research context. Turning to the central fens, it can be seen that we have rather more excavated data than is available in the silt fens. However, as noted above, this work tends to concentrate on the higher status elements of the landscape, looking principally at Stonea Grange, and the roadside settlement at Grandford. We do have Potter's work on the lower status sites of Norwood and Coldham, but this is now somewhat dated (Potter 1965), and our understanding of the central fens would benefit from a modem excavation of a low status settlement. This stands as an addendum to Potter's (1992: 10-11) statement on Roman period research priorities in the central fens.

Introduction

In reviewing a study of this nature, directions for future work emerge from both the deficiencies of the current project, and from successful elements of analysis which would profit from further development. Several strands of such development are now clear.

10.2

Excavation

This project has studied the available survey data, in order to create a better understanding of the landscape of Roman Fenland. In the pursuit of this aim, new interpretations of published surveys have been offered. However, limits were imposed upon this work by the nature of the available data. This principally concerns the fact that very few sites have been excavated in the Fens as a whole, and those that have been are concentrated in the central fen area. Of the excavations that have been conducted, most have been on high status sites like Stonea Grange. Some of this work is also more than thirty years old, like that done at Grandford (Potter 1982).

10.3

Durobrivae and Its Hinterland

Perhaps one of the principal conclusions to have emerged from this study is that the Fens formed part of a wider economic unit, the hinterland of Durobrivae, and that as a landscape it is only properly understood as part of this whole. Had this essential point been understood at the outset, the focus of this study would have been the economic hinterland of the town, taking in the silt and central fens, as well as the Nene Valley. This is a unit which would have made sense in a Roman context, rather than the geographically determined study area of 'The Fens', which has been the basis of this, and all previous studies of the area. Although a sketch of the western hinterland of Durobrivae, focused on the Nene Valley, has been included here, it functions as no more than a caricature to provide context - it is not an intrinsic part of the study. Such a study is overdue, and represents a significant piece of research that is yet to be undertaken.

It would be naive, given the financial and practical constraints on archaeological fieldwork, to propose a wide-ranging programme of excavation to solve this problem. However, instead of being confronted with a relatively homogeneous mass of sites to consider, what we in fact face is a structured landscape, which could be profitably sampled. If we consider the silt fen first, we can see that targeted excavation on relatively few sites would serve to increase our understanding to a considerable degree. In Chapter Five the argument was advanced that the landscape of the Lincolnshire silts was made up of a number of regularly structured communities, each comprised of three zones of site types (see Figure 5.19). These three basic types of site were a) 'status' sites in the core of each community, b) sites which used pottery, but which had no signs of architectural elaboration, and c) aceramic (possibility seasonal) sites, many of which were engaged in salt production.

Greater understanding of the town is clearly a vital component of such a study. Durobrivae is recognised as an 'oddity' (Burnham & Wacher 1990: 81 - 91), a small town which was physically large enough to be a possible city, and the focus of an unusual concentration of industrial activity - both in variety and scale. New excavation data on the intra-mural area is unlikely to become available, and the understanding that we have of the town's chronological development is sketchy (Burnham & Wacher 1990: 81). However, our knowledge is probably sufficient to allow us to investigate the interrelation between the development of the urban centre and the development of its hinterland. Thus progress in understanding what kind of town Durobivae was may still be made by investigating the organisation of the industries dependant upon it, through the kind of broad based landscape study outlined above. This would afford us a greater understanding of the role of Durobrivae in the local economy, not simply in terms of its function as

The problem with this picture is that due to the lack of excavation data there are no adequate 'type sites' to give us a detailed idea of the nature of these settlements. However, an excavated example of just one of each of these three categories would provide an extra depth to our understanding of the Fens that is currently lacking. Although, of course, generalising across the whole of the silt fens on the basis of just three sites will provide little more than a schematic understanding of the nature of Fenland settlement, a type site of each kind would provide the minimal level of excavated data required to

97

Chapter 10: Future Work

an economic centre, but also the part that it played in maintaining and intensifying economic exploitation of the region begun under the military in the first century.

10.4

and re-negotiated identity, we must understand the language of status that the native elites used to communicate elite continuity to their subordinates. In doing so, it may be possible to map ancient communities on the basis of their mode of status display. To do so, a strict architectural hierarchy of status functioning in a strictly linear way must be abandoned, and consideration should be given to other ways of creating social status. The wealth ranking system proposed in this thesis goes some way towards meeting this requirement, establishing three categories of status display a) portable wealth, b) architectural elaboration, and c) the mixed tradition. This is a system that requires development in the context of its use with a better data set, but it does recognise the multiplicity of 'status indicators', and allows us to put such information to archaeological use.

Methodologies

Previous treatments of the evidence from the Fens have failed to utilise the available information to its full extent. Thus, an important element of this project has been the development of methodologies for the processing of survey data that allow their full complexity to be realised. Because this project dealt with published sources, these methodologies were designed around the re-analysis of information, and are thus potentially applicable to any body of pre-existing survey data. That data is 'theory laden' is a commonplace, but articulating this in practice has proved problematic. Problems are perhaps particularly acute when dealing with predominantly survey data, where the evidence with which we are dealing may be little more than surface scatters of pottery or other domestic debris. In these circumstances, when even the identification of what is, or is not, a site may be less than straightforward, our methodological framework is a crucial element in assisting us to recognise what conclusions can reasonably be drawn. More importantly, having deconstructed archaeological practice and recognised that particular perspectives have underlain previous work, we must build into our new methodologies an understanding of the complexity and variability of the past.

It has been the approach here that the past is best understood from the perspectives of those who once inhabited it. Whilst such perspectives are not always recoverable in detail, we can at least consider past landscapes in terms of the communities for which we have archaeological evidence. Approaching archaeology from within a framework based upon past perspectives will allow us to structure large data sets like those derived from survey archaeology in a way which will facilitate, rather than obscure and obstruct, the interpretation of past lives. The Fens is a good example of such a problem, with Roman period data organised in the past in terms of the arbitrary (but at least regular) OS grid, but also irrelevant (and irregular) medieval parish boundaries. By attempting to re-cast the framework within which this data is organised to be more responsive to social patterns in the Roman period, we can facilitate such perspective based understanding. This will allow progress towards studies based upon how the landscape was organised in the past, rather than on the constraints and paradigms of modem spatial organisation, or methods of data collection.

Two principal strands of the data analysis methodology presented here are applicable beyond the current project, and may add to the wider debate on the theoretisation of our data. The first point is the consideration of chronology. Although time is more easily conceptualised in relation to archaeological data in 'period slices', time in landscapes clearly did not work this way. To sum up aggregate figures of the number of sites in period x, and contrast this with the number of sites in a later period y is potentially misleading. If a large number of sites vanish in period x, but are replaced by a slightly greater number of sites founded in period y, the aggregate picture is of a small rise in site numbers. This disguises the essential fact of a high degree of settlement turn over - the landscape is more unstable and dynamic than simplistic totals of sites suggest. This is not to claim that such patterns have never been spotted before, but it is simply to suggest that a more complex chronological breakdown of site data is an important exercise in grasping the essential complexity of the human habitation of the landscape.

An area of this study that would have benefited from more attention had time and space permitted is the issue of 'consumption'. Brief consideration was given to the possibility that pottery of the silt fens acted as a form of portable wealth (Chapter Five), but the relationship between people and material culture is a problematic one (see Appadurai 1986 for a summary), and beyond the scope of what has been attempted here. There has been a discussion of the regional economy, built up from regional components explored in chapters Five, Six, & Seven and synthesised in Chapter Eight, but this has taken place from a largely production based perspective. However, the way in which things are consumed, the construction of concepts like value and the social generation of 'need' are issues of equal importance, and although usually ignored by orthodox economic studies (Fine 1995: 128 - 136), are of increasing importance in historical archaeology (Klien & LeeDecker 1991: 1). To a degree the consideration of the 'consumption' of architecture and portable wealth to articulate identity in

The second point concerns the issue of status. Much has been made in this project about the duel nature of status display in the Fens, articulated both through architecture and portable wealth. To understand imperialism, as well as the way in which natives inhabited a conquered space

98

Chapter 10: Future Work

the Fens (Chapters Five and Six) attempts this, but the pottery from the Fenland data set was used principally to build and refine site chronologies, a common approach to ceramics as a component of survey data. However, along with other aspects of material culture from the region, this data would be susceptible to an integrated analysis through established consumption models (Henry 1991), and would provide fresh insight into the behaviour of low status sites, and their relationship with the wider regional context. Such a study can only take place when that wider framework has been established, and thus represents a logical next step from the analysis of the Fens offered in this project.

10.5

followers is a problematic process, and the development of provinces in the period following their conquest is an area that would benefit from further investigation. Economic expansion is one clear outcome in some circumstances, but how was the exploitation of mineral wealth, natural resources, or agricultural potential linked to the imperial presence? Models exist: for example, Mattingly (1997c: 130) has suggested that the needs of the state created a volume of state-subsidised trade that in tum created economic opportunities that some of the provincial population seized. In effect, the African oil boom occurred as a result of the African population, or at least a section of that population, turning structures set up to exploit them to their own advantage, an argument developed by Hopkins (1980: 120 - 124). Thus the role of tax requirements in shaping the development of provincial economies by determining where opportunities to make money lay is a crucial issue, particularly when considered alongside the role of elites. How elites come to seize the opportunities presented by empire, and the degree to which those benefits filtered down to the ordinary population of a province, will help us to unravel the complex process by which different groups negotiated their post-conquest identities.

Roman Imperialism

Issues specific to the archaeology of the Fens and to the analysis of survey data are, of course, important, but the Fens have acted merely as a case study in which to explore ideas concerning the articulation of Roman imperialism, and the native response to a condition of subordination to the Roman state. A consideration of the future direction of research into the nature of both Roman imperialism, and the natives 'lived experience of empire', in a wider theoretical context, is an important element of considering the implications of the current project.

10.6

One issue to be pursued must be our understanding of 'resistance'. As suggested in Chapter Nine (section 9.3) a resistant landscape may have been a better place in which to live if you were a low status individual, than one that was economically expanding to someone else's benefit. Investigating the role of native elites in greater depth is an important element in understanding this situation, as elites are the mediators between subordinates and empire. If, as in Greece (Alcock 1997: 110-111), the elites demonstrated little inclination to force their subordinates to adopt a more 'Roman' pattern of life, then native traditions will have persisted. In some circumstances, it may be that the elites actively lead such resistance by retaining their pre-conquest symbols of status, as may have been the case in the central fens. As argued earlier (Chapter Six), elite continuity implies some form of continuity of symbols in order to retain the mutual intelligibility of the language of status: degree of continuity by native elites may have been necessary to retain the acquiescence of the population at large. This process must have been simultaneous with the forming of a community of interest with Rome (Millett 1990b: 38) in order to gain the support of the imperial authorities, support that was necessary for the elites if they were to be confirmed in power. The elites were playing to two audiences, with different and possibly mutually exclusive expectations, and this must have made life an uncomfortable process of negotiation. This is certainly an issue that requires more attention.

Summary

Directions of future research in this area are clearly indicated, and may be expressed as four main themes. Firstly, excavation is a priority in an area like the Fens with many sites known superficially from survey, but very few understood in detail. As suggested above, this situation may be at least partially corrected with a targeted sampling strategy and the excavation of a handful of sites. Secondly, there is the need for a deeper investigation of Durobrivae and its hinterland, an area that may greatly advance our understanding of rural landscapes and the relationship between town and county in Roman Britain. Thirdly, there is the application of the data processing methodology proposed here to new bodies of information. More studies of this nature will allow a greater depth of comparative study, and allow us to appreciate the true diversity of life in the Roman Empire. Finally, the issue of Roman imperialism as an area of future research is highlighted, and is a question that can be addressed through landscape archaeology. Such work has the potential to inform us about the nature of the empire from a Roman perspective, the response of the subject population to that empire, and the process of colonial negotiation that created the landscapes they inhabited.

Finally, there is the imperial 'machine' itself. The articulation of imperial power over native elites and their

99

Appendix 1 Gazetteer of Sites

of this information is derived from the published maps ofFRT, and so the reader is directed to a specific FRT map sheet. Where enlarged settlement plans accompany the general FRT cropmark maps, these have been reproduced here, and the figure number is indicated. This information is mostly lacking for fen edge sites, as these were not covered in the FRT cropmark maps. Although information does exist for fen edge sites, the morphology of these sites lay beyond the scope of this project, and accordingly was not collected. Where an excavation plan of a site is available this has been included.

Introduction

The following gazetteer is based principally upon the information contained within the published gazetteer which accompanies FRT, and that published in microfiche form with the various volumes of the FS, with additional information added from other sources. The sites here are organised in a similar way to those in FRT, presented in IO km blocks. Each site has been allocated a unique six-digit code. The first two digits represent the IO km block within which that site is located. All sites in block TL 18 are thus prefaced with '18'. The sites from each 10 km block are organised by their chronological group. The second two digits of the site code are the chronological group to which that site belongs. Thus the first two sites in TL 18, both in chronological group 33, have '33' as the second pair of numbers in their site codes. Finally, the last two digits of the site code are an 'acquisition number'. The number sequences are discreet for each chronological group within each 10 km square, thus in TL 18 the group 33 sites are numbers 01 - 02, and the group 50 sites are numbered 01 - 03. The dates covered by each chronological group are included in brackets at the head of each chronological section.

The middle part of each entry is a description of what was discovered on the site. Most of this information is derived from FRT or the FS, with additional sources. The general type of site is identified first (e.g. 'settlement' or 'saltem'). Sites categorized as 'possible' are those which were originally recorded with a question mark by FRT, and which after the two survey data sets were merged, demonstrated no surface evidence and which did not appear to have been detected by FS. This is followed by a note on any known Iron Age activity. Then information on evidence on architectural elaboration or prestige objects recovered is listed. Pottery recovered from the site in question is then listed (named in full apart from Nene Valley Ware Colour Coat, which is abbreviated as NVWCC). Finally, occurrence of quern stones and burials is noted. Where there is a published excavation report for a site the gazetteer entry is confined to the basic format, and the reader is directed the report for further details.

Each entry begins with the presentation of general information and statistics about the site. General information like 'OS Grid', and 'Environment' are self-explanatory. Others are specific statistics generated as part of the research conducted during this project and are explained in detail in the main body of the text. 'FRT' is the site code allocated to that site in the FRT gazetteer, and 'FS' is the site code given to that site by the FS. An 'NS' entry in either of those categories stands for Not Surveyed, meaning that the location of that site was outside the limits of that particular survey. 'NF' means 'Not Found', and means that the location of the site was surveyed, but no evidence of the site was discovered.

The final section of each entry lists the major references to that site (which are incorporated into the main bibliography), but only when that reference adds new information, or is a more up-to-date account. Most pre-1970 references are included in the entries published by FRT and are not reproduced here, though full referencing to the FRT gazetteer is included. References to some individual sites is made in the text of FS, but not to all sites. The importance of the FS text is that it discusses the local landscape, usually accompanied by a map, and accordingly reference is made to the Roman period discussion in the appropriate parish essay, rather than specific page references relating to specific sites. When referring to individual volumes of the Fen Survey the following code system was used:

One of the principal aims of this thesis was to consider the Roman period landscape in terms that made historical sense, and this led to the division of the Fens into nine 'communities'. The community to which each site belongs is listed as a number for each site. Where published cropmark evidence for a site exists, this is recorded under 'Plan'. Most EW:

Hall 1996: Cambridgeshire Survey: The Isle qf Ely and Wisbech

SWC:

Hall 1992: The South-Western Cambridgeshire Fenlands

SW:

Hayes & Lane 1992: Lincolnshire Survey: The South-West Fens

LNFE:

Lane 1992: Lincolnshire Survey: The Northern Fen-Edge

WEFC:

Silvester 1991: No,folk Survey: The Wissey Embayment and the Fen Causeway

MNV:

Silvester 1988: Marshland and the Nar Valley, No,folk

PM:

Hall 1987: Fenland Settlement and Landscapes between Peterborough and March

100

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites

The Data

Chronological Group: 14 (0 - 450)

Site: 19 14 01 OS Grid: 176-/956Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 17 95 FS: NS Plan: See figure 11.2 Description: Orton Hall Farm Villa. Range of buildings, some stone built. Sixty-three Roman coins. Many metal finds (e.g. brooches, bracelets, finger rings). Extensive range of Roman pottery. Details in published site report. Principal References: FRT 183, Mackreth 1996.

Ten Km Square: TL 18

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 18 33 01 OS Grid: 173-/841Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1784 FS: SAW 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Location of the Sawtry Inscription (RIB 230) that reads 'PVBLIC ... '. Roman pottery includes NVCC. Principal References: FRT 181, FS (SWC) 38-39.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 19 22 01 OS Grid: 198-/965Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 1996 FS: NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Coin hoard of Carausian date. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 183.

Site: 18 33 02 OS Grid: 1733/8757 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GLA 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SWC) 30-32.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

OS Grid: 189-/921Site: 19 23 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1892? FS: YAX.Ul Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes samian and NVCC ware. Oven and a kiln known from close by. Principal References: FRT 182, FS (SWC) 22 - 25.

OS Grid: 150-/890Site: 18 50 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 1589? Plan: FS:NS Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Male and female inhumations in stone coffins. Principal References: FRT 181.

Chronological Group: 34 (250 - 450)

Site: 18 50 02 OS Grid: 1825/8791 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: HOL 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible late Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SWC) 30-32.

OS Grid: 194-/986Site: 19 34 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 5 FRT: 1998N9 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Site of Peterborough Cathedral, Roman remains discovered under the west wall of north transept. Stone architectural fragments were found on the site, and an inscribed stone. Large numbers of coins of largely Constantinian date. Principal References: FRT 184.

Site: 18 50 03 OS Grid: 1785/8769 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GLA2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SWC) 30-32.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 19 50 01 OS Grid: 167-/917Environment: Fen Edge. Community: 7 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 1691 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Possible earthworks. Principal References: FRT 182.

Ten Km Square: TL 19

Chronological Group: 11 (0 - 100) Site: 19 50 02 OS Grid: I 72-/926Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 1792 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 182.

OS Grid: 158-/977Site: 19 11 01 Environment: Fen Edge Conununity: 7 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 1597NE FS: NS Plan: See figure 11.1 Description: Longthorpe Roman Fort. Timber buildings and gateway. A smaller, later, fort was built inside the perimeter of the larger structure. A military works depot was constructed near by. Details of small finds and pottery published in site reports. Principal References: FRT 183, Frere & St Joseph 1974, Dannell & Wild 1987.

101

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 19 50 03 OS Grid: 195-/943Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1994 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 182.

Site: 19 50 04 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 182.

OS Grid: 146-/976Community: 7 FRT: 1497? Plan: -

Site: 19 50 05 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 182.

OS Grid: 158-/953Community: 7 FRT: 1595? Plan: -

Site: 19 50 06 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 182.

OS Grid: 150-/973Community: 7 FRT: 1597W? Plan: -

Site: 19 50 07 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 183.

OS Grid: 152-/970Community: 7 FRT: 1597SW? Plan: -

Site: 19 50 08 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 183.

OS Grid: 166-/953Community: 7 FRT: 1695? Plan: -

Site: 19 50 12 OS Grid: 184-/962Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1896 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Possible kiln debris. Human remains. Principal References: FRT 183.

OS Grid: 185-/972Site: 19 50 13 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 1897 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified surface finds. Unspecified Roman coins. Principal References: FRT 183.

Site: 19 50 14 OS Grid: 182-/998Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 6 FRT: 1899 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Brick. Multiple coins, a hoard ending with Gratian, and a bronze equestrian statue. Unspecified Roman pottery. Kiln debris from multiple kilns. Human remains. Principal References: FRT 183.

OS Grid: 190-/97 5Site: 19 50 15 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1997? FS:NS Plan: Description: Possible settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 183.

OS Grid: 193-/983Site: 19 50 16 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 1998S? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Three coins, one each of Hadrian, Tetricus and Crispina. Unspecified Roman pottery. Bone awls. Principal References: FRT 184.

Ten Km Square: TL 26 Site: 19 50 09 OS Grid: 163-/963Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 1696 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Rectangular stone building, bath house, a mosaic and three furnaces. Unspecified bronze object. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 183.

Site: 19 50 10 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Mosaic. Principal References: FRT 183.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 26 50 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 184.

OS Grid: 170-/985Community: 7 FRT: 1798 Plan: -

OS Grid: 288-/697Community: 8 FRT: 2869? Plan: -

Ten Km Square: TL 27

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 27 50 01 OS Grid: 283-/718Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 2871N FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 184.

Site: 19 50 11 OS Grid: 175-/994Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1799? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified surface finds. Principal References: FRT 182.

102

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 27 50 02 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. 'Carved Principal References: FRT 184.

OS Grid: 288-/717Community: 8 FRT: 2871E Plan: stone'. Unspecified Roman pottery.

Site: 27 50 03 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 185.

OS Grid: 281-/725Community: 8 FRT: 2872? Plan: -

Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 188.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

OS Grid: 220-/945Site: 29 23 01 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 2 FRT: 2294 Plan: FS: FAR U3 Description: Settlement. Three unspecified Roman coins. Some pottery in 'the native tradition'. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Human remains. Principal References: FRT 186, FS (SWC) 22 - 25.

Ten Km Square: TL28 Site: 29 23 02 OS Grid: 28---/93--Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2893? FS:NF Plan: Description: Possible settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Kiln debris. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 187.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 28 22 01 OS Grid: 2150/8196 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:WOW5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery, includes samian. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SWC) 38 - 39.

OS Grid: 208-/971Site: 29 23 03 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 2097 FS: STA3 Plan: Description: Settlement and possible wharf. Coins spanning the period from Trajan to Valentinian. Unspecified Roman pottery. Kiln debris. Principal References: FRT 187, FS (SWC) 15 - 18.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 28 50 01 OS Grid: 282-/822Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 2882 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 185.

OS Grid: 216-/966Site: 29 23 04 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 2196 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement and industrial site. Tile. Unspecified Roman pottery of the third century. Kiln Debris. Principal References: FRT 187.

Ten Km Square: TL 29

OS Grid: 224-/962Site: 29 23 05 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 2296 FS: STA 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Building Stone, flue tiles and roof tiles. Unspecified Roman pottery from the first to the third century. Principal References: FRT 188, FS (SWC) 15 - 18.

Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250)

Site: 29 12 01 OS Grid: 239-/975Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 2 FRT: 2397 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Late Iron Age 'A' pottery. Coin (possibly of Trajan). Unspecified Roman pottery. Human remains. Principal References: FRT 188.

Site: 29 23 06 OS Grid: 233-/955Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 5 FRT: 2395 FS: WHY2-4 Plan: Description: Settlement and industrial site. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery, possibly from the first to the fourth century. Principal References: FRT 188, FS (SWC) 57 - 59.

Site: 29 12 02 OS Grid: 208-/988Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 2098N FS: NS Plan: See figure 11.3 Description: Settlement. Fengate complex. Long-lived settlement, lasting from the Neolithic to the Roman period. Details in published site report. Principal References: FRT 188, Pryor 1984; 1980; 1978; 1974.

Site: 29 23 07 OS Grid: 239-/969Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 2 FRT: 2396N FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Coins ranging from second to the fourth century. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 188.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

Site: 29 13 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 2 FS:NF

OS Grid: 245-/976Community: FRT: 2497 Plan: -

Site: 29 23 08 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS: WHY 16

103

OS Grid: 2960/9650 Community: FRT:NF Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (PM) 57 - 59.

samian and

Site: 29 23 09 OS Grid: 2997/9769 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: WHY 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (PM) 57 - 59.

Site: 29 50 03 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 187.

OS Grid: 215-/989Community: 7 FRT: 2198N? Plan: -

Site: 29 50 04 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 187.

OS Grid: 214-/994Community: 7 FRT: 2199 Plan: -

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

OS Grid: 233-/963Site: 29 50 05 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2396S FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 188.

Site: 29 24 01 OS Grid: 2846/9829 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: WHY 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (PM) 57 - 59.

Site: 29 50 06 OS Grid: 2975/9724 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WHY21 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (PM) 57 - 59.

Site: 29 24 02 OS Grid: 2412/9805 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: WHY 14 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (PM) 57 - 59.

Ten Km Square: TL 36 Chronological Group: 34 (250 - 450) Chronological Group: 13 (0- 350) Site: 29 34 01 OS Grid: 2869/9680 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 5 FRT:NF FS: WHY 15 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified coins of the fourth and fifth centuries. Quern Stones. Principal References: FRT 188, FS (PM) 57 - 59.

Site: 36 13 01 OS Grid: 393-/698Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 3969 FS: OVE 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Some sherds in the 'Belgic' tradition (late Iron Age?). Bronze tweezers. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVW CC. Some unspecified fourth century sherds. Also unspecified animal bones. Kiln debris. Principal References: FRT 189, FS (EW) 150 - 151.

Chronological Group: 44 (350 - 450)

Site: 29 44 01 OS Grid: 2960/9740 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WHY22 Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible SFB. Principal References: FS (PM) 57 - 59.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 36 23 01 OS Grid: 3882/6877 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: OVE9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Flue tile and wall plaster. Roman pottery includes greywares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 150 - 151.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 29 50 01 OS Grid: 207-/981Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2098S? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Part of the Fengate complex. See published site reports for details. Principal References: FRT 187, Pryor 1984; 1980; 1978; 1974.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 36 33 01 OS Grid: 3800/6944 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: OVE 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 150 - 151.

OS Grid: 21 7-/982Site: 29 50 02 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2198S FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible unspecified Roman pottery. Possible kiln debris. Principal References: FRT 187.

104

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 36 50 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 188.

Ten Km Square: TL 37

OS Grid: 300-/684Community: 8 FRT: 3068W? Plan: -

Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250)

Site: 37 12 01 OS Grid: 392-/714Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3971NW FS: OVE 15 Plan: FRT Map 15 Description: Settlement. Possible late Iron Age pottery. Unspecified early Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 191, FS (EW) 150 - 151.

Site: 36 50 02 OS Grid: 303-/685Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3068S FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 188.

Site: 36 50 03 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 188.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

Site: 37 13 01 OS Grid: 342-/725Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3472 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible late Iron Age pottery. Some pottery in the 'native tradition'. Unspecified Roman pottery of the first and second centuries. Principal References: FRT 191.

OS Grid: 304-/689Community: 8 FRT: 3068N? Plan: -

Site: 36 50 04 OS Grid: 320-/681Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 3268 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coin and bronze statuette of Mercury. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 188.

Site: 36 50 05 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 189.

OS Grid: 337-/673Community: 8 FRT: 3367? Plan: -

Site: 36 50 06 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 189.

OS Grid: 336-/682Community: 8 FRT: 3368? Plan: -

Chronological Group: 14 (0 - 450)

Site: 37 14 01 OS Grid: 324-/703Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 5 FRT: 3270S FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Timber built structures, tegulae and roof tiles. Fourth century coin of Arcadius. Unspecified Roman and Saxon pottery. Principal References: FRT 190.

Site: 37 14 02 OS Grid: 327-/707Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3270E FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Cremation. Principal References: FRT 190.

OS Grid: 335-/703Site: 37 14 03 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3370S FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Low mound, timber buildings. Unspecified Roman pottery. Unspecified Saxon pottery. Principal References: FRT 190.

Site: 36 50 07 OS Grid: 3897/6862 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: OVE 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 150 - 151.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250) Site: 36 50 08 OS Grid: 3900/6891 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: OVE 11 Plan: Description: Settlement and industrial site. Roman pottery includes Cold Harbour ware. Evidence of kilns. Principal References: FS (EW) 150 - 151.

OS Grid: 396-/714Site: 37 22 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3971C FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 15. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery of principally second and early third centuries. Principal References: FRT 192.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 37 23 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 4 FS:NF

105

OS Grid: 398-/719Community: 8 FRT: 3971NE Plan: FRT Map 15.

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Finger ring. Roman pottery includes greywares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 192.

Site: 37 50 03 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 191.

Site: 37 23 02 OS Grid: 399-/711Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3971SE FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 15. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes mortaria, sam1an andNVWCC. Principal References: FRT 192.

OS Grid: 356-/707Community: FRT: 3570? Plan: -

Site: 37 50 04 OS Grid: 365-/734Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 2 FRT: 3673 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Human remains (cremation and skeleton). Principal References: FRT 191.

Site: 37 23 03 OS Grid: 377-/783Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 3778S FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement and possible docks/slipways. Three Roman coins, a sestertius of Faustina I, a late radiate and the third unspecified. Unspecified Roman pottery. Cremation. Principal References: FRT 193.

Site: 37 50 05 OS Grid: 377-/746Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3774? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 191.

Site: 37 23 04 OS Grid: 384-/775Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3877N FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. A hoard of enamelled lynch-pins was found in the vicinity, but not actually on the site. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 194.

Site: 37 50 06 OS Grid: 3 87-/749Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 3874 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Human remains. Principal References: FRT 191.

Site: 37 50 07 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 192.

Site: 37 23 05 OS Grid: 391-/759Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 3975N FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement and industrial site. A coin of Commodus and a small coin hoard of the third century. Unspecified Roman pottery with some amphorae fragments. Kiln debris. Human remains. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 194.

OS Grid: 367-/798Community: 8 FRT: 3679? Plan: -

OS Grid: 378-/771Site: 37 50 08 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3777? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes mortaria. Principal References: FRT 192.

OS Grid: 391-/766Site: 37 23 06 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 3976 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Building stone and roof tile. Female skeleton found with a bronze ring, bangle, and brass coin of Constantius II. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 194.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

OS Grid: 375-/785Site: 37 50 09 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 8 FRT: 3778N FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Building stone, roof tile. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 193.

OS Grid: 309-/717Site: 37 50 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 3071 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Coin of Sons of Constantine. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 190.

OS Grid: 371-/793Site: 37 50 10 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 3779 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 193.

Site: 37 50 02 OS Grid: 336-/708Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 2 FRT: 3370N FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 190.

Site: 37 50 11 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 194.

106

OS Grid: 386-/764Community: 8 FRT: 3876S Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 37 50 12 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 194.

Ten Km Square: TL 39

OS Grid: 386-/769Community: 8 FRT: 3876N? Plan: -

Chronological Group: 14 (0 - 450)

Site: 39 14 01 OS Grid: 325-/988Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 2 FRT: 3298 FS: WHY7-9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible gold ring. Unspecified pottery of first to third century date. Principal References: FRT 197, FS (PM) 57 - 59.

Site: 37 50 13 OS Grid: 385-/772Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3877S? FS:NS Plan: Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 194. Site: 37 50 14 OS Grid: 3828/7156 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: OVE 6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 150 - 151.

Roman

OS Grid: 393-/996Site: 39 14 02 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 8 FRT: 3999 FS: MAR 19 Plan: FRT Map 13, see figure 11.4. Description: Settlement. Grandford, possible vicus of Neronian Fort. Early Roman timber buildings, later Roman stone buildings. Building stone, roof tile and window glass. Multiple coin finds of numerous issues, though many unusually early for the Fens. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Human remains. Full details in published site reports. Principal References: FRT 197, FS (PM) 40 - 46. Potter 1981, Potter & Potter 1980; 1982.

Site: 37 50 15 OS Grid: 3892/7184 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: OVE 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 150 - 151.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350) Ten Km Square: TL 38 Site: 39 23 01 OS Grid: 3154/9756 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WHYS Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (PM) 57 - 59.

Chronological Group: 23 (200 - 350)

Site: 38 23 01 OS Grid: 3330/8051 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PID 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone fragment. Principal References: FS (SWC) 50 - 52, 54.

Site: 39 23 02 OS Grid: 3909/9940 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MAR 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 38 33 01 OS Grid: 384-/896Environment: Fen Island Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3889 FS: DODUl Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified but 'late' Roman Hearth. Principal References: FRT 195, FS (SWC) 56.

samian

and

sarnian

and

Site: 39 23 03 OS Grid: 3919/9951 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MAR 18 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern site. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

pottery.

Site: 38 33 02 OS Grid: 3925/8334 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: CHA31 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FS (SWC) 91, 94.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 39 33 01 OS Grid: 3150/9814 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: l FRT:NF FS: WHY 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (PM) 57 - 59.

Site: 38 33 03 OS Grid: 3692/8064 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: SOM3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Occupation debris, and some 'ceramic tile'. Roman pottery includes unspecified late wares and Horningsea ware. Animal bone. Principal References: FS (SWC) 50 - 52, 54.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 39 50 01 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS:NF

107

OS Grid: 306-/976Community: FRT: 3097? Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Possible settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 196.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

OS Grid: 489-/619Site: 46 22 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4861 FS: HGS 3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 199, FS (EW) 114, 116.

Site: 39 50 02 OS Grid: 313-/985Environment: Fen Island Community: FRT: 3198? Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Plan: Description: Possible settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 197.

Site: 46 22 02 OS Grid: 484-/643Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 4864S FS: LAN 4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Coin of Magnentius. Roman pottery includes greyware, Horningsea ware and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 200, FS (EW) 127, 129 - 130.

Site: 39 50 03 OS Grid: 3860/9030 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DOD 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (SWC) 56 Ten Km Square: TL 46

OS Grid: 477-/700Site: 46 22 03 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4770 FS: COT 8 Plan: FRT Map 17 Description: Settlement. Ajar 'in the native tradition'. Roman pottery includes coarse wares. Human remains. Principal References: FRT 202, FS (EW) 135 - 137.

Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250)

OS Grid: 481-/621Site: 46 12 01 Environment: Fen Edge Commtmity: 8 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 4862 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement and industrial site. Unspecified Roman coin. Roman pottery includes coarse jars and dishes (greywares?) and an 'enormous Hofheim flagon of the 1st C', but mostly unspecified. Kiln debris. Hmnan remains. Principal References: FRT 199.

OS Grid: 481-/681Site: 46 22 04 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4868S FS:NF Plan: FRT Map 17 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes Horningsea ware, amphorae and samian. Principal References: FRT 203.

Site: 46 12 02 OS Grid: 474-/682Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4768C FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 17. Description: Settlement. Some pottery in the 'native tradition'. Roman pottery includes local coarse wares, mortaria of Flavian date and samian. Fragment of quern stone. Principal References: FRT 202.

Site: 46 22 05 OS Grid: 481-/686Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4868W FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 17. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery of second century date. Principal References: FRT 203.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350) Site: 46 22 06 OS Grid: 487-/684Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4868E FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 17. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes second century coarse wares and samian. Principal References: FRT 204.

Site: 46 13 01 OS Grid: 410-/692Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 4169 FS: WIL 15 Plan: Description: Settlement. Some possible Iron Age pottery. Unspecified coin. Roman pottery includes coarse wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 201, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350) Site: 46 13 02 OS Grid: 4740/6773 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COT 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 135 - 137.

OS Grid: 413-/618Site: 46 23 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4164 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes coarse wares and sarman. Principal References: FRT 198.

Chronological Group: 14 (0 - 450)

OS Grid: 493-/613Site: 46 23 02 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 4961 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Building stone. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 200.

Site: 46 14 01 OS Grid: 499-/692Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 4969 FS: WTB 12 Plan: FRT Map 17. Description: Settlement. Some Iron Age pottery. Building stone and roof tile. Roman pottery includes mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Two quern stones. Hmnan remains. Loom weights. Principal References: FRT 205, FS (EW) 122 - 125.

Site: 46 23 03 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1

108

OS Grid: 469-/699Community: 8 FRT: 4669

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites FS: COT 1 Plan: FRT Map 17. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes mortaria, small amounts oflate samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 201, FS (EW) 135 - 137.

Site: 46 24 03 OS Grid: 485-/664Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4866 FS: WTB 7 Plan: FRT Map 17 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes coarse wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 202, FS (EW) 122 - 125.

Site: 46 23 04 OS Grid: 4 70-/689Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 4768N FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Four fourth century AE coins, dating from 330-375. Roman pottery includes second and third century coarse wares and NVWCC. Sling stones and iron ballista bolt. Principal References: FRT 201.

Site: 46 24 04 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 4 FS: NF Description: Settlement. One includes samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 203.

Site: 46 23 05 OS Grid: 483-/659Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4865 FS: LAN6 Plan: FRT Map 17. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes coarse ware, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 202, FS (EW) 127, 129 - 130.

OS Grid: 482-/677Community: 8 FRT: 4867NW Plan: FRT Map 17 roof tile fragment. Roman pottery

Site: 46 24 05 OS Grid: 423-/610Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 4261 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Worked stone, hypocaust and flue tiles. Roman pottery includes coarse ware, samian and NVWCC. Some Saxon pottery. Other finds comprised glass vessels, parts of sculpted human torso, a lion, and an iron hanging lamp. Inhumations and cremations. Principal References: FRT 198.

Site: 46 23 06 OS Grid: 482-/676Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4867C FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 17. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes second century coarse wares and NVWCC. Ox-bones. Principal References: FRT 203.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

OS Grid: 483-/683Site: 46 23 07 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4868C FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 17. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes unspecified second century wares and mortaria. Human remains. Principal References: FRT 204.

OS Grid: 451-/608Site: 46 33 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 4560 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement site. Building stone, roof tile and painted wall plaster. Unspecified Roman hoard. Numerous inhumations in stone and wooden coffins, as well as cremations. Principal References: FRT 198.

Site: 46 23 08 OS Grid: 483-/689Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 4868NW FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 17 Description: Settlement. Building stone and roof tile. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 204.

Site: 46 33 02 OS Grid: 4814/6580 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIT 9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes Amphorae sherds. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 46 33 03 OS Grid: 4912/6822 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WTB 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 204, FS (EW) 122 - 125.

Site: 46 24 01 OS Grid: 455-/615Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 5 FRT: 4561E FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Building stone, carved stonework and roof tile. Multiple coins of Severus Alexander, Tetricus I & II and Carausius. 'Ritual' pits and timber well. Unspecified Roman pottery from late second to late fourth century. It is unclear whether or not there is continuity on this site from the Iron Age to the Roman period. Principal References: FRT 199.

Site: 46 33 04 OS Grid: 4814/6580 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LAN 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 127, 129 - 130.

Site: 46 24 02 OS Grid: 474-/681Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4768S FS: COT 10 Plan: FRT Map 17 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FRT 202, FS (EW) 135 - 137.

Site: 46 33 05 OS Grid: 4733/6588 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LAN 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 127, 129 - 130.

109

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 46 33 06 OS Grid:491-/647Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4964? FS: WTB 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes 'shelly wares' and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 200, FS (EW) 122 - 125.

Site: 46 50 09 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 201.

Site: 46 50 10 OS Grid: 442-/695Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 FRT: 4469? Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 201.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 46 50 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Villa? Principal References: FRT 198.

OS Grid: 434-/627Community: 8 FRT: 4362? Plan: -

Site: 46 50 11 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 201.

OS Grid: 453-/615Site: 46 50 02 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 FRT: 4561W? Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 199.

Site: 46 50 03 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 199.

OS Grid: 447-/688Community: 8 FRT: 4468? Plan: -

Site: 46 50 12 OS Grid: 4888/6190 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: HGS 4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Dark spread of earth. Principal References: FS (EW) 114, 116.

OS Grid: 457-/620Community: 8 FRT: 4562? Plan: -

Site: 46 50 13 OS Grid: 4969/6209 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: HGS 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 114, 116.

Site: 46 50 04 OS Grid: 483-/64 7Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 FRT: 4864NW? Status Rank: 1 FS: LAN 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 200, FE (EW) 127, 129 - 130.

Site: 46 50 14 OS Grid: 4945/6325 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: HGS 2 Plan: Description: Industrial site. Roman pottery includes greyware. Kiln debris. Principal References: FS (EW) 114, 116.

OS Grid: 485-/64 7Site: 46 50 05 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4864NE? FS: LAN 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 200, FS (EW) 127, 129 - 130.

Site: 46 50 15 OS Grid: 4951/6431 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WTB2 Plan: Description: Possible industrial site. Roman pottery includes Horningsea ware. Possible kiln site, but FS suggests that this could be the site of a sunken cargo. Principal References: FS (EW) 122 - 125.

Site: 46 50 06 OS Grid: 491-/636Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4963W? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 200.

Site: 46 50 16 OS Grid: 4921/6455 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WTB4 Plan: Description: Settlement. An area of dark soil with burnt stone. Principal References: FS (EW) 122 - 125.

Site: 46 50 07 OS Grid: 497-/634Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 4963E FS: HGS 1 Plan: Description: Settlement and industrial site? Building stone. Brooch and unspecified bronze object. Roman pottery includes Horningsea ware. Kiln debris (FRT describes part of this site as a 'pottery factory'). Principal References: FRT 200, FS (EW) 114, 116 & 117.

Site: 46 50 08 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 201.

OS Grid: 420-/654Community: 8 FRT: 4265? Plan: -

Site: 46 50 17 OS Grid: 4857 /6591 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LAN7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 127, 129 - 130.

OS Grid: 402-/672Community: 8 FRT: 4067? Plan: -

110

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites FS: COT 13 Plan: FRT Map 16. Description: Settlement. Unspecified hand made Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Quern stone fragment. Principal References: FRT 212, FS (EW) 135 - 137.

Site: 46 50 18 OS Grid: 4738 6636 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LAN9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. An area of dark soil with fragments of animal bone. Principal References: FS (EW) 127, 129 - 130.

Site: 47 13 06 OS Grid: 455-/742Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 4574 FS: HAD4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age sherds. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Bronze bracelet. FS considers it possible that an unprovenanced 'Belgic' coin known from this area came from this site. Principal References: FRT 212, FS (EW) 68 - 69.

Site: 46 50 19 OS Grid: 4811/6970 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: COT 9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 135 - 137.

Ten Km Square: TL 47

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250) Site: 47 22 01 OS Grid: 418-/714Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 4171SE FS: WIL 4 & 5 Plan: FRT Map 15 Description: Settlement. Possible mill and threshing floor. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. An area of dark soil. Quern stone fragment. Principal References: FRT 207, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Chronological Group: 11 (0 - 100)

Site: 47 11 01 OS Grid: 41 7-/722Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4172 FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 14. Description: Settlement. Unspecified wheel made sherd, with some hand made pottery, presumably LPRIA or very early Roman. Principal References: FRT 208.

Site: 47 22 02 OS Grid: 435-/701Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4370S FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 15 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes mortaria, possible Hadrianic coarse ware and Antonine samian. Quern fragment. Principal References: FRT 209.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

Site: 47 13 01 OS Grid: 419-/715Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4171NE FS: WIL 3 Plan: FRT Map 14. Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Unspecified early Roman pottery. An area of dark soil with burnt stones. Principal References: FRT 207, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Site: 47 22 03 OS Grid: 4046/7172 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WIL 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes samian. An area of dark soil. Principal References: FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Site: 47 13 02 OS Grid: 421-/709Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 4270N FS: WIL 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. One roof tile. Roman pottery includes early, Hadrianic and Antonine Samian, NVWCC and coarse wares. Quern stone. Lead vat. Principal References: FRT 208, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

OS Grid: 499-/722Site: 47 23 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 4072SW FS: WIL 14 Plan: FRT Map 15. Description: Settlement. FRT records a 'raised area'. Building stone. Roman pottery includes mortaria and NVWCC. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 205, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Site: 47 13 03 OS Grid: 435-/714Environment: Fen Island Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4371SW FS: WIL 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes coarse ware, mortaria (fourth century), samian and NVWCC. Quern stone fragment. Principal References: FRT 210, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Site: 47 23 02 OS Grid: 402-/723Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 4072C FS: WIL 14 Plan: FRT Map 15. Description: Settlement. FRT records 'chert masonry'. Roman pottery includes coarse ware, second century samian and a NVWCC beaker. Quern stone fragment. Principal References: FRT 206, FS (EW) 141 - 143.

Site: 47 13 04 OS Grid: 446-/713Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4471C FS: COT 2 Plan: FRT Map 14 Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. An area of dark soil. Quern stone fragment and animal (?) bone. Principal References: FRT 211, FS (EW) 135 - 137.

Site: 47 13 05 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1

Site: 47 23 03 OS Grid: 416-/706Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 4170 FS: WIL6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Many quern stone fragments. Principal References: FS (EW) 141 - 144.

OS Grid: 451-/702Community: 8 FRT: 4570S

111

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites local coarse wares, mortaria, Antonine and Hadrianic samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 212, FS (EW) 135 - 137.

Site: 47 23 04 OS Grid: 4098/7189 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 4171NW FS: WIL U2 Plan: FRT Map 15. Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes mortaria, samian and NVWCC. An area of dark soil. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 207, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

OS Grid: 4975/702Site: 47 23 12 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4970 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Human remains. Principal References: FRT 214.

Site: 47 23 05 OS Grid: 421-/707Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 4270E FS: WIL 7 & 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Bronze spoon. Roman pottery includes coarse ware, mortaria, Hadrianic samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 208, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

and

OS Grid: 499-/723Site: 47 23 13 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 4972 FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 16 Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes coarse ware, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 215.

OS Grid: 433-/708Site: 47 23 06 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 4370W FS: WIL 16 Plan: FRT Map 15. Description: Settlement. Hoard of unspecified Roman coins. Roman pottery includes coarse ware, mortaria, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 209, and FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Site: 47 23 14 OS Grid: 423-/705Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 4270S FS: WIL9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pennanular broach, and what FRT describes as '5 small corroded 4thC copper coins'. Roman pottery includes Oxfordshire ware and a fragment of an Oxfordshire mortaria. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 209, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

OS Grid: 436-/706Site: 47 23 07 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 4370E FS: WIL 20 Plan: FRT Map 15. Description: Possible shrine. Many finds of prestige objects from this site, including enamelled and decorated ring, a hoard contained in a wooden box (a collection of bronzes: a small bust of Antoninus Pius, two miniature cavalry men, a scepted animal with animal decoration, a bust of Minerva or Mars, four animal heads, ram, owl, raven, bull, a bust of a Goddess (Cybele?), and two small human heads, and beads. FRT accepts the contention that this is a concealed votive offering from a shrine. Roman pottery includes coarse ware, Antonine samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 209, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 47 24 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 2 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Bronze Roman pottery includes coarse pottery'. Principal References: FRT 211.

Site: 47 23 08 OS Grid: 438-/713Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4371SE FS: WIL 17 Plan: FRT Map 15. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes coarse ware, mortaria samian and NVWCC. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 211. FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Site: 47 23 09 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 4 FS: NF Description: Settlement. Roof ware, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 211.

samian

OS Grid: 449-/709Community: 8 FRT: 4470NE Plan: coin of Magnentius (AD 350 - 353). ware, samian and unspecified 'late

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 47 33 01 OS Grid: 4098/7372 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 6 FRT: 4073 FS: HAD 1 Plan: Description: Shrine. Iron Age occupation ( see site reports). Haddenham, Upper Delphs. Roof tile. Multiple Roman coin finds from this site, including a worn AE 1, an early fourth century brass coin, and three worn radiates. Several bronze objects have been found, including a bell. Unspecified late Roman pottery. Quern stone. The site is a Romano-Celtic shrine, with two phases. Sheep mandibles, hooves, and coins were deposited in a ritual context, with complete sheep and a boar burial close by. A second phase was constructed in the third century, which consisted of what FS describes as a 'square-post' structure. Principal References: FRT 206, FS (EW) 68 - 69, Evans and Hodder 1988 & 1984, Evans and Serjeantson 1980.

OS Grid: 449-/704Community: 8 FRT: 4470SE Plan: FRT Map 15. tile. Roman pottery includes coarse

Site: 47 23 10 OS Grid: 449-/711Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 4471SE FS: COT 4 Plan: FRT Map 15. Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes coarse ware, Oxfordshire ware samian and NVWCC. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 211, FS (EW) 135 - 137.

Site: 47 33 02 OS Grid: 4046/7139 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WIL 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes Horningsea ware and NVWCC. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Site: 47 23 11 OS Grid: 465-/704Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 4670 FS: COT 1 Plan: FRT Map 16. Description: Settlement. Bullock's Haste. Upstanding earthworks. Building stone. Bronze bust of Commodus. Roman pottery includes

112

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. An area of dark soil. Quern stone fragments. Animal (?) bone. Principal References: FS (SWC) 91, 94.

Chronological Group: 34 (250 - 450)

Site: 47 34 01 OS Grid: 405-/719Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 6 FRT: 4071 FS: WIL 11 Plan: FRT Map 15. Description: Settlement. Roof tile. A third century hoard of c. 500 coins, which span the reigns between Gallienus to Diocletian. Roman pottery includes a few sherds of early pottery, but mostly late (FRT states 'right to the end of Roman production'), coarse ware mortaria, one amphorae fragment and NVWCC. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 205, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Site: 48 23 02 OS Grid: 435-/893Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 4389N FS: WMB 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes Homingsea ware and other coarse wares, samian and NVWCC. An area of dark soil. Principal References: FRT 216, FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated) Site: 48 23 03 OS Grid: 4353/8855 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: CHAS Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Occupation debris. Principal References: FS (SWC) 91, 94.

Site: 47 50 01 OS Grid: 407-/729Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4072NE? FS: WIL 19 Plan: FRT Map 15. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 206, FS (EW) 141 - 144.

Samian and

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350) Site: 47 50 02 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 215.

OS Grid: 484-/769Community: FRT: 4876? Plan: -

Site: 48 33 01 OS Grid: 4613/8139 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:WMB4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Ten Km Square: TL 48 Chronological Group: 50 (Undated) Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

OS Grid: 437-/839Site: 48 50 01 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4383 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Occupation debris. Principal References: FRT 215.

Site: 48 13 01 OS Grid: 417-/853Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 4185 FS: CHA 26 Plan: See figure 11.4 Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Described by FS as 'the largest Iron Age site in the Cambridgeshire Fens'. Langwood Hill. Building stone. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 216, FS (SWC) 91, 93, 94.

Site: 48 50 02 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 216.

Site: 48 13 02 OS Grid: 4015/8466 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CHA29 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence for late Iron Age occupation. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. An area of dark soil. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FS (SWC) 91, 94.

OS Grid: 433-/890Community: 6 FRT: 4389S? Plan: -

Site: 48 50 03 OS Grid: 440-/899Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4489 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Occupation debris. Principal References: FRT 216.

Site: 48 13 03 OS Grid: 4145/8541 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CHA25 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SWC) 91, 93, 94.

Site: 48 50 04 OS Grid: 4733/8940 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MAN6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Occupation debris. Principal References: FS (SWC) 78, 80 - 81.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 48 23 01 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS: CHA3

Site: 48 50 05 OS Grid: 4428/8819 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CHA2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SWC) 91, 94.

OS Grid: 4404/8830 Community: 6 FRT:NF Plan: -

113

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 48 50 06 OS Grid: 4374/8813 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: CHA 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SWC) 91, 94.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

Site: 49 13 01 OS Grid: 448-/945Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 4494 FS: MAR 14 - 16 Plan: Description: Settlement. Building stone. FRT reports a 'solidus of Theodosius in indented Castor beaker in oak cist'. Roman pottery included samian and NVWCC. Two quern stones. Principal References: FRT 218, FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Site: 48 50 07 OS Grid: 4322/8874 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CHA9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SWC) 91, 94.

Site: 49 13 02 OS Grid: 462-/941Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4694 FS: WMB 10 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Roman pottery includes samian. Quern stone fragments. Spindle-whorl. Animal bones. Principal References: FRT 219, FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Ten Km Square: TL 49

Chronological Group: 11 (0 - 100)

OS Grid: 448-/931Site: 49 11 01 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 4493 FS: WMB 1 Plan: See figure 11.5 Description: Iron Age Earthwork. Stonea Camp, a 'd' shaped enclosure at the southern tip of Stonea Island (see plan). Numerous finds of Icenian and other Iron Age coinage and Brooches. Some pottery. Use of site appears to end with the conquest of the Icenian Client Kingdom in AD 61. Principal References: FRT 218, FS (SWC) 67, 68 & 69. See also Malim 1992 a & b, and Jackson and Potter 1997: 27 - 44.

OS Grid: 458-/953Site: 49 11 02 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4595 FS: MAR 9 Plan: FRT Map 13. Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Unspecified early Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 222, FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Age

Site: 49 13 03 OS Grid: 418-/995Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 4199S FS: MAR 27 Plan: FRT Map 13. Description: Settlement and saltern. Norwood. Brooch (Camaladunum type X). Unspecified Roman pottery. Inhumation of a child's body. Principal References: FRT 220, FS (PM) 40 - 46. See also Potter 1981.

Site: 49 13 04 OS Grid: 4785/9255 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MANS Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery, including some late material. Principal References: FS (SWC) 78, 80 - 81.

pottery.

Chronological Group 14 (0 - 450) Site: 49 11 03 OS Grid: 4540/9185 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:WMB4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Unspecified early Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SWC) 66, 67 - 72.

Age

Site: 49 14 01 OS Grid: 451-/936Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 4593N FS: WMB 18 Plan: See figure 11.6 Description: Stonea Grange. Major Fenland site, with stone tower, market place, temple, and settlement on a regular grid layout. A great deal of portable wealth (coinage and bronzes) has been discovered from this site. Full range of pottery. For details see published excavation report. Principal References: FRT 218 - 219, FS (SWC) 67-72, Jackson & Potter 1997.

pottery.

Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250)

Site: 49 12 01 OS Grid: 4220/9295 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WMB 19 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age sherds. Unspecified Roman pottery. An area of dark soil. Animal (?) bones. Principal References: FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Site: 49 14 02 OS Grid: 434-/985Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 4398 FS: MAR31, 32, 34 Plan: FRTMap 13. See figure 11.7 Description: Settlement and industrial site. Flaggrass. Unspecified early Iron Age and 'Belgic' pottery. A brooch, multiple coins (including coins of Antoninus Pius, Gallienus and Allectus) and three hoards (one ending in coins of Gallenus and Postumus) have been recorded from here. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Both iron working and salt production appear to have been practised on this site. Principal References: FRT 221 - 222, FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Site: 49 12 02 OS Grid: 4231/9353 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WMB20 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes greywares and samian. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

114

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 49 23 03 OS Grid: 475-/963Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: 4796? FS: UPW 10 Plan: FRT Map 13. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 223, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 49 22 01 OS Grid: 460-/934Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: 4693W FS: WIB 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Golden Lion Inn. Unspecified Roman pottery. Hut floors. Principal References: FRT 219, FS (SWC) 67 - 72, Potter 1965: 26.

Site: 49 22 02 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: I FS: UPW8 Description: Settlement and unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 220, Site: 49 22 03 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: I FS: MAR35 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 220,

samian and

OS Grid: 498-/979Site: 49 23 04 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: 4997 FS: UPW 18 Plan: FRT Map 13 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 223, FS (EW) 169 - 182.

OS Grid: 480-/941Community: 6 FRT: 4894 Plan: saltern site. Large quantities of

Site: 49 23 05 OS Grid: 4577/9481 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: MAR 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

FS (EW) 169-182, Potter 1965: 26. OS Grid: 407-/994Community: 6 FRT: 4099? Plan: FRT Map 13. FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Site: 49 23 06 OS Grid: 4460/9730 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: NF FS: MAR30 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Site: 49 22 04 OS Grid: 477-/957Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 4795 FS: UPW 15 Plan: FRT Map 13. Description: Settlement and saltern site. Brick and daub. Principal References: FRT 222- 223, FS (EW) 169-182.

Site: 49 23 07 OS Grid: 4570/9987 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: UPW7 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 49 22 05 OS Grid: 4452/9737 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: NF FS: MAR29 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern site. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Site: 49 23 08 OS Grid: 4612/9805 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: NF FS: UPW 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 49 22 06 OS Grid: 4632/9915 Environment: Silt fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: NF FS: UPW25 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 49 23 09 OS Grid: 4736/9795 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: UPW21 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

OS Grid: 440-/987Site: 49 22 07 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: 4498W? FS: MAR 33 Plan: FRT Map 13. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FRT 222, FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Site: 49 23 10 OS Grid: 4737/9785 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: NF FS: UPW22 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 49 23 01 OS Grid: 401-/988Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: 4098? FS: MAR 23 Plan: FRT Map 13. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 220, FS (PM) 40- 46.

Site: 49 23 11 OS Grid: 4648/9904 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: NF FS: UPW24 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 49 23 02 OS Grid: 414-/999Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: 4199N? FS: MAR 25 Plan: FRT Map 13. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 220, FS (PM) 40- 46.

Site: 49 23 12 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: I FS: MARS, 6

115

OS Grid: 459-/982Community: 6 FRT: 4598 Plan: FRT Plan 13

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FRT 222, FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4490 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 218.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 49 24 01 OS Grid: 4765/9562 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT:NF Plan: FS: UPW 14 Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 49 24 02 OS Grid: 4966/9776 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: UPW 16 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greyware, sam1an andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 49 24 03 OS Grid: 4750/9500 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: UPW26 Plan: Description: Turbary. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

OS Grid: 450-/920Community: 6 FRT: 4592 Plan: -

Site: 49 50 04 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 219.

OS Grid: 453-/934Community: 6 FRT: 4593W Plan: -

Site: 49 50 05 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 218.

OS Grid: 455-/930Community: 6 FRT: 4593S Plan: -

Site: 49 50 06 OS Grid: 457-/934Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4593E FS: WMB 15 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 219, FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 49 33 01 OS Grid: 4800/9565 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: UPW 12 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 49 50 03 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 218.

includes

Site: 49 33 02 OS Grid: 4780/9565 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: UPW 13 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 49 50 07 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 219.

OS Grid: 451-/944Community: 6 FRT: 4594W? Plan: -

Site: 49 50 08 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 219.

OS Grid: 455-/949Community: 6 FRT: 4594N? Plan: FRT Map 13

Chronological Group: 34 (250 - 450) Site: 49 50 09 OS Grid: 465-/92 7Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 5 FRT: 4692W FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Brick. Coin of Antoninus Pius. Unspecified Roman pottery. Iron plough coulter. Principal References: FRT 219.

OS Grid: 492-/988Site: 49 34 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4998? FS: UPW 9 Plan: FRT Map 13. Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes shell gritted coarse ware andNVWCC. Principal References: FRT 223, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 49 50 01 OS Grid: 414-/93 7Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4193 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 218.

Site: 49 50 02 Environment: Peat Fen

OS Grid: 447-/903Community: 6

116

Site: 49 50 10 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 219.

OS Grid: 468-/925Community: 6 FRT: 4692E? Plan: -

Site: 49 50 11 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 219.

OS Grid: 463-/931Community: 6 FRT: 4693S Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Principal References: FRT 222.

Site: 49 50 12 OS Grid: 479-/926Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4792 FS: MANS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Cremation. Principal References: FRT 219, FS (SWC) 78, 80- 81.

Site: 49 50 22 OS Grid: 466-/989Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4698 FS: UPW 23 Plan: FRT Map 13. Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FRT 222, FS (EW) 169- 182.

OS Grid: 476-/936Community: 6 FRT: 4793? Plan: -

Site: 49 50 13 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: WMB23 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 219-

Site: 49 50 23 OS Grid: 4 70-/979Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4797? FS: UPW 20 Plan: FRT Map 13 Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 223, FS (EW) 169- 182.

220, FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Site: 49 50 14 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 220.

OS Grid: 413-/982Community: 6 FRT: 4198? Plan: Unspecified Roman pottery.

Site: 49 50 24 OS Grid: 494-/968Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4996 FS: UPW 19 Plan: FRT Map 13 Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 223, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 49 50 15 OS Grid: 421-/968Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 8 FRT: 4296 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Building stone. Unspecified Roman coins. Principal References: FRT 220.

Site: 49 50 16 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS: MAR28 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 221,

Site: 49 50 25 OS Grid: 4488/9825 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MAR4 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

OS Grid: 422-/984Community: 6 FRT: 4298? Plan: FRT Map 13.

Site: 49 50 26 OS Grid: 4435/9567 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MAR 7 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

FS (PM) 40- 46.

Site: 49 50 17 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 222.

OS Grid: 434-/992Community: 6 FRT: 4399? Plan: FRT Map 13.

Site: 49 50 27 OS Grid: 4187/9978 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MAR26 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

OS Grid: 449-/956Site: 49 50 18 Environment: Fen Island Conununity: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4495? FS: MAR 8 Plan: FRT Map 13. Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 222, FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Site: 49 50 28 OS Grid: 4506/9391 Environment: Fen Island Conununity: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WMB 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

OS Grid: 445-/989Site: 49 50 19 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4498E? FS: MAR 3 Plan: FRT Map 13. Description: Settlement and saltem with turbary. Principal References: FRT 222, FS (PM) 40 -46.

Site: 49 50 20 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 222.

OS Grid: 457-/998Community: 6 FRT: 4599? Plan: FRT Map 13.

Site: 49 50 21 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement.

OS Grid: 460-/956Community: 6 FRT: 4695? Plan: FRT Map 13.

Site: 49 50 29 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS: WMB 14 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SWC)

OS Grid: 4549/9375 Community: 6 FRT: NF Plan: 67 - 72.

Site: 49 50 30 OS Grid: 4564/9325 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WMB 16 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Site: 49 50 31 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: 1

117

OS Grid: 4413/9278 Community: 6 FRT: NF

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites FS: WMB21 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC.. Principal References: FRT 224, FS (EW) 122 - 125.

Site: 49 50 32 OS Grid: 4500/9257 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WMB22 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 56 33 01 OS Grid: 5695/6435 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF Plan: FS: SWP 1 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery, includes Homingsea ware andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 114, 116.

Site: 49 50 33 OS Grid: 4686/9253 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WMB25 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Site: 56 33 02 OS Grid: 5590/6149 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: SWB 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. 'Villa'? Roof tile. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 112 - 113.

Site: 49 50 34 OS Grid: 4545/9425 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS:WMB6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 56 50 01 OS Grid: 573-/652Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 5765 FS: SWP 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Winged Villa. Building stone, wall plaster, roof tile and tesserae. Roman pottery includes mortaria. Principal References: FRT 225, FS (EW) 102, 107.

Site: 49 50 35 OS Grid: 4966/9765 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: UPW 17 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SWC) 169 - 182.

Site: 49 50 36 OS Grid: 4603/9460 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WMB 8 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (SWC) 67 - 72.

Site: 56 50 02 OS Grid: 5867/6590 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BUW4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Lead vat. Principal References: FS (EW) 112 - 113.

Site: 56 50 03 OS Grid:5710/6500 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: SWP2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 102, 107.

Site: 49 50 37 OS Grid: 4350/9900 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MAR41 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Site: 56 50 04 OS Grid: 5050/6900 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF Plan: FS: WTB 13 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 122 - 125.

Ten Km Square: TL 56

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 56 22 01 OS Grid: 5806/6540 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: BUW3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Pottery includes Homingsea ware and samian. Principal References: FS (EW) 112 - 113.

Ten Km Square: TL 57 Chronological Group: 14 (0 - 450)

Site: 57 14 01 OS Grid: 543-/752Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 5475 FS: SOH 3 Plan: FRT Map 16 Description: Settlement. A hoard, ending with issues of Commodus and his wife, and an unspecified Roman coin recovered from this site. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 227, FS (EW) 76- 79.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 56 23 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS: WTB 14

OS Grid: 503-/694Community: 8 FRT: 5069 Plan: FRT Map 17.

118

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 57 22 01 OS Grid: 512-/733Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5173SW FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 16 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FR 226.

Site: 57 33 01 OS Grid: 5924/7636 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: SOH5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (EW) 76 - 79. Chronological Group: 34 (250 - 450)

Site: 57 22 02 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS: NF Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 226.

OS Grid: 519-738Community: 8 FRT: 5173NE Plan: FRT Map 16 pottery includes samian.

Site: 57 34 01 OS Grid: 5320/7880 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELYU3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 35 - 36.

Site: 57 22 03 OS Grid: 5465/7307 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WlC 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery including greyware and samian. Principal References: FS (EW) 76 - 79.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

OS Grid: 538-/701Site: 57 50 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 5370 FS: WlC U4 Plan: FRT Map 16 Description: Settlement. Roman coin, a debased Constantine. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 227, FS (EW) 76- 79.

Site: 57 22 04 OS Grid: 5404/7178 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WlC 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FS (EW) 76 - 79.

Site: 57 50 02 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 228.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

OS Grid: 551-/780Site: 57 23 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 6 FRT: 5578 FS:ELY3 Plan: Description: Settlement or wharf. Roof tile. Pewter plate. Roman pottery includes samian. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 228, FS (EW) 35 - 36.

follies

of

OS Grid: 555-/767Community: 8 FRT: 5576? Plan: -

Site: 57 50 03 OS Grid: 5585/7815 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELY 4 Plan: Description: Settlements. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (EW) 35 - 36.

Site: 57 23 02 OS Grid: 5551/7312 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 3 FRT: NF FS: W1C4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Bronze ring, 'zoomorphic piece' and other unspecified objects. Roman pottery includes mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 76 - 79.

Site: 57 50 04 OS Grid: 5585/7700 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELY 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified possible late Iron Age. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 35 -36.

Site: 57 23 03 OS Grid: 5408/7225 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WlC 9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery including samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 76 - 79.

Site: 57 50 05 OS Grid: 5805/7903 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS:ELY6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified possible late Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone fragments. Inhumations. Principal References: FS (EW) 35 - 36.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 57 24 01 OS Grid: 523-/732Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 5273 FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 16. Description: Settlement. Courtyard villa. Building stone, rubble and roof tile. Roman coin (very worn AE of Hadrian), a fifth century hoard, mainly composed of Theodosian 4AE and pewter?. Roman pottery includes mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 226.

Site: 57 50 06 OS Grid: 5356/7743 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:ELY9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes greyware. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (EW) 35 - 36.

119

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 57 50 07 OS Grid: 5561/7386 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WIC 6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (EW) 76 - 79.

Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250)

Site: 58 12 01 OS Grid: 5690/8810 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 20 Plan: Description: Saltern. Possible late Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 57 50 08 OS Grid: 5428/7265 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WIC 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 76 - 79.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 57 50 09 OS Grid: 5404/7178 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WIC 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 76 - 79.

Site: 58 23 01 OS Grid: 5160/8382 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DOW3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 17 - 18.

OS Grid: 5-00/733Site: 57 50 10 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LTH 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 71.

Site: 58 23 02 OS Grid: 5597/8926 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 7 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 57 50 11 OS Grid: 5374/7613 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 8 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LTH2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 71.

Site: 58 23 03 OS Grid: 5575/8832 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 10 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Ten Km Square: TL 58 Site: 58 23 04 OS Grid: 5582/8970 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 11 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Chronological Group: 11 (0 - 100)

Site: 58 11 01 OS Grid: 5168/8051 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WID 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone fragments. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (EW) 41, 44 - 45.

Site: 58 23 05 OS Grid: 5634/8284 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: ELY 14 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FS (EW) 35 - 36.

Site: 58 11 02 OS Grid: 5072/8602 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DOW 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified possible late Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes greywares and samian. Principal References: FS (EW) 17 - 18.

Site: 58 11 03 OS Grid: 5116/8000 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WID 3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FS (EW) 41, 44 - 45.

Site: 58 23 06 OS Grid: 5464/8350 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: ELY 15 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 35 - 36.

pottery.

Site: 58 23 07 OS Grid: 565-/874Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5687 FS: LIP 19 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 229, FS (EW) 24 - 27.

120

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Status Rank: FRT:NF FS: LIP 53 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 58 33 01 OS Grid: 5301/8077 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: ELY 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Flue tile or hypocaust. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 35 - 36. Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 58 50 01 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: I FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 229.

Site: 58 50 10 OS Grid: 5441/8278 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF Plan: FS: ELY 8 Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes greywares. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (EW) 35 - 36.

OS Grid: 54 7-/814Community: FRT: 5481? Plan: -

Site: 58 50 11 OS Grid: 5028/8013 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WID2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FS (EW) 41, 44 - 45.

Site: 58 50 02 OS Grid: 559-/899Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5589 FS: LIP 8, 13 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 229, FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 58 50 03 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 229.

Ten Km Square: TL 59

OS Grid: 566-/881Community: FRT: 5688 Plan: -

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 59 22 01 OS Grid: 5198/9860 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: UPW(N) 5 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 96 - 115

OS Grid: 560-/894Site: 58 50 04 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5689W FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 229.

Site: 58 50 05 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 230.

Site: 59 22 02 OS Grid: 5648/9140 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LIP 45 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

OS Grid: 566-/894Community: FRT: 5689E Plan: -

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350) Site: 58 50 06 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 230.

OS Grid: 571-/891Community: FRT: 5789 Plan: -

Site: 59 23 01 OS Grid: 527-/948Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 5294N FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 14 a. Description: Settlement and saltern. Pewter jug. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Inhumation. Principal References: FRT 230.

Site: 58 50 07 OS Grid: 5584/8980 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 12 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 23 02 OS Grid: 538-/919Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 5391 FS: LIP 36 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern site. FRT records 18 'huts'. Roman hoard ending in 269-270. Roman pottery includes black burnished ware and samian. Quern stone fragments. Principal References: FRT 231, FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 58 50 08 OS Grid: 5575/8990 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LIP 23 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 58 50 09 Environment: Fen Island

Site: 59 23 03 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: LIP 22

OS Grid: 5437/8790 Community: -

121

OS Grid: 554-/903Community: FRT: 5590W Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 234, FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 23 13 OS Grid: 5389/9980 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: NOR 14 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 95 - 115.

OS Grid: 557-/901Site: 59 23 04 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: I FRT: 5590E? FS: LIP 22 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 234, FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 23 14 OS Grid: 5303/9862 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: NOR 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 95 - 115. Site: 59 23 15 OS Grid: 5315/9096 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LIP 35 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 23 05 OS Grid: 539-/996Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 5399E FS: NOR 8 Plan: Map 14 a. Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 235. FS (WEFC) 95 - 115.

OS Grid: 543-/994Site: 59 23 06 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5499? FS: NOR 6 Plan: Map 14 a. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 235. FS (WEFC) 95 - 115.

samian

and

Site: 59 23 16 OS Grid: 5535/9005 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LIP 21 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern site. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 23 07 OS Grid: 5211/9860 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: VPW6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 95 - 115.

Site: 59 23 17 OS Grid: 5648/9140 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 49 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern site. Roman pottery includes greywares and samian. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 23 08 OS Grid: 5470/9992 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: NOR4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 95 - 115.

Site: 59 23 18 OS Grid: 5058/9828 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: VPW3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 59 23 09 OS Grid: 5460/9984 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS:NOR5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 95 - 115.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 59 24 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 3 FS:NS

OS Grid: 5 34-/940Community: 6 FRT: 5394 Plan: FRT Map 14 a, see figure 11.8. Description: Settlement. Group of structures at Welney. Excavated building with clay sill walls, and a thatched roof. Two undated coin hoards, one ending with Valentinian I. 'Stray' loose Roman coinage from the site. Pewter vessels and bronze object found near by, but not necessarily connected to this site Roman pottery includes mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Inhumation. Principal References: FRT 231 - 233.

Site: 59 23 10 OS Grid: 5338/9963 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:NOR9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 95 - 115.

Site: 59 23 11 OS Grid: 5299/9943 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: NOR 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 95 - 115.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 59 33 01 OS Grid: 5041/9831 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5098? FS: VPW 4 Plan: Map 14 a. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 234, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 59 23 12 OS Grid: 5388/9990 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: NOR 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 95 - 115.

122

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 59 33 02 OS Grid: 5068/9837 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: VPW7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - I 82.

Site: 59 50 09 OS Grid: 563-/913Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: I FRT: 5691? FS: LIP 44 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 234, FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 59 50 10 OS Grid: 562-/945Environment: Silt Fen Community: FRT: 5694? Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 234.

Site: 59 50 01 OS Grid: 527-/944Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5294S? FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 14 a. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 230.

Site: 59 50 11 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 234.

OS Grid: 529-/946Site: 59 50 02 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5294E? FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 14 a. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 231.

Site: 59 50 03 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 231.

Site: 59 50 12 OS Grid: 512-/963Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5196? FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 14 a. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 234.

OS Grid: 5333-/933Community: 6 FRT: 5393? Plan: FRT Map 14 a.

Site: 59 50 13 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 234.

OS Grid: 544-/919Site: 59 50 04 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 FRT: 5491N? Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 233.

OS Grid: 518-/970Community: 6 FRT: 5197? Plan: FRT Map 14 a.

OS Grid: 520-/973Site: 59 50 14 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5297 FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 14 a. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Inhumations. Principal References: FRT 234.

OS Grid: 547-/917Site: 59 50 05 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5491E FS: LIP 41 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem site. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 233, FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 15 OS Grid: 527-/985Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5298 FS: UPWUl Plan: FRT Map 14 a. Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 235, FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 59 50 06 OS Grid: 559-/918Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5591 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 234.

Site: 59 50 07 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 234.

OS Grid: 504-/952Community: 6 FRT: 5095? Plan: FRT Map 14 a.

OS Grid: 531-/983Site: 59 50 16 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5398S? FS: UPWU3 Plan: FRT Map 14 a. Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 235, FS (EW) 169- 182.

OS Grid: 553-/933Community: FRT: 5593 Plan: pottery includes mortaria.

Site: 59 50 08 OS Grid: 563-/908Environment: Silt Fen Community: FRT: 5690? Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 234.

123

Site: 59 50 17 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 235.

OS Grid: 532-986Community: 6 FRT: 5398W? Plan: FRT Map 14 a.

Site: 59 50 18 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 235.

OS Grid: 530-/992Community: 6 FRT: 5399W? Plan: FRT Map 14 a.

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 59 50 19 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: WIMS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SWC)

Site: 59 50 29 OS Grid: 5394/9218 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 38 Plan: Description: Saltern. Possible kiln debris. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

OS Grid: 5460/9392 Community: 6 FRT:NF Plan: 67 - 72.

Site: 59 50 20 OS Grid: 5267/9937 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: VPWl Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 59 50 30 OS Grid: 5398/9218 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LIP 39 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 21 OS Grid: 5230/9838 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: VPW2 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 59 50 31 OS Grid: 5407 /9206 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 40 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 22 OS Grid: 5292/994 7 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: NDH 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 59 50 32 OS Grid: 5468/9158 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 42 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 23 OS Grid: 5575/9003 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LIP 14 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 33 OS Grid: 5518/9163 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LIP 43 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 24 OS Grid: 5605/9010 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 15 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 34 OS Grid: 5634/9133 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 46 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 25 OS Grid: 5610/9014 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 24 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 35 OS Grid: 5612/9025 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 47 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 26 OS Grid: 5611/9116 Community: Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LIP 25 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 36 OS Grid: 5617/9190 Community: Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LIP 48 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 27 OS Grid: 5605/9010 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 31 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 37 OS Grid: 5659/9131 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LIP 50 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 28 OS Grid: 5390/9228 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LIP 37 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

Site: 59 50 38 OS Grid: 5678/9125 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LIP 51 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 24 - 27.

124

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Ten Km Square: 66

Principal References: FS (EW) 99 - 100.

Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250)

Ten Km Square: 67

Site: 66 12 01 OS Grid: 612-/676Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 6167 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Some substantial structures, with timber basilican buildings of Fl avian date. Building stone and tesserae. Principal References: FRT 235.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 67 22 01 OS Grid: 6352/7015 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: FOR 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Unclear whether this sit was in continuous occupation from the Iron Age into the Roman period. Principal References: FS (EW) 93 - 94.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 66 23 01 OS Grid: 6350/6840 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: FOR 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Villa? Flue and roof tile. Wall plaster. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 93 - 94.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 67 23 01 OS Grid: 631-/739Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 6373 FS: ISL 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble, roof and flue tile, tesserae. Unspecified bronze, multiple unspecified Roman coin finds and pewter. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 236, FS (EW) 88.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 66 50 01 OS Grid: 6315/6017 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 5 FRT:NF FS: FOR 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman coin finds Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 93 - 94.

Site: 67 23 02 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 238.

Site: 66 50 02 OS Grid: 6738/6882 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CHI 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (EW) 99- 100.

OS Grid: 684-/795Community: 9 FRT: 6879 Plan: pottery includes Amphorae.

OS Grid: 687-/787Site: 67 23 03 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 6878E FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Lamps. Principal References: FRT 238.

Site: 66 50 03 OS Grid: 6600/6986 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CHI 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 99- 100.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

OS Grid: 683-/742Site: 67 33 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 6874 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible villa site. Brick and roof tile. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 236.

Site: 66 50 04 OS Grid: 6375/6732 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF Plan: FS: SNA2 Description: Settlement. Quern stone. Cremation. Principal References: FS (EW) 99 - 100.

Site: 67 33 02 OS Grid: 673-/767Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 6 FRT: 6776S FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. FRT records a 'two room building'. Brick and flue tile. Mildenhall treasure found 30 yrds from this site. Principal References: FRT 237. Painter 1977.

Site: 66 50 05 OS Grid: 6366/6872 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: SNA3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (EW) 99- 100.

Site: 67 33 03 OS Grid: 6111/7373 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 5 FRT:NF FS: SOH2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Villa? Flue and roof tile. Unspecified but third to fourth century Roman coins. Principal References: FS (EW) 76 - 79.

Site: 66 50 06 OS Grid: 6390/6868 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 3 FRT: NF FS: SNA4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Fibula brooch and three unspecified Roman coins. One blue glass bead. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear.

125

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 67 50 10 OS Grid: 6363/7180 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: FOR 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 93 - 94.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 67 50 01 OS Grid: 636-/717Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 6371? FS: FOR 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 236, FS (EW) 93 - 94.

Site: 67 50 11 OS Grid: 6635/7140 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: CHI 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Flue and roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (EW) 99 - 100.

Site: 67 50 02 OS Grid: 673-/768Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 6776N FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Brick. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 237.

OS Grid: 676-/771Site: 67 50 03 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 6777 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. FRT records 'huts'. Principal References: FRT 237.

Ten Km Square: 68

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 68 22 01 OS Grid: 699-/806Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 6980 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Brick and roof tile. Roman pottery includes samian. Inhumation. Principal References: FRT 239.

Site: 67 50 04 OS Grid: 689-/771Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 6877 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 238.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

OS Grid: 683-/786Site: 67 50 05 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 6878W FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 238.

Site: 67 50 06 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 238.

OS Grid: 688-/889Site: 68 24 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 6 FRT: 6888 FS: HCWUl Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible temple. FRT records timber framed buildings with chalk floors. Brick and roof tile. 350 coins, bronze letter for inscription, bronze hand, parts of what FRT describes as 'ceremonial head dresses'. Roman pottery includes mortaria. Two cremations. Principal References: FRT 239 - 240.

OS Grid: 690-/785Community: 9 FRT: 6978W Plan: pottery includes amphorae.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated) Site: 67 50 07 OS Grid: 691-/788Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 6978N FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Brick and roof tile. Principal References: FRT 238.

Site: 68 50 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS: FWL 190 Description: Settlement. FRT Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 240,

OS Grid: 696-/791Site: 67 50 08 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 6979 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. FRT records 'floors'. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 238.

OS Grid: 691-/895Community: 9 FRT: 6989 Plan: records a rectangular timber house. FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

Site: 68 50 02 OS Grid: 6915/8981 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: FWL201 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

Site: 67 50 09 OS Grid: 6510/7213 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: ISL 4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 88.

Site: 68 50 03 OS Grid: 6650/8626 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: HCW 31 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 55 - 57.

126

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 68 50 04 OS Grid: 6661/8621 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: HCW33 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 55 - 57.

FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 241.

Site: 69 50 02 OS Grid: 6970/9140 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: FWL54 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 36 - 38

Site: 68 50 05 OS Grid: 6662/8617 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: HCW34 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 55 - 57.

Site: 69 50 03 OS Grid: 6912/9281 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: FWL 142 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

Ten Km Square: 69

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 69 22 01 OS Grid: 6062/9510 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 5 FRT: NF FS: SRY 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 75 - 78.

Site: 69 50 04 OS Grid: 6929/9293 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: FWL 141 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

coin.

Site: 69 50 05 OS Grid: 6918/9041 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: FWL 143 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 69 23 01 OS Grid: 6123/9527 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: SRY9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 75 - 78.

Site: 69 50 06 OS Grid: 6145/9638 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: HIL 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 44 - 45.

Site: 69 23 02 OS Grid: 6140/9580 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: SRY 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Brick. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 75 - 78.

Site: 69 50 07 OS Grid: 6138/9518 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: HIL 14 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 44 - 45.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 69 33 01 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS: HIL 3 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 241,

OS Grid: 640-/981Community: FRT: 6498? Plan: -

Site: 69 50 08 OS Grid: 6330/9757 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: HIL 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 44 - 45.

FS (WEFC) 44- 45.

Site: 69 33 02 OS Grid: 6980/9270 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: FWL 80 Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible Iron Age pottery. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

Site: 69 50 09 OS Grid: 6191/9786 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: HIL21 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 44 - 45.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 69 50 01 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1

Site: 69 50 10 Environment: Fen Island Status Rank: 1 FS: HIL U6

OS Grid: 636-/996Community: FRT: 6399?

127

OS Grid: 6269/9824 Community: FRT: NF Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 44 - 45.

Site: 77 50 03 OS Grid: 728-/798Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 7279E? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 241.

Site: 69 50 11 OS Grid: 6998/9388 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MET 139 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 65, 67 - 68.

Site: 77 50 04 OS Grid: 730-/763Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 FRT: 7376? Status Rank: 3 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified bronze object. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 241.

Site: 69 50 12 OS Grid: 6152/9450 Environment: Fen Island Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: SRY6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 75 - 78.

Ten Km Square: 78 Site: 69 50 13 OS Grid: 6170/9452 Environment: Fen Island Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: SRY 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 75 - 78.

Chronological Group: 13 (0- 350) Site: 78 13 01 OS Grid: 728-/833Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 7283 FS: NS Plan: Description: Settlement. FRT records evidence of chalk walls and floors, as well as kilns. Hoard of Icenian and Roman coins (ending in AD 34) and multiple coins dating from Tetricus I to Theodosius recovered in excavations from 1948 to 1950. Other finds included 2 brooches and a bronze hanging lamp. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FRT 243.

Site: 69 50 14 OS Grid: 6121/9469 Environment: Fen Island Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: SRY 19 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 75 - 78.

Site: 78 13 02 OS Grid: 755-/837Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 7583 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement site. Iron Age A pottery. evidence for huts. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 243.

Site: 69 50 15 OS Grid: 6135/9564 Environment: Fen Island Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: SRYU2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 75 - 78.

FRT records

OS Grid: 710-/882Site: 78 13 03 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 7188 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Four bronze brooches, miniature bronze axe. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Two bone pins. lnhumations. Principal References: FRT 245 -247.

Site: 69 50 16 OS Grid: 6991/9219 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: FWL45 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

Ten Km Square: 77 Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250) Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

OS Grid: 703-881Site: 78 22 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 7088 FS: NS Plan: See figure 11.9 Description: Settlement. Courtyard villa. Building stone and roof tile. Bronze brooch, bronze tweezers, bronze ring and a bronze pin. Roman pottery includes samian. Cremation. Principal References: FRT 244 - 245, Salway 1967, Gurney 1995

Site: 77 50 01 OS Grid: 705-/795Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 6 FRT: 7079 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. FRT records a basilica timber building. Roof tile. Brooch, bronze snake headed bangle. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 241.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450) Site: 77 50 02 OS Grid: 724-/798Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 7279W FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 241.

Site: 78 24 01 OS Grid: 756-/873Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 6 FRT: 7587 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. FRT records this site as a possible temple. Roof tile. Five sheet bronze ritual diadems, silver plaques and a crown. Late brooch and unspecified Roman coins found in the area.

128

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Three pewter hoards found in the innnediate vicinity. Roman pottery includes amphorae fragments (Dressel 20). Principal References: FRT 248 - 249.

Description: Settlement. Roman pottery including saruian. Principal References: FRT 249, FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350) Chronological Group: 50 (Undated) Site: 79 23 01 OS Grid: 7002/9250 Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: FWL 128 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

OS Grid: 715-/844Site: 78 50 01 Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 7184 Plan: FS:NS Description: Settlement. Kilns. Inhumation. Principal References: FRT 242.

Site: 79 23 02 OS Grid: 7013/9392 Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MET 154 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 65, 67 - 68.

Site: 78 50 02 OS Grid: 733-/808Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 7380 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Bronze strip and unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FRT 243.

Site: 78 50 03 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 24 7 -

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 79 33 01 OS Grid: 6997/9215 Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 7092 FS: FWL43 Plan: Description: Settlement. Villa, with fourth century bathhouse. FRT records that the villa had wooden floors. Brick, building stone and roof tile. Roman pottery includes amphorae (Dressel 20). Principal References: FRT 249, FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

OS Grid: 724-/875Connnunity: 9 FRT: 7287? Plan: 248.

OS Grid: 733-/866Site: 78 50 04 Environment: Fen edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 7386 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coins. Principal References: FRT 248.

Site: 79 33 02 OS Grid: 731-/958Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 7395 FS: MET 144 Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible Bath House. Rubble, building stone and roof tile. Roman pottery includes amphorae. Principal References: FRT 250, FS (WEFC) 65, 67 - 68.

Site: 78 50 05 OS Grid: 742-/869Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 7486 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Villa. Capital fragments. Brick, roof tile, and tesserae. Unspecified hoard. Roman pottery includes mortaria. Principal References: FRT 248.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

OS Grid: 713-/909Site: 79 50 01 Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 7190NW FS: FWL U4 Plan: Description: Recorded as a bath house. Principal References: FRT 249, FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

OS Grid: 743-/873Site: 78 50 06 Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 7487 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Building Stone. Principal References: FRT 248.

Site: 79 50 02 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 249.

Site: 78 50 07 OS Grid: 786-/887Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 7888? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 249.

OS Grid: 715-/908Connnunity: 9 FRT: 7190NE Plan: -

Site: 79 50 03 OS Grid: 7010/9170 Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 6 FRT: NF FS: FWL69 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Pewter bowl. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

Ten Km Square: 79

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 79 22 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS: FWL205

Site: 79 50 04 OS Grid: 7045/9150 Environment: Fen Edge Connnunity: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: FWL92 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 36 - 38.

OS Grid: 7015/9040 Connnunity: 9 FRT: 7090 Plan: -

129

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Roman NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (PM) 28.

Site: 79 50 05 OS Grid: 7148/9516 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MET 55 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 65, 67 - 68.

pottery

includes

and

Site: 10 23 02 OS Grid: 1790/0941 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: DEJ 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

Site: 79 50 06 OS Grid: 7144/9511 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MET 56 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 65, 67 - 68.

OS Grid: 173-/075Site: 10 23 03 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1707 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 251.

Site: 79 50 07 OS Grid: 7176/9473 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MET 114 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 65, 67 - 68.

Site: 79 50 08 OS Grid: 7173/9494 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: MET 115 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FS 65, 67 - 68.

samian

and

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 10 50 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 250.

Site: 79 50 09 OS Grid: 7324/9600 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: MET 148 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 65, 67 - 68.

OS Grid: 142-/015Community: 7 FRT: 1401? Plan: -

Site: 10 50 02 OS Grid: 164-/041Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 1604 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Aisled barn (fourth century?). Coin of Crispus. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 250.

Site: 79 50 10 OS Grid: 7330/9538 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: MET 149 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 65, 67 - 68.

OS Grid: 175-/043Site: 10 50 03 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 1704? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 251.

Site: 79 50 11 OS Grid: 6998/9388 Environment: Fen Edge Conununity: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MET 139 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WEFC) 65, 67 - 68.

Site: 10 50 04 OS Grid: 192-/004Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1900? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 251.

Ten Km Square: TF 10

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 10 22 01 OS Grid: 170-/097Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 1709 FS:MADUA3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Bronze ritual crown. Principal References: FRT 252, FS (SW) 188 - 190. Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 10 23 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS: BOF 1

samian

OS Grid: 1953/0727 Community: 7 FRT:NF Plan: -

130

Site: 10 50 05 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 251.

OS Grid: 148-/066Community: 7 FRT: 1406? Plan: -

Site: 10 50 06 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 251.

OS Grid: 144-/077Community: 7 FRT: 1407W? Plan: -

Site: 10 50 07 Environment: Fen Edge

OS Grid: 148-/073Community: 7

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1407SE? FS: NS Plan:Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 251.

Site: 10 50 08 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 251.

Site: 10 50 17 OS Grid: 172-/094Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DEJU3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

OS Grid: 148-/076Community: 7 FRT: 1407E? Plan: -

Ten Km Square: TF 11

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350) Site: 10 50 09 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 251.

OS Grid: 149-/070Community: 7 FRT: 1407N? Plan: -

Site: 10 50 10 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 251.

OS Grid: 151-/067Community: 7 FRT: 1506? Plan: -

Site: 10 50 11 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 251.

OS Grid: 150-/074Community: 7 FRT: 1507W? Plan: -

Site: 10 50 12 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 251.

OS Grid: 152-/073Community: 7 FRT: 1507S? Plan: -

Site: 10 50 13 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 251.

OS Grid: 158-/070Community: 7 FRT: 1507SE? Plan: -

OS Grid: 109-/155Site: 1113 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1015? FS: THU22 Plan: Description: Settlement. Tesserae, stone sculpture. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 254, FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 1113 02 OS Grid: 1700/1063 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT: NF FS: DEJ7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble, flue and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

Site: 1113 03 OS Grid: 1092/1583 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: THU 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Chronological Group: 22

Site: 11 22 01 OS Grid: 1099/1577 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: THU 14 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 10 50 14 OS Grid: 167-/068Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1606 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes mortaria and amphorae. Principal References: FRT 251.

Site: 11 22 02 OS Grid: 1102/1573 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THU 15 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 10 50 15 OS Grid: I 75-/080Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 9 FRT: 1708? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Building stone. Unspecified coin hoard. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 252.

Site: 11 22 03 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 253.

OS Grid: 137-/139Community: 7 FRT: 1313 Plan: pottery includes samian.

Chronological Period: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 10 50 16 OS Grid: 1820/0480 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BOFU2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (PM) 28.

Site: 11 23 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1

131

OS Grid: 133-/142Community: 7 FRT: 1314

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 11 23 10 OS Grid: 1511/1097 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: DEJ 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery including greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

FS: NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 253.

OS Grid: 115-/164Site: 11 23 02 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 1116 FS: THU 2 a, b & c Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, 'white' wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 254, FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 11 23 11 OS Grid: 1587/1154 Environment: Fen Edge Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: MAD2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

Site: 11 23 03 OS Grid: 1210/1648 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: THU 4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 11 23 12 OS Grid: 1527/1108 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 2 FRT:NF FS: DEJ2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coin. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

Site: 11 23 04 OS Grid: 1189/1663 Environment: Fen Edge Commtmity: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: THU6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 11 23 13 OS Grid: 1521/1135 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: DEJ 3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

Site: 11 23 05 OS Grid: 1195/1656 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: THU7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

OS Grid: 173-/103Site: 11 23 14 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 1710 FS: MADU4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Brick. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Possible com dryer. Principal References: FRT 253, FS (SW) 188 - 190.

Site: 11 23 06 OS Grid: 1098/1570 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THU 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 11 24 01 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 3 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Roman and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 253.

Site: 11 23 07 OS Grid: 1099/1591 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THU 16 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

OS Grid: 169-/107Community: 7 FRT: 1610 Plan: pottery includes shell gritted wares

Site: 11 24 02 OS Grid: 173-/103Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DEJU4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

Site: 11 23 08 OS Grid: 1175/1754 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: THU25 a Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, 'white' wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 11 23 09 OS Grid: 1186/1796 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: THU25 b Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 11 33 01 OS Grid: 1199/1646 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: THU3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

132

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 11 33 02 OS Grid: 1186/1654 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THU 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Description: Settlement. Possible unspecified Iron age pottery. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wares andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

Site: 11 33 03 OS Grid: 1039/1791 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THU 8 Plan: Description: Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 11 44 01 OS Grid: 1070/1530 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THU24 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of early Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 11 33 04 OS Grid: 1039/1804 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: THU9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Chronological Group: 44 (350 - 450)

Site: 11 50 01 OS Grid: 109-/097Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1009 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 252.

Site: 11 33 05 OS Grid: 1090/15 71 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: THU20 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 11 50 02 OS Grid: 102-/120Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1012 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Possible early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FRT 252.

Site: 11 33 06 OS Grid: 1088/1529 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THU23 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 11 33 07 OS Grid: 1173/1651 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: THU 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 11 33 08 OS Grid: 1915/1040 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT: NF FS: DEJ 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

OS Grid: 107-/134Community: 7 FRT: 1013? Plan: -

Site: 11 50 04 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 253.

OS Grid: 103-/148Community: 7 FRT: 1014? Plan: -

Site: 11 50 05 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 253.

OS Grid: 116-/115Community: 7 FRT: 1111? Plan: -

Site: 11 50 06 OS Grid: 114-/125Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1112? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 253.

Site: 11 33 09 OS Grid: 1628/1144 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DEJ 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

Site: 11 33 10 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS: DEJ 8

Site: 11 50 03 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 252.

Site: 11 50 07 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 253.

OS Grid: 1708/1053 Community: 7 FRT:NF Plan: -

133

OS Grid: 133-/113Community: 7 FRT: 1311? Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 11 50 08 OS Grid: 110-177Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1117 FS: THUUA3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 254, FS (SW) 159 - 190.

Site: 11 50 09 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: DSNU7 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 255,

Site: 11 50 10 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: DSNU8 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 255,

Site: 12 12 02 OS Grid: 196-/219Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 1921 FS: PIN 16 Plan: FRT Map 3 Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wares and samian Principal References: FRT 260, FS (SW) 145 - 149.

OS Grid: 183-/198Community: 3 FRT: 1819? Plan: FRT Map 8a.

OS Grid: 196-/223Site: 12 12 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1922E FS: PIN 24 Plan: FRT Map 3 Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FRT 261, FS (SW) 145 - 149.

FS (SW) 171 - 172.

OS Grid: 193-/193Community: 3 FRT: 1919? Plan: FRT Map 8a.

Site: 12 12 04 OS Grid: 1200/2654 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 5 FRT: NF FS: DUN4b Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and sanuan. Principal References: FS (SW) 90 - 93.

FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 11 50 11 OS Grid: 1095/1600 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THU llb Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

OS Grid: 145-/239Site: 12 13 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1423? FS: MOR 47, 48, 49 & 74 Plan: FRT Map 3 Description: Settlement and saltern. Unspecified evidence of late Iron Age occupation. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 256, FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 11 50 12 OS Grid: 1089/1561 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THU21 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 159- 161.

Site: 12 13 02 OS Grid: 1217/2983 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 5 FRT:NF FS: DOW 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of late Iron Age occupation. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 70 - 71, 74.

Site: 11 50 13 OS Grid: 1684/1071 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DEJ9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 188 - 190.

Site: 12 13 03 OS Grid: 1638/2635 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: DUN20 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Roof tile. Roman pottery including greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 90 - 93.

Ten KM Square: TF 12

Chronological Group: 11 (0 - 100)

OS Grid: 182-/204Site: 12 11 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1820W FS: DSN 5 Plan: FRT Map 3 Description: Settlement. Hand made pottery, possibly Iron Age? Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FRT 259, FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 12 13 04 OS Grid: 1171/2421 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: MOR 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified possible evidence of Iron Age occupation. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250)

OS Grid: 169-/207Site: 12 12 01 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1620? FS: BOU 24 Plan: FRT Map 3 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FRT 258, FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 13 05 OS Grid: 1165/2400 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: MOR27 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Quern stone.

134

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 22 07 OS Grid: 1156/2342 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: MOR28 Plan: Description: Settlement. Stone and rubble. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, amphorae and samian. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 13 06 OS Grid: 1191/2482 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: MOR29 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Three stone buildings. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 22 08 OS Grid: 1670/2810 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIK 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 113 - 115

Site: 12 13 07 OS Grid: 1188/2465 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: MOR30 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Rubble. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, amphorae and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 22 09 OS Grid: 1861/2187 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN26 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 12 22 01 OS Grid: 193-/207Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1920N FS: DSB US Plan: FRT Map 3, see figure 11.10. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FRT 259, FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 12 22 10 OS Grid: 1882/2183 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN28 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and sarnian. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 22 02 OS Grid: 117-/259Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1125 FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 2. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 262.

Site: 12 22 11 OS Grid: 183 7/2231 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 32 b Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 22 03 OS Grid: 1622/2987 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 28 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 12 22 12 OS Grid: 1906/2045 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DSN7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS 171 - 172.

Site: 12 22 04 OS Grid: 1275/2783 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: RIP 23 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 80, 82, 84.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 12 23 01 OS Grid: 154-/242 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1524S? FS: MOR 40, 41, 42 Plan: FRT Map 3 Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 257, FS 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 22 05 OS Grid: 1466/2529 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: HAC 28 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares and sarnian. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

OS Grid: 162-/248Site: 12 23 02 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1624N FS: MOR 34, 35, 36 Plan: FRT Map 3 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 258, FS 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 22 06 OS Grid: 1169/2411 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR 16 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 23 03 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 4 FS: MOR44

135

OS Grid: 163-/245Community: 2 FRT: 1624S Plan: FRT Map 3

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wears, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 258, FS 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 23 12 OS Grid: 148-/2 71Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 1427 FS: DUN 22, 23, 24, 25 Plan: FRT Map 2, see figure 11.16. Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 263 - 264, FS (SW) 90 - 93.

OS Grid: 174-/242Site: 12 23 04 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 1724 FS: PIN 8 Plan: FRT Map 3, see figure 11.11. Description: Settlement and saltem. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 258, FS (SW) 145 - 149.

OS Grid: 153-/258Site: 12 23 13 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 1525N? FS: HAC 3, 7 Plan: FRT Map 2 Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 264, FS (SW) 102, 104.

OS Grid: 186-/203Site: 12 23 05 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1820E FS: DSN 6 Plan: FRT Map 3. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 259, FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 12 23 06 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: PIN 32a Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 259,

Site: 12 23 14 OS Grid: 159-/279Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 1527 FS: RIP 1, 2, 3 Plan: FRT Map 2, see figure 11.17. Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 264, FS (SW) 80, 82, 84.

OS Grid: 183-/223Commtmity: 3 FRT: 1822W? Plan: FRT Map 3

OS Grid: 155-/283Site: 12 23 15 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 1528S FS: RIP 4 - 11 Plan: FRT Map 2, see figure 11.18. Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 264 - 265, FS (SW) 80, 82, 84.

FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 07 OS Grid: 195-/204Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1920S FS: DSN U6 Plan: FRT Map 3, see figure 11.12. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 260, FS (SW) 171 - 172.

OS Grid: 159-/298Site: 12 23 16 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1529? FS: POI 16 Plan: FRT Map 2 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 265, FS (SW) 45, 47 - 48.

OS Grid: 192-/221Site: 12 23 08 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1922W FS: PIN 17, 18, 19 Plan: FRT Map 3, see figure 11.13. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 260, FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 17 OS Grid: 163-/263Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 1626 FS: DUN 15 - 19 & HAC 1 Plan: FRT Map 2, see figure 11.19. Description: Settlement. Rubble, roof and flue tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wares, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 265, and FS (SW) 90 - 93 & 102, 104.

Site: 12 23 09 OS Grid: 194-/234Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1923 FS: PIN 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 Plan: FRT Map 3, see figure 11.14. Description: Settlement and industrial site. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 261, FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 18 OS Grid: 1688/2877 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

OS Grid: 138-/263Site: 12 23 10 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1326S? FS: DUN 9 Plan: FRT Map 2 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 262, FS (SW) 90- 93.

Site: 12 23 19 OS Grid: 1694/2885 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 12 23 11 OS Grid: 1460/2658 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1425 FS: HAC 2 7 Plan: FRT Map 2, see figure 11.15 Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 263, FS (SW) 102, 104.

136

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 12 23 20 OS Grid: 1828/2897 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: GOS 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wares, sarnian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 23 29 OS Grid: 1472/2560 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: HAC6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 23 21 OS Grid: 1747/2866 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Possible quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 12 23 30 OS Grid: 1192/2490 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: HAC 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 23 22 OS Grid: 1690/2909 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 19 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 12 23 31 OS Grid: 1144/2583 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT: NF FS: HAC 16 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 23 23 OS Grid: 1395/2743 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: RIP 16 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 80, 82, 84.

Site: 12 23 32 OS Grid: 1148/2592 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT: NF FS: HAC 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 23 24 OS Grid: 1185/2631 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: DUN6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 90 - 93.

Site: 12 23 33 OS Grid: 1141/2556 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: HAC 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 24 25 OS Grid: 1188/2678 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT: NF FS: DUN21 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, sarnian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 90 - 93.

Site: 12 23 34 OS Grid: 1829/2229 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 32 a Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 26 OS Grid: 1480/2723 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DUN26 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, sarnian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 90 - 93.

Site: 12 23 35 OS Grid: 1073/2482 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: HACU2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 23 27 OS Grid: 1572/2592 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: HAC4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 23 28 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: HAC 5 a

Site: 12 23 36 OS Grid: 1653/2421 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

OS Grid: 1595/2600 Community: 2 FRT: NF Plan: -

137

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 37 OS Grid: 1619/2462 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: MOR45 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 23 46 OS Grid: 1779/2219 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 30 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 38 OS Grid: 1428/2455 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR59 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 23 47 OS Grid: 1773/2226 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 31 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 39 OS Grid: 1595/2268 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: BOU 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 23 48 OS Grid: 1826/2244 Environment: Silt Fen Commtmity: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 34 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 40 OS Grid: 1628/2255 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: BOU 15 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 23 49 OS Grid: 1903/2325 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 49 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 41 OS Grid: 1685/2294 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS:BOU17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white ware, black burnished ware, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 23 50 OS Grid: 1990/2259 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 60 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 42 OS Grid: 1958/2565 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 51 OS Grid: 1395/2490 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR64 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 23 43 OS Grid: 1865/2474 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 52 OS Grid: 1622/2442 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR46 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 23 44 OS Grid: 1931/2223 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 20 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 45 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: PIN22

Site: 12 23 53 OS Grid: 1880/2194 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN27 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

OS Grid: 1915/2310 Community: 3 FRT: NF Plan: -

138

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 12 23 54 OS Grid: 139-/267Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1326N FS: DUN 12, 13 Plan: FRT Map 2 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 262, FS (SW) 90 - 93.

Site: 12 33 04 OS Grid: 12 13/2712 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: DUNS Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble, building stone and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 90 - 93.

OS Grid: 157-/252Site: 12 23 55 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1525S FS: HAC 2 Plan: FRT Map 2 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 264, FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 33 05 OS Grid: 1689/2796 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 23 56 OS Grid: 1192/263 8 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT: NF FS: DUNS Plan: Description: Settlement. Stone and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 90 - 93.

Site: 12 33 06 OS Grid: 1682/2760 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 14 a Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 12 33 07 OS Grid: 1570/2650 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 15 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 24 01 OS Grid: 145-/249Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1424 FS: HAC 30, 31, MOR 55-58 Plan: FRT Map 2 & 3, see figure 11.20. Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian, and NVWCC. Some evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FRT 256, FS (SW) 102, 104, 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 33 08 OS Grid: 1610/2419 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 24 02 OS Grid: 1136/2567 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: HAC 15 a Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 33 09 OS Grid: 1174/2413 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR 15 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of late Iron Age occupation. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Unclear whether this site was in continuous occupation from the late Iron Age until the late Roman period. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 12 33 01 OS Grid: 1688/2901 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 7 a Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 12 33 10 OS Grid: 1050/2374 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: MOR32 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 33 02 OS Grid: 1158/2768 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: RIP 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 80, 82, 84.

Site: 12 33 11 OS Grid: 1550/2425 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR43 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 33 03 OS Grid: 1160/2784 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: RIP 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, white wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 80, 82, 84.

Site: 12 33 12 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: DSN3

139

OS Grid: 1775/2215 Community: 3 FRT:NF Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, amphorae and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 12 33 21 OS Grid: 1779/2030 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DSN 4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 12 33 13 OS Grid: 1125/2098 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BOU 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 33 22 OS Grid: 1382/2480 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR65 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery greywares, shell gritted wares, amphorae and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 33 14 OS Grid: 1137/2287 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: BOU 4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

includes

Site: 12 33 23 OS Grid: 1372/2462 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR67 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 33 15 OS Grid: 1125/2263 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: BOU5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, amphorae and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 33 24 OS Grid: 1251/2819 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: RIP 25 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 80, 82, 84.

Site: 12 33 16 OS Grid: 1045/2150 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: BOU 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Chronological Group: 34 (250 - 450)

Site: 12 34 01 OS Grid: 1285/2998 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Some evidence of early AngloSaxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 12 33 17 OS Grid: 1660/2185 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BOU21 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 34 02 OS Grid: 1772/2888 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 16 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Some evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 12 33 18 OS Grid: 1872/2460 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 33 19 OS Grid: 1762/2466 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 34 03 OS Grid: 1939/2686 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIK 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Some evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 113 - 115.

Site: 12 33 20 OS Grid: 1829/2238 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 33 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 34 04 OS Grid: 1931/2684 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIK 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Some evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 113 - 115.

140

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 12 34 05 OS Grid: 1927/2698 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: PIK 19 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Quern stone. Some evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 113 - 115.

Site: 12 50 04 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Turbary. Principal References: FRT 258.

Site: 12 50 05 OS Grid: 171-/239Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1723 FS: PIN 1 Plan: FRT Map 3 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FRT 258, FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 34 06 OS Grid: 1032/2134 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: BOU25 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Quern stone. Some evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 06 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: DSNU4 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 259,

Site: 12 34 07 OS Grid: 1019/2155 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 4 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: BOU26 Plan:Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Some evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 07 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: PIN21 Description: Saltern. Principal References: FRT 259,

Site: 12 34 08 OS Grid: 1031/2145 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT: NF FS: BOU30 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and flue and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, amphorae and NVWCC. Quern stone. Some evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Chronological Group: 44 (350 - 450)

Site: 12 44 03 OS Grid: 1090/2535 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: HAC 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 50 01 OS Grid: 1543/2453 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1524N FS: MOR U3 Plan: FRT Map 3. Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 257, FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 03 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: DSNU2 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 258,

OS Grid: 188-/212Community: 3 FRT: 1821? Plan: FRT Map 3 FS (SW) 171 - 172.

OS Grid: 186-/225Community: 3 FRT: 1822E Plan: FRT Map 3 FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 50 08 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 263.

OS Grid: 147-/267Community: 2 FRT: 1426? Plan: FRT Map 2

Site: 12 50 09 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: DOWUl Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 265,

OS Grid: 157-/288Community: 2 FRT: 1528? Plan: FRT Map 2 FS (SW) 70- 71, 74.

Site: 12 50 10 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 265.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 12 50 02 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: I FS: DSNU3 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 258,

OS Grid: 171-/220Community: 3 FRT: 1722? Plan: FRT Map 3.

OS Grid: 162-/253Conununity: 2 FRT: 1625? Plan: FRT Map 2

Site: 12 50 11 OS Grid: 1545/2998 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI25 Plan: Description: Saltern. Middle Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

OS Grid: 177-/209Community: 3 FRT: 1720? Plan: FRT Map 3.

Site: 12 50 12 OS Grid: 1549/2960 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: POI26 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

FS (SW) 171 - 172.

OS Grid: 175-/213Community: 3 FRT: 1721? Plan: FRT Map 3.

Site: 12 50 13 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: GOS 27

FS (SW) 171 - 172.

141

OS Grid: 1675/2953 Community: 2 FRT:NF Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 12 50 23 OS Grid: 1541/264 7 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DUN 14 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 90 - 93.

Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and white wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 12 50 14 OS Grid: 1483/2926 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DOW9 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 70 - 71, 74.

Site: 12 50 24 OS Grid: 1508/2600 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: HAC8 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 50 15 OS Grid: 1372/2888 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DOW 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (SW) 70 - 71, 74.

Site: 12 50 25 OS Grid: 1445/2601 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: HAC 9 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 50 16 OS Grid: 1193/2963 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: DOW 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Building stone. Roman pottery includes greywares, white wares, mortaria and amphorae. Principal References: FS (SW) 70 - 71, 74.

Site: 12 50 26 OS Grid: 1436/2591 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: HAC 10 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 50 17 OS Grid: 1402/2864 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: RIP 12, 13 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery includes white wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 80, 82, 84.

Site: 12 50 27 OS Grid: 1168/2542 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: HAC 19 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and mortaria. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 50 18 OS Grid: 1398/2776 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: RIP 14, 15 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 80, 82, 84.

Site: 12 50 28 OS Grid: 1166/2549 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: HAC20 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 50 19 OS Grid: 1773/2209 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DSN2 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 12 50 29 OS Grid: 1469/2506 Environment: Silt Fen Conununity: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: HAC 29 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 50 20 OS Grid: 1751/2188 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DSN 1 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 12 50 30 OS Grid: 1450/253 7 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: HAC 32 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 102, 104.

Site: 12 50 21 OS Grid: 1372/2626 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DUN 10 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 90 - 93.

Site: 12 50 31 OS Grid: 1675/2614 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIK 16 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (SW) 113 - 155.

Site: 12 50 22 OS Grid: 1382/2674 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DUN 11 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 90 - 93.

Site: 12 50 32 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: MOR 1 Description: Saltern.

142

OS Grid: 1257/2455 Community: FRT: NF Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

FS: MOR26 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 33 OS Grid: 1238/2452 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR2 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 43 OS Grid: 1644/2331 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR33 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and white wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 34 OS Grid: 1242/2458 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR3 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 44 OS Grid: 1480/2416 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR51 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 35 OS Grid: 1251/2451 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR4 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 45 OS Grid: 1224/2409 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR61 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age activity. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 36 OS Grid: 1341/2476 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR 7 Plan: Description: Saltern Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 46 OS Grid: 1092/2315 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT: NF FS: MOR62 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble, flue and roof tile Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 37 OS Grid: 1526/2350 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR20 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 47 OS Grid: 1605/2257 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BOU 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 38 OS Grid: 1524/2341 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR21 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 39 OS Grid: 1519/2339 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR22 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 48 OS Grid: 1622/2252 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: BOU 14 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 40 OS Grid: 1519/2282 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR23 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 49 OS Grid: 1679/2278 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BOU 18 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 41 OS Grid: 1178/2298 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FR T:NF FS: MOR24 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 50 OS Grid: 1638/2256 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: BOU 16 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 42 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

OS Grid: 1442/2497 Community: 2 FRT: NF

Site: 12 50 51 Environment: Silt Fen

143

OS Grid: 1653/223 8 Community: 2

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BOU 19 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 61 OS Grid: 1842/2173 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN25 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 50 52 OS Grid: 1688/2212 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BOU20 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 62 OS Grid: 1816/2203 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 29 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 50 53 OS Grid: 1676/2142 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BOU22 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 63 OS Grid: 1997/2252 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 61 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 50 54 OS Grid: 1120/2201 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BOU28 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 64 OS Grid: 1751/2188 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DSN 1 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172

Site: 12 50 55 OS Grid: 1130/2205 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BOU29 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 65 OS Grid: 1846/2612 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIK 9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Some evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 113 - 115.

OS Grid: 171-/217Site: 12 50 56 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BOU32 Plan: Description: Turbary. Principal References: FS (SW) 135 - 138.

Site: 12 50 66 OS Grid: 1098/2338 Environment: Fen Edge Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR63 Plan: Description: Settlement. Iron slag. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 57 OS Grid: 1789/2461 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 50 67 OS Grid: 1385/2465 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR66 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 58 OS Grid: 1780/2482 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 11 a Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 50 68 OS Grid: 1175/2409 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR 72 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Site: 12 50 59 OS Grid: 1866/2534 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 12 50 60 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: PIN23 Description: Settlement.

Site: 12 50 69 OS Grid: 1540/2310 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MOR 72 Plan: Description: Turbary. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

OS Grid: 1974/2222 Community: 3 FRT:NF Plan: -

144

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 12 50 70 OS Grid: 1485/2355 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: MOR 73 Plan: Description: Turbary. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

Status Rank: 4 FRT: 1330? FS: POI 9, 10, 12 - 15 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roof and flue tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 266, FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 12 50 71 OS Grid: 154-/244Environment: Silt Fen Community: 2 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MOR U1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SW) 122, 125 - 127.

OS Grid: 144-/307Site: 13 23 02 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1430? FS: POI 24 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC Principal References: FRT 266-267, FS (SW) 45, 47 -48.

Ten KM Square: 13

OS Grid: 157-/313Site: 13 23 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1531 FS: POI 17, 21, 23 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 266- 267, FS (SW) 45, 47 - 48.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

Site: 13 13 01 OS Grid: 165-/335Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1633 FS: BIL 10 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 267 - 268, FS (SW) 20, 23 -24.

Site: 13 23 04 OS Grid: 157-/339Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1533? FS: BIL 9 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 267, FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 13 02 OS Grid: 1333/3286 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: POI43 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified late Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and white wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 23 05 OS Grid: 164-/312Environment: Silt Fen Community: I Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1631 FS: GOS 24, 26, U8 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 267, FS 54, 58.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250) OS Grid: 172-/305Site: 13 23 06 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1730? FS: GOS 5, 6 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 268 - FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 22 01 OS Grid: 1104/3367 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: BIL 24 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

OS Grid: 172-/336Site: 13 23 07 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1733? FS: QUA2 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 268, FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 22 02 OS Grid: 1702/3004 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 23 08 OS Grid: 184-/309Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 1830? FS: GOS 14, 35. Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 268, FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 22 03 OS Grid: 1664/3247 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, white wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 23 09 OS Grid: 1434/3410 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: BIL 5 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 13 23 01 Environment: Peat Fen

OS Grid: 136-/302Community: 1

145

includes

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 23 18 OS Grid: 1292/3202 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: POI28 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 23 10 OS Grid: 1665/3342 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BIL 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 23 19 OS Grid: 1598/3245 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, saruian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 23 11 OS Grid: 1236/3384 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: BIL 3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Building stone, roof tile and tesserae. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, saruian ware and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 23 20 OS Grid: 1243/3198 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: POI 30 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Middle Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 23 12 OS Grid: 1844/3376 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: QUA5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, amphorae, saruian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 23 21 OS Grid: 1243/3155 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 3 FRT: NF FS: POI42 Plan: Description: Settlement. Hoard, 38 coins, ending in AD 333. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, amphorae, saruian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 23 13 OS Grid: 1930/3341 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, saruian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 23 22 OS Grid: 1636/3189 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: POI42 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 23 14 OS Grid: 1944/3347 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 23 23 OS Grid: 1266/3251 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: POI 50 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 23 15 OS Grid: 1975/3224 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: QUA30 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 23 24 OS Grid: 1668/3012 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 23 16 OS Grid: 1835/3256 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA 32 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, saruian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 23 25 OS Grid: 1713/3105 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, saruian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 23 17 OS Grid: 1910/3270 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA35 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, saruian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 23 26 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 7 FS: GOS 10a

146

OS Grid: 1669/3256 Community: 1 FRT:NF Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Stone. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, stone gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 23 35 OS Grid: 1145/3028 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: DOW6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Rubble and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 70 - 71, 74.

Site: 13 23 27 OS Grid: 1665/3261 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: GOS 10b Plan: Description: Settlement. Building stone. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

OS Grid: 165-/303Site: 13 24 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1630 FS: GOS 25 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Some evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FRT 267, FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 23 28 OS Grid: 1669/3271 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 10c Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 23 29 OS Grid: 1669/3281 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 7 FRT:NF FS: GOS 10d Plan: Description: Settlement. Building stone and roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 24 02 OS Grid: 1649/3226 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 6 FRT:NF FS: POI41 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified bronze object. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Some evidence of early Anglo - Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 23 30 OS Grid: 1757/3097 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 24 03 OS Grid: 1747/3170 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 37 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Some evidence of early Anglo - Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 23 31 OS Grid: 1897/3054 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 32 a-c Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Chronological group: 33

OS Grid: 173-/315Site: 13 33 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 8 FRT: 1731 FS: NF Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Building stone and roof tile. Coin of Magnentius. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 268.

Site: 13 23 32 OS Grid: 1898/3022 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 33a Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 33 02 OS Grid: 170-/327Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1732 FS: QUA28 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 268, FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 23 33 OS Grid: 1897/3012 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 33b Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 33 03 OS Grid: 185-/325Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1832 FS: QUA U4 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 269, FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 23 34 OS Grid: 1755/3158 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: GOS 36 Plan: Description: Settlement. Flue tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 33 04 OS Grid: 180-/333Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1833S FS: QUA U3 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 269, FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

147

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 13 33 05 OS Grid: 180-/33 7Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1833N? FS: QUA4 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 269, FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 33 14 OS Grid: 1579/3146 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI? Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 33 15 OS Grid: 1391/3170 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: POI 33 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 33 06 OS Grid: 1555/3342 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: BIL 12 Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 33 16 OS Grid: 1740/313 8 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI45 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 33 07 OS Grid: 1004/3357 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: BIL 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 33 17 OS Grid: 1828/3156 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 33 08 OS Grid: 1720/3323 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 33 18 OS Grid: 1830/3153 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 2a Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 33 09 OS Grid: 1942/3162 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:QUA31 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 33 19 OS Grid: 1830/3161 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 2b Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 33 10 OS Grid: 1899/3288 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA 34 a & b Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, amphorae and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 33 20 OS Grid: 1830/3145 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 2c Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 33 11 OS Grid: 1072/3300 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: POI2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 33 21 OS Grid: 1838/3162 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 31 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 33 12 OS Grid: 1224/3300 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: POI 3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 33 22 OS Grid: 1757/3097 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 12a Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 33 13 OS Grid: 1113/3049 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DOW7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, mortaria and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 70 - 71, 74.

148

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 13 33 23 OS Grid: 1762/3089 Environment: Silt Fen Community: I Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: GOS 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Chronological Group: 44 (350 -450)

Site: 13 44 01 OS Grid: 1056/3339 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BIL 16 Plan: Description: Settlement. Some evidence of early Anglo-Saxon occupation. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 33 24 OS Grid: 1815/3183 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: GOS 23 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, stone gritted wares, white wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 13 33 25 OS Grid: 1770/3106 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS U1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 33 26 OS Grid: 1899/3006 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS 33c Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 33 27 OS Grid: 1883/3025 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 34 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 50 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 266.

OS Grid: 143-/318Community: 1 FRT: 1431? Plan: FRT Map le

Site: 13 50 02 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 267.

OS Grid: 155-/325Community: 1 FRT: 1532? Plan: FRT Map le

Site: 13 50 03 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 267.

OS Grid: 156-/344Community: 1 FRT: 1534? Plan: FRT Map le

Site: 13 50 04 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: BIL U7 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 267,

OS Grid: 164-/327Community: 1 FRT: 1632? Plan: FRT Map le FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Chronological Group: 34 (250 - 450)

Site: 13 34 01 OS Grid: 1050/3400 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BIL 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 34 02 OS Grid: 1712/3305 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA33 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 50 05 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 268.

OS Grid: 162-/344Community: 1 FRT: 1634W? Plan: FRT Map le

Site: 13 50 06 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 268.

OS Grid: 167-/346Community: 1 FRT: 1634E? Plan: FRT Map le

Site: 13 50 07 OS Grid: 168-/343Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1634S FS: NF Plan: FRT Map le Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 268.

Site: 13 34 03 OS Grid: 1958/3025 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: GOS 15 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and white wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 50 08 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 270

149

OS Grid: 164-/352Community: 1 FRT: 1635? Plan: FRT Map le

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 50 09 OS Grid: 165-/3 86Environment: Silt Fen Community: I Status Rank: I FRT: 1638 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 270.

Site: 13 50 19 OS Grid: 1995/3306 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: QUA8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 50 10 OS Grid: 184-/365Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1836 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 270.

Site: 13 50 11 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 270.

Site: 13 50 20 OS Grid: 1905/3167 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: QUAU2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

OS Grid: 198-/397Community: FRT: 1939? Plan: -

Site: 13 50 21 OS Grid: 180-/336Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA U5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 50 12 OS Grid: 1420/3394 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BIL 4 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 50 22 OS Grid: 194-/325Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA U6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31, 33.

Site: 13 50 13 OS Grid: 1432/3394 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: BIL 6 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 50 23 OS Grid: 1421/3240 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: POI 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 50 14 OS Grid: 1536/3373 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BIL 7 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 50 24 OS Grid: 1239/3180 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: POI 32 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 50 15 OS Grid: 1543/3377 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BIL 8 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 50 25 OS Grid: 1449/3204 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI 34 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

OS Grid: 164-/304Site: 13 50 16 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: GOS U3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 54, 58.

Site: 13 50 26 OS Grid: 1467/3278 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI 36 Plan: Description: Saltern. Possible Iron Age activity. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 13 50 17 OS Grid: 1301/3452 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: BIL 22 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 20, 23 - 24.

Site: 13 50 18 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS: BIL 23

Site: 13 50 27 OS Grid: 1491/3278 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI 37 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

OS Grid: 1108/3364 Community: 7 FRT: NF Plan: -

150

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 13 50 28 OS Grid: 1501/3266 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI 38 Plan: Description: Saltern. Possible Iron Age activity. Unspecified Roman pottery. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Ten KM Square: TF 20

Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250)

Site: 20 12 01 OS Grid: 24 7-/02 7Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2402? FS: THO25 Plan: FRT Map 14b Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of occupation. Principal References: FRT 273, FS (PM) 51 - 52.

Site: 13 50 29 OS Grid: 1454/3289 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI 39 Plan: Description: Saltern. Possible Iron Age activity. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Iron

Age

OS Grid: 250-/015Site: 20 12 02 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 2501? FS: THO 30 Plan: FRT Map 14b Description: Settlement. Unspecified possible Iron Age pottery. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes samian. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 273, FS (PM) 51 - 52.

Site: 13 50 30 OS Grid: 1446/3295 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 1 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI40 Plan: Description: Saltern. Possible Iron Age activity. Coded as 'undated' as the period of Roman occupation is unclear. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 20 12 03 OS Grid: 2521/0207 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: THO 31 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Roman pottery includes sarnian. Principal References: FS (PM) 51 - 52.

Site: 13 50 31 OS Grid: 1235/3060 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: POI47 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 20 22 01 OS Grid: 2483/0339 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: THO 6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes sarnian. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (PM) 51 - 52.

Site: 13 50 32 OS Grid: 1231/3086 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: POI48 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Site: 20 22 02 OS Grid: 2142/0195 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: EYE 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Human remains. Principal References: FS (PM) 33 -35.

Site: 13 50 33 OS Grid: 1229/3091 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: POI49 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 45, 4 7 - 48.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

OS Grid: 239-/022Site: 20 23 01 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 2302E FS: EYE 1 Plan: FRT Map 14b Description: Settlement. Roof Tile. Roman pottery includes NWVCC. Quern stone. Stone coffin. Principal References: FRT 273, FS (PM) 33 - 35.

Ten KM Square: TF 14

Chronological group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 14 50 01 OS Grid: 182-/442Environment: Fen Edge Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 1844 FS:NS Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 270 - 271.

Site: 20 23 02 OS Grid: 245-/04 7Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 2404? FS: EYE 5 Plan: FRT Map 14b Description: Settlement. Brick, roof and flue tile. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 273, FS (PM) 33 - 35.

Site: 20 23 03 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 4 FS: EYE 8

151

OS Grid: 2504/0605 Community: 7 FRT:NF Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (PM) 33 - 35.

FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 274.

Site: 20 23 04 OS Grid: 2522/0630 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: EYE 9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (PM) 33 - 35.

Site: 20 50 08 OS Grid: 2490/0311 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THO 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (PM) 51 - 55.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350) Site: 20 50 09 OS Grid: 2830/0380 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THO 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (PM) 51 - 55.

Site: 20 33 01 OS Grid: 2850/0310 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THO 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (PM) 51 - 52.

Ten KM Square: TF 21 Chronological Group: 50 (Undated) Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250) Site: 20 50 01 OS Grid: 209-/007Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 2000 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 14b Description: Settlement. Brick and roof tile. Principal References: FRT 272.

Site: 2112 01 OS Grid: 220-/198Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2219N FS: SPA 2 Plan: FRT Map 6, see figure 11.21. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares. Principal References: FRT 281, FS (SW) 169, 171 - 172.

OS Grid: 214-/029Site: 20 50 02 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 2102 FS: EYE 17 Plan: FRT Map 14b Description: Industrial site. Roof tile. Wharf, possible tile depot. Possible tile kiln. Principal References: FRT 33 - 35.

Site: 20 50 03 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS: NF Description: Settlement. Possible Principal References: FRT 273.

OS Grid: 233-/023Community: 7 FRT: 2302W Plan: FRT Map 14b com dryer.

Site: 20 50 04 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 273.

OS Grid: 250-/024Community: 7 FRT: 2502 Plan: FRT Map 14b

Site: 20 50 05 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 273.

OS Grid: 260-/029Community: 7 FRT: 2602? Plan: FRT Map 14b

Site: 20 50 06 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 274.

OS Grid: 293-/095Community: FRT: 2909W? Plan: -

Site: 20 50 07 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

OS Grid: 287-/117Site: 2113 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2811 FS: CRO 1-3 Plan: FRT Map 8b, see figure 11.22. Description: Settlement and saltem. Possible Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 275 - 276, FS (SW) 198,200,202.

OS Grid: 292-/119Site: 2113 02 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2911 W FS: CRO 7 Plan: FRT Map 8b Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FRT 276, FS (SW) 194,200,202.

OS Grid: 294-/124Site: 2113 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2912W FS: CRO 8 - 10 Plan: FRT Map 8b Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 277, FS (SW) 198,200,202.

OS Grid: 298-/122Site: 2113 04 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2912E FS: CRO 11 & 12 Plan: FRT Map 8b Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 277, FS (SW) 198,200,202.

OS Grid: 297-/092Community: FRT: 2909E?

152

includes

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 2113 05 OS Grid: 298-/139Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2913 FS: CRO 36 Plan: FRT Map 8b, see figure 11.23. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 277 - 278, FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

FS: COW 41 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250) OS Grid: 211-/184Site: 2113 06 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2118 FS: DEN 11 Plan: FRT Map 6, see figure 11.24. Description: Settlement and saltem. Iron Age briquetage. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 280, FS (SW) 171, 172.

OS Grid: 292-/149Community: 4 FRT: 2914 Plan: FRT Map 6 & 8b, see figure 11.25. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 278 - 279.

Site: 21 22 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS

OS Grid: 264-/167Site: 2113 07 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 2616? FS: COW 22 & 23 Plan: FRT Map 6 Description: Settlement and saltern. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 280, FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 22 02 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 279.

Site: 21 22 03 OS Grid: 2675/1669 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

OS Grid: 2 73-/164Site: 2113 08 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2716W FS: WES 1-7 Plan: FRT Map 6. Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Seven sites mapped beyond the parish boundary of Cowbit - tightly clustered saltern sites and treated here as a single group. Principal References: FRT 281 - 282. FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 22 04 OS Grid: 2685/1817 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW8 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery greywares, shall gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

OS Grid: 2 75-/162Site: 2113 09 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 2716S FS: WES 1-7 Plan: FRT Map 6. Description: Settlement and salterns. Brick and roof tile. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Seven sites mapped beyond the parish boundary of Cowbit - tightly clustered saltern sites and treated here as a single group. Principal References: FRT 282, FS (SW) 178 - 179.

includes

Site: 21 22 05 OS Grid: 2106/1839 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DEN8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 2113 10 OS Grid: 276-/165Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 2716E FS: WES 1-7 Plan: FRT Map 6. Description: Settlement and saltem. Brick. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Seven sites mapped beyond the parish boundary of Cowbit - tightly clustered saltern sites and treated here as a single group. Principal References: FRT 283 - 284. FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 22 06 OS Grid: 2900/1419 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF Plan: FS: CRO 30 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202

Site: 21 22 07 OS Grid: 2187/1885 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DEN 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172

Site: 2113 11 OS Grid: 277-/169Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2716N FS: WES 1-7 Plan: FRT Map 6. Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares. Quern stone. Seven sites mapped beyond the parish boundary of Cowbit - tightly clustered saltern sites and treated here as a single group. Principal References: FRT 284, FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 2113 12 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

OS Grid: 207-/183Community: 3 FRT: 2018 Plan: FRT Map 6

Site: 21 22 08 OS Grid: 2900/1419 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CRO 30 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares and samian.

OS Grid: 2668/1729 Community: 4 FRT: NF

153

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Site: 21 23 09 OS Grid: 2557/1890 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern Stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 21 23 01 OS Grid: 289-/142 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2814 FS: CRO 22, 26, 33, 35 Plan: FRT Map 8b, see figure 11.26. Description: Settlement and salterns. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 276, FS (SW) 198,200 & 202

Site: 21 23 10 OS Grid: 2572/1885 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW 19 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern Stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 23 02 OS Grid: 297-/118Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 291 lE FS: CRO 13 Plan: FRT Map 8b Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, sarnian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 276- 277, FS (SW) 198,200 & 202

Site: 21 23 03 OS Grid: 2209/1851 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2218W FS: DEN 10 Plan: FRT Map 6 Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 280, FS (SW) 171 - 172

OS Grid: 277-/191Site: 21 23 04 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2719 FS:NS Plan: FRT Map 6 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 284

Site: 21 23 11 OS Grid: 2642/1910 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: COW21 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 23 12 OS Grid: 2652/1645 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: COW27a Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

includes

sarnian

Site: 21 23 13 OS Grid: 2673/1742 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW39 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

and

Site: 21 23 05 OS Grid: 298-/163Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2916 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 6, see figure 11.27. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 285 - 286

Site: 21 23 14 OS Grid: 2663/1716 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: COW43 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 23 06 OS Grid: 2641/1860 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 4 FRT:NF FS: COW9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 23 15 OS Grid: 2157/1619 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DEN 1 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, amphorae and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 21 23 07 OS Grid: 2631/1847 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COWlO Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shall gritted wares, white wares, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 23 16 OS Grid: 2228/1850 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DEN9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 21 23 08 OS Grid: 2633/1840 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: COW 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 23 17 OS Grid: 2187/1776 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DEN6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

154

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 21 23 18 OS Grid: 2675/1700 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: COW45 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

FS: COW 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 33 04 OS Grid: 2654/1641 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW27B Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 23 19 OS Grid: 2500/1595 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DEN 17 Plan: Description: Settlement and possible saltem. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 21 33 05 OS Grid: 264 7/1623 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW28 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 23 20 OS Grid: 2663/1716 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: COW43 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 23 21 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: NF Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 280.

Site: 21 33 06 OS Grid: 2694/1768 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: COW38 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

OS Grid: 214-/193Community: 3 FRT: 2119 Plan: FRT Map 6, see figure 11.28. pottery includes NVWCC.

Site: 21 33 07 OS Grid: 2667 /1735 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: COW40 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

OS Grid: 280-/167Site: 21 23 22 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2816N FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 6, see figure 11.29. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 284 - 285.

Site: 21 33 08 OS Grid: 2678/1727 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW42 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

OS Grid: 285-/163Site: 21 23 23 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2816S FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 6, see figure 11.30. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 285.

Site: 21 33 09 OS Grid: 2892/1230 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: CRO 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 21 33 01 OS Grid: 219-/17 4Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2117? FS: DEN 5 Plan: FRT Map 6 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 280, FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 21 33 10 OS Grid: 2963/1381 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CRO 37 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Site: 21 33 02 OS Grid: 274-/187Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2718 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 6 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes mortaria and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 284

Site: 21 33 03 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

Site: 21 33 11 OS Grid: 2273/1773 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DEN 15 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

OS Grid: 2564/1885 Community: 4 FRT:NF

155

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Plan: FRT Map 6 FS: DEN 14 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 280, FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 21 33 12 OS Grid: 2100/1986 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DEN 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 21 50 10 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 281.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 21 50 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 275.

OS Grid: 288-/100Community: 4 FRT: 2810? Plan: FRT Map Sb

Site: 21 50 02 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 276.

OS Grid: 285-/135Community: 4 FRT: 2813? Plan: FRT Map Sb

Site: 21 50 03 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 276.

OS Grid: 296-/100Community: 4 FRT: 2910? Plan: FRT Map Sb

Site: 21 50 04 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 279.

OS Grid: 203-/192Community: 3 FRT: 2019S? Plan: FRT Map 6

Site: 21 50 05 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 279.

OS Grid: 203-/196Community: 3 FRT: 2019W? Plan: FRT Map 6

Site: 21 50 06 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: DENUl0 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 279,

OS Grid: 209-/199Community: 3 FRT: 2019E? Plan: FRT Map 6

Site: 21 50 07 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: DENUl Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 279,

Site: 21 50 11 OS Grid: 223-/193Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2219S FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 6 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 281.

OS Grid: 22 7-/1 77Community: 3 FRT: 2217?

Site: 21 50 13 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 281.

OS Grid: 267-/197Community: 4 FRT: 2619? Plan: FRT Map 6

Site: 21 50 14 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 284.

OS Grid: 283-/153Community: 4 FRT: 2815? Plan: FRT Map 6

OS Grid: 298-/175Community: 4 FRT: 2917? Plan: FRT Map 6

Site: 21 50 17 OS Grid: 2548/1669 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 21 50 09 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

OS Grid: 259-/172Community: 4 FRT: 2517? Plan: FRT Map 6

Site: 21 50 16 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 286.

OS Grid: 214-/169Community: 3 FRT: 2116N? Plan: FRT Map 6

OS Grid: 215-/166Community: 3 FRT: 2116S? Plan: FRT Map 6

Site: 21 50 12 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 281.

Site: 21 50 15 OS Grid: 289-/176Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2817 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 6 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 285.

FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 21 50 08 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 280.

OS Grid: 229-/189Community: 3 FRT: 2218E? Plan: FRT Map 6

Site: 21 50 18 OS Grid: 2565/1894 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW 14 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 50 19

156

OS Grid: 2581/1891

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Community: 4 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW 15 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 50 29 OS Grid: 2905/1409 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: CRO29 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Site: 21 50 20 OS Grid: 2579/1889 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: COW 16 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 50 30 OS Grid: 2895/1410 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CRO 31 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Site: 21 50 21 OS Grid: 2599/1698 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: COW36 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (SW) 178 - 179.

Site: 21 50 31 OS Grid: 2886/1414 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: CRO 32 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Site: 21 50 22 OS Grid: 2900/1238 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: CRO 6 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Site: 21 50 32 OS Grid: 2182/1983 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DEN 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

OS Grid: 234-/10 I Site: 21 50 23 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CROU4 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Site: 21 50 33 OS Grid: 2270/1797 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DEN 16 Plan: Description: Saltern. Possible Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 21 50 24 OS Grid: 240-/112Environment: Fen Edge Community: 7 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: CROU8 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Site: 21 50 34 OS Grid: 2072/1968 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DEN23 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 21 50 25 OS Grid: 2903/1428 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CRO27 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Ten KM Square: TF 22

Site: 21 50 26 OS Grid: 2907/1425 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: CRO28 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Chronological Group: 13 (0- 350)

Site: 22 13 01 OS Grid: 2015/2784 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIK 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (SW) 113 - 115.

Site: 21 50 27 OS Grid: 2050/1845 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DEN4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 22 13 02 OS Grid: 215-/203Environment: Silt Fen. Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2120E FS: DSN U9 Plan: FRT Map 4, see figure 11.30. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References:

Site: 21 50 28 OS Grid: 2193/1764 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DEN7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

157

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 22 22 01 Environment: Silt Fen. Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 292.

Site: 22 23 03 OS Grid: 217-/216Environment: Silt Fen. Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2121 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 4 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FRT 289.

OS Grid: 259-/201Community: FRT: 2520 Plan: FRT Map 4

OS Grid: 263-/205Site: 22 23 04 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2620 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 4 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 292.

Site: 22 22 02 OS Grid: 2030/2100 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 38 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 22 23 05 OS Grid: 2012/2774 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIK2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (SW) 113 - 115.

Site: 22 22 03 OS Grid: 2115/2012 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DSN22 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, amphorae and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 22 23 06 OS Grid: 2045/2049 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 36 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 22 22 04 OS Grid: 2085/2040 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DSN20 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 22 23 07 OS Grid: 2096/2092 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 37 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, black burnished wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 22 22 05 OS Grid: 2106/2008 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DEN21 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 22 22 06 Environment: Silt Fen. Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 290.

Site: 22 23 08 OS Grid: 2042/2333 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 42 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

OS Grid: 225-/219Community: 3 FRT: 2221 Plan: pottery includes samian.

Site: 22 23 09 OS Grid: 2025/2280 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 52 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

OS Grid: 207-/229Site: 22 23 01 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2022 FS: PIN 50 A&B, 57, 58. Plan: FRT Map 4, see figure 11.31. Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 287, FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 22 23 10 OS Grid: 2132/2118 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: SPA 3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Pottery 'in the native tradition'. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 169, 171 - 172.

OS Grid: 212-/203Site: 22 23 02 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2120W FS: DEN 19 Plan: FRT Map 4, see figure 11.30. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 288, FS (SW) 171 - 172.

Site: 22 23 11 Environment: Silt Fen. Status Rank: 1 FS: SPA4

158

OS Grid: 2180/2106 Community: FRT:NF Plan: -

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 169, 171 - 172.

FS: PIN 62 Plan: Description: Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

OS Grid: 261-/226Site: 22 23 12 Environment: Silt Fen. Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2622 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 4 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Iron Age pottery. Pottery 'in the native tradition'. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares. Principal References: FRT 292 - 293.

Site: 22 23 13 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: NS Description: Settlement. Roman samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 290 -

Site: 22 33 06 OS Grid: 2073/2279 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 59 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

OS Grid: 245-/222Community: FRT: 2422 Plan: FRT Map 4 pottery includes shell gritted wares,

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 22 50 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: PIN A7 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 287,

291.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 22 24 01 OS Grid: 201-/236Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 2023W FS: PIN 35 a & b Plan: FRT Map 4, see figure 11.32. Description: Settlement. Roof Tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 288, FS (SW) 145 - 149.

FS (SW) 145 - 149.

OS Grid: 209-/235Community: 3 FRT: 2023E? Plan: FRT Map 4

OS Grid: 253-/217Site: 22 50 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 2 FRT: 2521? FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 4 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman coin. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FRT 292.

OS Grid: 216-/227Community: 3 FRT: 2122 Plan: FRT Map 4, see figure 11.33. pottery includes shell gritted wares

Site: 22 50 04 OS Grid: 253-/234Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2523 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 4 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 292.

290.

Site: 22 33 02 OS Grid: 2028/2772 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIK I Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 113 - 115.

OS Grid: 235-/257Site: 22 50 05 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2325? FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 293.

Site: 22 33 03 OS Grid: 2001/2775 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIK 3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 113 - 115.

Site: 22 50 06 OS Grid: 2046/2031 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 40 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and white wares. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 22 33 04 OS Grid: 2018/2775 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIK4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, amphorae and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 113 - 115.

Site: 22 33 05 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

OS Grid: 203-/215Community: 3 FRT: 2021? Plan: FRT Map 4

Site: 22 50 02 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 288.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 22 33 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: NS Description: Settlement. Roman andNVWCC. Principal References: FRT 289 -

and

Site: 22 50 07 OS Grid: 2050/2350 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 41 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

OS Grid: 2040/2390 Community: 3 FRT: NF

159

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31 & 33.

Site: 22 50 08 OS Grid: 2031/2361 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 43 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 23 23 02 OS Grid: 2052/3360 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31 & 33.

Site: 22 50 09 OS Grid: 2044/2025 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 39 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 23 23 03 OS Grid: 2109/3400 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DON 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31 & 33.

Site: 22 50 10 OS Grid: 2040/2292 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 51 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350) Site: 22 50 11 OS Grid: 2045/2291 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 53 Plan: Description: Saltern. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 23 33 01 OS Grid: 2352/3320 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA 22 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31 & 33. Site: 23 33 02 OS Grid: 2194/3250 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA 27 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31 & 33.

Site: 22 50 12 OS Grid: 2068/2326 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PIN 54 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 22 50 13 OS Grid: 2064/2338 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 56 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Site: 23 33 03 OS Grid: 2118/3175 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: QUA 29a Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31 & 33.

Site: 22 50 14 OS Grid: 2090/2275 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 3 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PIN 63 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (SW) 145 - 149.

Ten KM Square: TF 23

Site: 23 33 04 OS Grid: 2111/3171 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: QUA29b Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 28, 31 & 33.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 23 22 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 294.

OS Grid: 241-/394Site: 23 50 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2439 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 294.

OS Grid: 230-/394Community: FRT: 2339 Plan: pottery includes samian.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 23 23 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: QUA9

OS Grid: 2048/3342 Community: FRT: NF Plan: -

160

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Ten KM Square: TF 24

Site: 30 12 02 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: WSM 1 Description: Settlement and greywares and samian. Principal References: FRT 297,

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 24 22 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 294.

OS Grid: 227-/443Community: FRT: 2244 Plan: pottery includes samian.

OS Grid: 211-/409Site: 24 23 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2140 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 294.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

Site: 30 13 01 OS Grid: 3965/0055 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MAR21 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of late Iron Age occupation. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Site: 24 23 02 OS Grid: 288-/434Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2843 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 294.

Chronological Group: 14 (0 - 450)

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 30 14 01 OS Grid: 3974/0521 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WSM9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 150- 151.

OS Grid: 285-/455Community: FRT: 2845 Plan: of Septimius Severus. Unspecified

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250) 295. Site: 30 22 01 OS Grid: 3974/0521 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3108N? FS: THO 15 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FRT 296, FS (PM) 51 - 52.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 24 50 01 OS Grid: 261-/446Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2644 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 294.

Site: 30 22 02 OS Grid: 314-/089Environment: Silt Fen Community: 5 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PDR3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes greywares and samian. Principal References: FS (EW) 150- 151.

OS Grid: 275-/415Site: 24 50 02 Community: Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FRT: 2741 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 294

Site: 30 22 03 OS Grid: 3489/0718 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 5 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PDR5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Pottery includes greywares and samian. Principal References: FS (EW) 150- 151.

Ten KM Square: TF 30

Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250)

Site: 30 12 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: NF Description: Settlement. Roman gritted wares. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 297.

FS (EW) 150- 151.

Site: 30 12 03 OS Grid: 3910/0670 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: l FRT:NF FS: WSM2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes mortaria and sanuan. Principal References: FS (EW) 150- 151.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 24 24 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 2 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Coin Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 294 -

OS Grid: 379-/057Community: FRT: 3705? Plan: FRT Map 10 saltem. Roman pottery includes

Site: 30 22 04 OS Grid: 3528/0815 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 5 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PDR 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FS (EW) 150- 151.

OS Grid: 352-/058Community: FRT: 3505 Plan: FRT Map 10 pottery includes greywares and shell

161

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 30 22 05 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: I FS:NF Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 297.

Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 296, FS (EW) 150 - 151.

OS Grid: 367-/078Community: FRT: 3607 Plan: FRT Map 10 pottery includes samian.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 30 33 01 OS Grid: 3832/0865 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PDR 14 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 150- 151.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 30 23 01 OS Grid: 352-/068Environment: Silt Fen Community: 5 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3506? FS: PDR 2 Plan: FRT Map 10 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and samian. Principal References: FRT 297, FS (EW) 150- 151.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 30 50 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

Site: 30 23 02 OS Grid: 362-/063Environment: Silt Fen Community: 5 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3606S? FS: WSM 7 Plan: FRT Map 10 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 297, FS (EW) 150- 151.

Site: 30 50 02 OS Grid: 382-/042Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3804 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 296

OS Grid: 397-/055Site: 30 23 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: FRT: 3905? Status Rank: 3 FS:NF Plan: FRT Map 10 Description: Settlement. Three unspecified Roman coins. Also coin hoard, possibly late third century. Principal References: FRT 298.

OS Grid: 309-/089Site: 30 50 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3008? FS: THO 18 Plan: FRT Map 10 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 296, FS (PM) 51 - 52

Site: 30 23 04 OS Grid: 3928/0010 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 7 FRT: NF FS: MAR20 Plan: Description: Settlement. Building stone. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: Site: 30 23 05 OS Grid: 3525/0825 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 5 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PDR6 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery including samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 150 - 151.

Site: 30 23 06 OS Grid: 3851/0675 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WSM 12 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, mortaria, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 150- 151.

OS Grid: 354-/092Site: 30 23 07 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 5 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3509S? FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 10 Description: Settlement. Throckenholt Farm. Occupied in the second and third centuries. Roman pottery includes samian. Bone pin. Principal References: FRT 297, Bray 1994

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 30 24 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: PDR4

OS Grid: 386-/039Community: FRT: 3803? Plan: -

OS Grid: 346-/07 6Community: 5 FRT: 3407E? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 04 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

OS Grid: 301-/097Community: FRT: 3009? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 05 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: THO 9 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 296,

OS Grid: 314-/084Community: FRT: 3108S? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 06 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

OS Grid: 311-/098Community: FRT: 3109W? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 07 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: THO 16 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 296,

OS Grid: 318-/095Community: FRT: 3109E? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 08 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF

162

FS (PM) 51 - 52

FS (PM) 51 - 52

OS Grid: 327-/082Community: FRT: 3208? Plan: FRT Map 10

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3409? FS:NS Plan: FRT Map 10 Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 297

Site: 30 50 09 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

OS Grid: 329-/099Community: FRT: 3209? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 10 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

OS Grid: 335-/068Community: 5 FRT: 3306? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 11 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

OS Grid: 334-/075Community: 5 FRT: 3307? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 12 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

OS Grid: 332-/084Community: 5 FRT: 3308? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 13 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

OS Grid: 335-/093Community: 5 FRT: 3309? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 14 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

OS Grid: 34 3-/069Community: 5 FRT: 3406? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 15 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

OS Grid: 340-/077Community: 5 FRT: 3407W? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 16 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 296

OS Grid: 343-/075Community: FRT: 3407S? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 17 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 297

OS Grid: 348-/082Community: 5 FRT: 3408? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 18 Environment: Silt Fen

OS Grid: 341-/091Community: 5

Site: 30 50 19 OS Grid: 353-/007Environment: Silt Fen Community: 5 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3507? FS: PDR 8 Plan: FRT Map 10 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FRT 297, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 30 50 20 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 297

OS Grid: 359-/087Community: 5 FRT: 3508? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 21 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 297

OS Grid: 358-/094Community: 5 FRT: 3509E? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 22 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 297

OS Grid: 360-/067Community: 5 FRT: 3606W? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 23 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 297

OS Grid: 367-/090Community: FRT: 3609? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 24 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 297

OS Grid: 375-/077Community: FRT: 3707? Plan: FRT Map 10

Site: 30 50 25 OS Grid: 385-/065Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3806? FS: WSM 13 Plan: FRT Map 10 Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 297, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 30 50 26 OS Grid: 3161/0825 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THO 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (PM) 51 - 52

Site: 30 50 27 OS Grid: 3192/0951 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: THO 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (PM) 51 - 52

163

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 30 50 28 OS Grid: 3341/0800 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 5 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: PDR II Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182.

Status Rank: I FRT: 3416N FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 309.

Site: 3113 05 OS Grid: 388-/191Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3819 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Pottery 'in the native tradition'. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 311 - 312.

Site: 30 50 29 OS Grid: 3364/0839 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 5 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PDR 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 -250) Site: 30 50 30 OS Grid: 3376/0828 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 5 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PDR 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 31 22 01 OS Grid: 302-/147Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3014 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 9, see figure 11.36. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 299.

Site: 30 50 31 OS Grid: 3940/0690 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WSM3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

OS Grid: 322-/14 7Site: 31 22 02 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3214 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 9 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 302.

Site: 30 50 32 OS Grid: 3793/0702 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WSM 14 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 31 22 03 OS Grid: 325-/168Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3216N FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 9, see figure 11.37. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares. Querns. Possible kilns. Cremation. Principal References: FRT 308.

Ten KM Square: TF 31

OS Grid: 343-/186Site: 31 22 04 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3418 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 310.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

Site: 3113 01 OS Grid: 324-/153Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3215 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7, see figure 11.33. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 306.

Site: 31 22 05 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 4 FS: NS Description: Settlement. Roof gritted wares and samian. Quern Principal References: FRT 310 -

OS Grid: 313-/183Site: 3113 02 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3118 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7, see figure 11.34. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 303 - 304.

OS Grid: 359-/179Site: 31 22 06 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3517 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 311.

OS Grid: 322-/181Site: 3113 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3218 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7, see figure 11.35. Description: Settlement and saltern. Pottery 'in the native tradition'. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 308.

Site: 3113 04 Environment: Silt Fen

OS Grid: 356-/167Community: 4 FRT: 3516N Plan: FRT Map 7, see figure 11.38. tile. Roman pottery includes shell stones. 311.

Site: 31 22 07 OS Grid: 3035/1271 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: CRO20 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

OS Grid: 342-/163Community: 4

164

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 309.

Site: 31 22 08 OS Grid: 3616/1663 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: PDR9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, white wares and samian. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

OS Grid: 343-/160Site: 31 23 09 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3416S FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 309 - 310.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

OS Grid: 304-/139Site: 31 23 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 3013 FS: CRO 34 Plan: FRT Map 9 Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 299, FS (SW) 198,200,202.

Site: 31 23 10 OS Grid: 348-/1 77Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3417 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7, see figure 11.41. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 310.

OS Grid: 313-/138Site: 31 23 02 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 3113 FS: CRO 17 Plan: FRT Map 9, see figure 11.39. Description: Settlement. Roman coin finds, mostly unspecified, but one possibly of Constantius. Hoard, Augustus to Carausius. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 300, FS (SW) 198,200,202.

Site: 31 23 11 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: NS Description: Settlement. Pottery Principal References: FRT 311.

Site: 31 23 12 OS Grid: 3000/1218 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: CRO 14 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

Site: 31 23 03 OS Grid: 317-/149Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3114 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 9, see figure 11.40. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 300 - 301.

Site: 31 23 04 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 4 FS: NS Description: Settlement. Brick, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 302.

Site: 31 23 13 OS Grid: 3038/1325 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 5 FRT: NF FS: CRO25 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roof tile. Unspecified Roman coin. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (SW) 198, 200, 202.

OS Grid: 320-/136Community: 4 FRT: 3213 Plan: FRT Map 9 roof tile. Roman pottery includes

Site: 31 23 14 OS Grid: 3951/1085 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: PDR 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 31 23 05 OS Grid: 377-/119Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3711N? FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 9 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 304.

Site: 31 23 06 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: NS Description: Settlement. Roman samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 304.

OS Grid: 388-/173Community: FRT: 3817 Plan: FRT Map 7 includes samian and NVWCC.

samian and

Site: 31 23 15 OS Grid: 323-/104Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3210 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 9 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 301.

OS Grid: 307-/169Community: 4 FRT: 3016 Plan: FRT Map 7 pottery includes shell gritted wares,

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450) OS Grid: 319-/168Site: 31 23 07 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3116 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 305.

Site: 31 23 08 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

Site: 31 24 01 OS Grid: 309-/127Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 3012 FS: CRO 15, 16, 19. Plan: FRT Map 9, see figure 11.42. Description: Settlement and saltern. Rood tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 298, FS (SW) 198,200,202.

OS Grid: 331-/199Community: 4 FRT: 3319

165

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 31 24 02 OS Grid: 315-/15 8Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3115 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7, see figure 11.43. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 304 - 305.

Site: 31 50 06 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 301.

OS Grid: 325-/173Site: 31 24 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3217 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7, see figure 11.44. Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 307 - 308.

OS Grid: 323-/129Site: 31 50 07 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 3212 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 9 Description: Settlement. Bronze terret. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 310 - 302

Site: 31 24 04 OS Grid: 358-/198Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3519N FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7, see figure 11.45. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 311.

Site: 31 24 05 OS Grid: 333-/182Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3318S FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares and sarnian. Quern stones. Human remains. Principal References: FRT 308 - 309.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 31 50 01 OS Grid: 305-/105Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3010? FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 9 Description: Settlement and saltern. Principal References: FRT 298.

Site: 31 50 02 OS Grid: 303-/117Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3011W? FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 9 Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FRT 298.

OS Grid: 307-/115Site: 31 50 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 301 lE? FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 9 Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FRT 298.

Site: 31 50 04 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 299.

OS Grid: 317-/109Community: 4 FRT: 3110? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 05 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 301.

OS Grid: 324-/117Community: 4 FRT: 3211W? Plan: FRT Map 9

166

OS Grid: 329-/117Community: 4 FRT: 3211E? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 08 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 302.

OS Grid: 333-/105Community: 4 FRT: 3310? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 09 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 303.

OS Grid: 333-/123Community: 4 FRT: 3312? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 10 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 303.

OS Grid: 336-/133Community: 4 FRT: 3313? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 11 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 303.

OS Grid: 337-/143Community: 4 FRT: 3314? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 12 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 303.

OS Grid: 346-/136Conununity: 4 FRT: 3413? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 13 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 303.

OS Grid: 345-/148Community: 4 FRT: 3414N? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 14 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 303.

OS Grid: 34 7-/144Community: 4 FRT: 3414E? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 15 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS

OS Grid: 356-/108Community: 4 FRT: 3510? Plan: FRT Map 9

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Description: Possible settlement. Principal References:

Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3318N FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 308.

Site: 31 50 16 OS Grid: 358-/128Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 FRT: 3512? Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Plan: FRT Map 9 Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 303 - 304.

Site: 31 50 17 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 304.

OS Grid: 364-/132Community: 4 FRT: 3613? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 18 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 304.

OS Grid: 379-/116Community: 4 FRT: 3711E? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 26 OS Grid: 342-/154Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3415 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 308.

Site: 31 50 27 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 310.

OS Grid: 355-/190Site: 31 50 28 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3519S FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 311.

OS Grid: 376-/139Site: 31 50 19 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3713 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 9 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 304.

Site: 31 50 20 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 304.

OS Grid: 381-/119Community: 4 FRT: 3811? Plan: FRT Map 9

Site: 31 50 21 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 306.

OS Grid: 317-/196Community: 4 FRT: 3119? Plan: FRT Map 7

Site: 31 50 22 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 307.

OS Grid: 327-/166Community: 4 FRT: 3216E Plan: FRT Map 7

Site: 31 50 23 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 308.

OS Grid: 337-/168Community: 4 FRT: 3316? Plan: FRT Map 7

Site: 31 50 29 OS Grid: 365-/181Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3618 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 311.

OS Grid: 393-/175Site: 31 50 30 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3917 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 312. Site: 31 50 31 OS Grid: 3942/1092 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: PDR 16 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (SW) 169 - 182.

Ten KM Square: TF 32

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 32 23 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: NS Description: Settlement. Roman and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 312 -

OS Grid: 317-/205Community: FRT: 3120 Plan: FRT Map 5, see figure 11.46. pottery includes shell gritted wares 313.

OS Grid: 358-/214Site: 32 23 02 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3521 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 5, see figure 11.47. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 314.

Site: 31 50 24 OS Grid: 335-/178Environment: Silt Fen Community: 4 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3317 FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 7 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 308.

Site: 31 50 25 Environment: Silt Fen

OS Grid: 358-/161Community: 4 FRT: 3516S? Plan: FRT Map 7

OS Grid: 332-/187Community: 4

167

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 32 24 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: NS Description: Settlement. Roman amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 313 -

Site: 34 50 02 OS Grid: 380-/490Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3849 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FRT 317.

OS Grid: 352-/208Community: FRT: 3520 Plan: FRT Map 5, see figure 11.48. pottery includes shell gritted wares, Quern stones. 314.

Ten KM Square: TF 35

OS Grid: 373-/206Site: 32 24 02 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3720N FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 5, see figure 11.49. Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 314- 315.

Chronological Group: 22

Site: 35 22 01 OS Grid: 3528/5932 Environment: Fen Edge Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: STD 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and mortaria. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 55 - 57.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 32 50 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 313.

OS Grid: 348-/205Commtmity: FRT: 3420? Plan: FRT Map 5

Site: 32 50 02 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 314.

OS Grid: 372-/202Community: FRT: 3720S? Plan: FRT Map 5

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 35 33 01 OS Grid: 3429/5791 Environment: Fen Edge Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT: NF FS: STK 3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman roof tile. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 55 - 57.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 35 50 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 317.

Ten KM Square: TF 34

OS Grid: 330-/510Community: FRT: 3351? Plan: -

Chronological Group: 11 (0 - 100)

Site: 34 11 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 316-

Site: 35 50 02 OS Grid: 3578/5888 Environment: Fen Edge Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: STD 2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 55 - 57.

OS Grid: 330-/469Community: FRT: 3346 Plan: pottery includes amphorae. 317.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 34 24 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 316.

Site: 35 50 03 OS Grid: 3422/5608 Community: Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 3 FRT: NF FS: STK2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified bronze. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 55 - 57.

OS Grid: 371-/409Community: FRT: 3740 Plan: -

Ten KM Square: TF 40 Chronological Group: 50 (Undated) Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250) Site: 34 50 01 OS Grid: 310-/431Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 3143 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes dalesware, samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FRT 316.

Site: 40 12 01 OS Grid: 431-/009Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4300W FS: ELM 5 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian. Human remains. Principal References: FRT 317, FS (EW) 169- 182.

168

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 40 12 02 OS Grid: 434-/004Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT: 4300E? FS: ELM4 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FRT 317, FS (EW) 169-182.

Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: ELM21 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 22 06 OS Grid: 4905/0436 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELM38 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

OS Grid: 448-/027Site: 40 12 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 4402N FS: ELM 24 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltern. Brick. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Quern stones. Principal References: FRT 320, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

OS Grid: 433-/036Site: 40 23 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4303? FS: ELM 17 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 318, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

OS Grid: 438-/001Site: 40 13 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4300S FS: MAR 1 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FRT 318, FS (PM) 40-46.

Site: 40 23 02 OS Grid: 448-/023Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 4402E FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and possible saltem. Coin hoard dating to the late third century. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 320.

Site: 40 13 02 OS Grid: 445-/006Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 4 FRT: 4400 FS: ELM 34 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement. Brick. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 318- 319, FS (EW) 169-182.

OS Grid: 450-/012Site: 40 23 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4501W FS: ELM 25 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 320, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 40 22 01 OS Grid: 428-/015Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4201 FS: ELM 6 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FRT 317, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 40 23 04 OS Grid: 460-/034Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 4603 FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement. Unspecified coin hoard. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FRT 321.

Site: 40 22 02 OS Grid: 461-/006Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4600W? FS: UPW 1 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 321, FS (EW) 169 - 182 & FS (WE/FC) 97 -115.

OS Grid: 485-/023Site: 40 23 05 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4802 FS: UPW 3 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FRT 322, FS (EW) 169 - 182 and FS (WEFC) 97 -115.

Site: 40 22 03 OS Grid: 482-/014Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4801 FS: UPW 6 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 322, FS (EW) 169 - 182 & FS (WE/FC) 97 -115.

OS Grid: 428-/092Site: 40 23 06 Environment: Silt Fen Community: FRT: 4209? Status Rank: 1 FS: WSM5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, mortaria, amphorae, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 323, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 40 22 04 OS Grid: 4021/0067 Environment: Fen Island Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MAR22 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Site: 40 22 05 Environment: Silt Fen

Site: 40 23 07 OS Grid: 450-/056Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4505W FS: ELM30 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes mortaria. Principal References: FRT 323, FS (EW) 169- 182. Site: 40 23 08 OS Grid: 4877/0907 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF

OS Grid: 4390/0208 Community: 6

169

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 40 23 18 OS Grid: 4738/0296 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELM41 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

FS: WSK 16 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85

Site: 40 23 09 OS Grid: 4911/0915 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WSK26 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85

Site: 40 23 19 OS Grid: 4737/0369 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: ELM42 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 23 10 OS Grid: 4959/0863 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WSK8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85

Site: 40 23 20 OS Grid: 4556/0105 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 4501E FS: UPW2 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Single unspecified Roman coin. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182 and FS (WEFC) 97 - 115.

Site: 40 23 11 OS Grid: 4236/0707 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WSMlO Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 23 12 OS Grid: 4313/0667 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WSMll Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery greywares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 23 21 OS Grid: 4726/0197 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 3 FRT: NF FS: ELM40 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Bronze bracelet and brooch. Unspecified Roman pottery. Human remains. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 23 22 OS Grid: 488-/042Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4804 FS: ELM 37 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FRT 322, FS (EW) 169- 182.

includes

Site: 40 23 13 OS Grid: 4280/0290 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELM 15 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 23 23 OS Grid: 4870/0119 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: UPW5 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182 & FS (WEFC) 97 - 115.

Site: 40 23 14 OS Grid: 4263/0252 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: ELM 16 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Chronological Group: 24 (100 - 450)

Site: 40 23 15 OS Grid: 4404/0232 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELM 18 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

OS Grid: 448-/035Site: 40 24 01 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4403? FS:ELM31 Plan:FRTMapll Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FRT 320, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 40 23 16 OS Grid: 4741/0473 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELM28 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 40 24 02 OS Grid: 451-/032Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4503 FS: ELM 26 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FRT 321, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 40 23 17 OS Grid: 4465/0x75 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: ELM35 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 24 03 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. NVWCC.

170

OS Grid: 466-/045Community: 6 FRT: 4604 Plan: FRT Map 11 Roman pottery includes

samian

and

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Principal References: FRT 321.

Site: 40 24 04 OS Grid: 472-/028Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4702W FS: ELM33 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 321, FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 40 50 03 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 318. samian

and

Site: 40 50 04 OS Grid: 432-/049Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4304 FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 318.

Site: 40 24 05 OS Grid: 4200/0154 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELM 1 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery includes samian andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 24 06 OS Grid: 4479/0x93 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: ELM36 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 24 07 OS Grid: 4490/0208 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELM23 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 50 05 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 319.

OS Grid: 441-/010Community: 6 FRT: 4401S? Plan: FRT Map 11

Site: 40 50 06 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 319.

OS Grid: 444-/017Community: 6 FRT: 4401W Plan: FRT Map 11

Site: 40 50 07 OS Grid: 447-/017Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4401E FS: ELM 11 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 319, FS (EW) 169-182.

Site: 40 24 08 OS Grid: 442-/025Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 3 FRT: 4402W FS: ELM 19 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman coinage. Bronze bracelet found on inhumation. Possible pewter finds. Roman pottery includes coarse wares, mortaria, samian and NVWCC. Conflated with FRT entry for Coldham Hall (FRT expresses uncertainty on whether or not they are separate sites). Principal References: FRT 319 - 320, FS (EW) 169 - 182. Potter 1965: 30; 1981.

Site: 40 50 08 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 320.

OS Grid: 443-/048Community: 6 FRT: 4404 Plan: FRT Map 11

Site: 40 50 09 OS Grid: 469-/008Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4600E FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 321.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 40 33 01 OS Grid: 4850/0956 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WSK23 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85.

Site: 40 50 10 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 3 FS: NF Description: Settlement. Bronze Inhumation. Principal References: FRT 321.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 40 50 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: ELM3 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 317,

OS Grid: 433-/028Community: 6 FRT: 4302? Plan: FRT Map 11

OS Grid: 419-/015Community: FRT: 4101? Plan: FRT Map 11

OS Grid: 473-/017Community: 6 FRT: 4701 Plan: FRT Map 11 bracelet. Unspecified Roman pottery.

Site: 40 50 11 OS Grid: 4 75-/022Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4702E FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Inhumation. Principal References: FRT 322.

FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 40 50 02 OS Grid: 433-/015Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4301 FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 318.

Site: 40 50 12 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement.

171

OS Grid: 472-/042Community: 6 FRT: 4704? Plan: FRT Map 11

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Principal References: FRT 322.

Site: 40 50 13 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 322.

FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Inhumation. Principal References: FRT 323. OS Grid: 497-/039Community: 6 FRT: 4903? Plan: FRT Map 11

Site: 40 50 23 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 323.

Site: 40 50 14 OS Grid: 496-/043Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4904? FS: ELM 39 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 322, FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 50 15 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 322.

OS Grid: 408-/057Community: 6 FRT: 4005? Plan: FRT Map 11

Site: 40 50 16 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 322.

OS Grid: 418-/050Community: 6 FRT: 4105? Plan: FRT Map 11

Site: 40 50 17 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 323.

OS Grid: 429-/078Community: FRT: 4207? Plan: -

Site: 40 50 18 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 323.

OS Grid: 438-/063Community: FRT: 4306? Plan: -

Site: 40 50 24 OS Grid: 4406/0010 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MAR2 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (PM) 40 - 46.

Site: 40 50 25 OS Grid: 4006/0455 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WSM8 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 50 26 OS Grid: 4298/0xx3 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:ELM8 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182. Site: 40 50 27 OS Grid: 4291/0x28 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:ELM9 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 50 28 OS Grid: 4334/0145 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: ELM 10 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 50 19 OS Grid: 431-/087Environment: Silt Fen Community: FRT: 4308? Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 323.

Site: 40 50 20 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 323.

OS Grid: 444-/054Community: 6 FRT: 4405 Plan: FRT Map 11

Site: 40 50 21 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 323.

OS Grid: 457-/056Community: 6 FRT: 4505E Plan: FRT Map 11

Site: 40 50 22 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

OS Grid: 450-/063Community: FRT: 4506

OS Grid: 460-/055Community: 6 FRT: 4605? Plan: FRT Map 11

Site: 40 50 29 OS Grid: 4495/0193 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: ELM 12 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Inhumation. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 50 30 OS Grid: 4449/0185 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: ELM 13 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 40 50 31 OS Grid: 4355/0193 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELM 14 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

172

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 40 50 32 OS Grid: 4378/0208 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: ELM20 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltems. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85.

Site: 41 23 04 OS Grid: 4967/1219 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS:WNW3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Site: 40 50 33 OS Grid: 4435/0243 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: ELM22 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 41 23 05 OS Grid: 4997 /1305 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:WNW8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Site: 40 50 34 OS Grid: 4873/0400 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELM27 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 41 23 06 OS Grid: 4998/1324 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:WNW9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Site: 40 50 35 OS Grid: 4890/0278 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: ELM45 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 41 23 07 OS Grid: 4988/1324 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WNW 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Site: 40 50 36 OS Grid: 4950/0178 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: UPW4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 41 23 08 OS Grid: 4870/1427 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WNW50 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Ten KM Square: TF 41

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 41 23 09 OS Grid: 4855/1437 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WNW51 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Site: 41 22 01 OS Grid: 4972/1226 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WNW62 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91

Site: 41 23 10 OS Grid: 4842/1434 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WNW52 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 41 23 01 OS Grid: 4934/1589 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPP 74 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 41 23 11 OS Grid: 4856/1425 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WNW53 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Site: 41 23 02 OS Grid: 4968/1158 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WSK2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85.

Site: 41 23 03 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: WSK 19

Site: 41 23 12 OS Grid: 4324/1328 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS:NEW3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

OS Grid: 4924/1068 Community: FRT: NF Plan: -

173

samian

and

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 41 23 13 OS Grid: 4062/1095 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LEV 4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 41 23 14 OS Grid: 4235/1240 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LEV 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

samian

Site: 41 50 06 OS Grid: 404 7/1606 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSG 5 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

and

Ten KM Square: TF 42

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

samian

and Site: 42 22 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Roman Principal References: FRT 325.

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 41 33 01 OS Grid: 4848/1416 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WNW54 Plan: Description: Settlement. LPRIA coin fmmd on this site. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

OS Grid: 410-/210Community: FRT: 4121 Plan: pottery includes samian.

Ten KM Square: TF 44

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 41 33 02 OS Grid: 4066/1124 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: LEV2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes NVWCC. Principal References: FS (EW) 169 - 182.

Site: 44 50 01 OS Grid: 4331/5449 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA 13 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares and shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated) Ten Km Square: TF 45 Site: 41 50 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:WNW22 Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (MNV)

OS Grid: 4930/1067 Community: FRT:NF Plan: -

Chronological Group: 11 (0 - 100)

90 - 91.

Site: 45 11 01 OS Grid: 4202/5355 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA2 Plan: Description: Saltern. Some evidence of Iron Age activity. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 41 50 02 OS Grid: 4780/1352 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WNW55 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

Site: 41 50 03 OS Grid: 4771/1366 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WNW56 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Site: 45 13 01 OS Grid: 4205/5159 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRA14 Plan: Description: Saltern. Some evidence of Iron Age activity. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 41 50 04 OS Grid: 4324/1360 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: NEW2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182. Site: 415005 OS Grid: 4069/1084 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: LEV3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (EW) 169- 182.

Site: 45 13 02 OS Grid: 4355/5285 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA6 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, samian and NVWCC. Some evidence of Iron Age activity. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

174

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 45 22 01 OS Grid: 4225/5460 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA35A Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

FS: WRN6 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 22 02 OS Grid: 4194/5328 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRN17 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and samian. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 23 05 OS Grid: 4122/5320 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRN9 Plan: Description: Settlement and possible saltem. Unspecified evidence for Iron Age occupation. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, sarnian and NVWCC. Not clear whether occupation of this site was continuous from the Iron Age to the Roman period. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 22 03 OS Grid: 4245/534 7 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRN37A Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares shell gritted wares, white wares and samian. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 23 06 OS Grid: 4390/5470 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRN3 Plan: Description: Possible settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, mortaria, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 22 04 OS Grid: 4277/5234 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRN43 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares and samian. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 23 07 OS Grid: 4204/5159 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRN14 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 22 05 OS Grid: 4277/5234 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRN43 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares and sarnian. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 23 08 OS Grid: 440-/520Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:WRAU8 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman potter includes sarnian andNVWCC. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Chronological Group: 33 (250 - 350)

Site: 45 23 01 OS Grid: 4430/5214 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRA33 Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, samian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 33 01 OS Grid: 4435/5233 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA32 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 33 02 OS Grid: 4241/5460 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA37 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 23 02 OS Grid: 4195/5128 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRN24A Plan: Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, white wares, mortaria, sarnian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated) Site: 45 23 03 OS Grid: 4145/5314 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRN4 Plan: Description: Settlement and possible Iron Age saltem. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares, sarnian and NVWCC. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 23 04 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

Site: 45 50 01 OS Grid: 431-/536Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 4353 FS:NF Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 326.

Site: 45 50 02 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

OS Grid: 4128/5308 Community: FRT:NF

175

OS Grid: 4272/5427 Community: FRT: NF

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites FS: WRA2 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA45 Plan: Description: Settlement. Quern stone. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 03 OS Grid: 4351/5269 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA8 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 13 OS Grid: 422-/539Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:WRAU4 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 04 OS Grid: 4318/5340 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA14 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

OS Grid: 432-/528Site: 45 50 14 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRAUl Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age activity. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 05 OS Grid: 4390/5310 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRA 16 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 15 OS Grid: 420-/530Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:WRAU2 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 06 OS Grid: 4272/5338 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA28 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

OS Grid: 421-/521Site: 45 50 16 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS:WRAU5 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age activity. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 07 OS Grid: 4286/5430 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRA29 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75. Site: 45 50 08 OS Grid: 4314/5453 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA30 a&b Plan: Description: Two salterns. Roman pottery includes greywares. Quern stones. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 17 OS Grid: 422-/522Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:WRAU6 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age activity. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 18 OS Grid: 423-/517Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS:WRAU7 Plan: Description: Saltern. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age activity. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 09 OS Grid: 4357 /5442 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRA31 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 19 OS Grid: 4270/5415 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA41 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 10 OS Grid: 4340/5177 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA34 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 20 OS Grid: 4353/5278 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA 7 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 11 OS Grid: 4252/5460 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRA36 a&b Plan: Description: Two salterns. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 12 Environment: Silt Fen

Site: 45 50 21 OS Grid: 4257 /5458 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRA3 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

OS Grid: 4375/5186 Community: -

176

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 22 OS Grid: 4312/5298 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: WRA4 Plan: Description: Saltern. Possible Iron Age date. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 32 OS Grid: 4213/5413 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRN15 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 23 OS Grid: 4389/5290 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRA9 Plan: Description: Saltern. Possible Iron Age date. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 33 OS Grid: 4220/5397 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRN16 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 24 OS Grid: 4361/5360 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA 10 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 34 OS Grid: 4238/5047 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRN 18 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 25 OS Grid: 4377/5373 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA 11 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes shell gritted wares. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 35 OS Grid: 4217/5133 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRN23 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 26 OS Grid: 4331/5375 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRA12 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 36 OS Grid: 4208/5130 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRN25 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 27 OS Grid: 4230/5458 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRA35B Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 37 OS Grid: 4226/5236 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRN 31 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 28 OS Grid: 4119/5466 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRNl Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 38 OS Grid: 4238/5367 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRN36 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 29 OS Grid: 4090/5447 Community: Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRN7 Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 39 OS Grid: 4188/5187 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRN39 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75. Site: 45 50 40 OS Grid: 4388/5462 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: FRI 1 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 30 OS Grid: 4090/5428 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRNS Plan: Description: Saltern. Roman pottery includes greywares, shell gritted wares and white wares. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 45 50 31 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS: WRNll Description: Saltern.

Site: 45 50 41 OS Grid: 4386/5468 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: FRI2 Plan: Description: Saltems. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

OS Grid: 4080/5270 Community: FRT: NF Plan: -

177

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 45 50 42 OS Grid: 4150/5213 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WRN12 Plan: Description: Saltern. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 50 23 06 OS Grid: 5544/0030 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:NDH3 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 45 50 43 OS Grid: 4125/5313 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WRNl0 Plan: Description: Settlement. Principal References: FS (LNFE) 73 - 75.

Site: 50 23 07 OS Grid: 5550/0023 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS:NDH7 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 50 23 08 OS Grid: 5762/0030 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DMW 1 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Ten KM Square: TF 50

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

Site: 50 13 01 OS Grid: 591-/006Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5900 FS: DVR 6 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Saltern. Iron Age loom weight. Roman pottery includes amphorae and NVWCC. Principal References: FRT 328 - 329, FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 50 23 09 OS Grid: 5758/0032 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:DMW2 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 50 23 10 OS Grid: 5747/0027 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS:DMW3 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 50 23 01 OS Grid: 553-/002Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5500 FS: UPW (N) 3, 7 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement. Roman pottery includes samian. Principal References: FRT 328. FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 50 23 11 OS Grid: 5820/0046 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DVR 1 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 50 23 02 OS Grid: 573-/004Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5700 W FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement. Site of a possible Roman bridge. Roman pottery includes samian and NVWCC. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 328.

Site: 50 23 12 OS Grid: 5826/0051 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DVR2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 50 23 03 OS Grid: 579-/003Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 4 FRT: 5700 E FS: DVR 4, 7 Plan: FRT Map 11 Description: Settlement. Brick, flue and roof tile. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 328, FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 50 23 04 OS Grid: 5601/0027 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: NDH 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 50 23 13 OS Grid: 5805/0038 Community: Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: DVR3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115. Site: 50 23 14 OS Grid: 5888/0063 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: DVR5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 50 23 05 OS Grid: 5584/0033 Environment: Peat Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: NDH2 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (WE/FC) 97 - 115.

Site: 50 23 15 OS Grid: 5035/0802 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WSK3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85.

178

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 12 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 327.

Site: 50 23 16 OS Grid: 5095/0909 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: WSK4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85.

OS Grid: 515-/014Site: 50 50 03 Environment: Silt Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5101? FS: NS Plan: FRT Map 12 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 327.

Site: 50 23 17 OS Grid: 5113/0907 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WSK6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85.

Site: 50 23 18 OS Grid: 5083/0920 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WSK 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85.

Site: 50 23 19 OS Grid: 5034/0856 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WSK9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85.

Site: 50 50 04 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 327.

OS Grid: 522-/013Community: 6 FRT: 5201? Plan: FRT Map 12

Site: 50 50 05 Environment: Peat Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NF Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 327.

OS Grid: 538-/003Community: 6 FRT: 5300? Plan: FRT Map 12

OS Grid: 548-/003Site: 50 50 06 Environment: Peat Fen Community: 6 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 5400 FS: NF Plan: FRT Map 12 Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 328.

Site: 50 23 20 OS Grid: 5100/0985 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WNW 12 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Site: 50 50 07 OS Grid: 5188/0898 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MSJ 3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 31 - 32.

Site: 50 23 21 OS Grid: 5077 /0977 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WNW25 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Site: 50 50 08 OS Grid: 5112/0902 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WSK5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 83 - 85.

Site: 50 23 22 OS Grid: 5082/0967 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WNW26 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Site: 50 50 09 OS Grid: 5113/0995 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WNW 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 -91.

Site: 50 23 23 OS Grid: 5087/0974 Community: Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WNW27 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Ten KM Square: TF 51 Chronological Group: 50 (Undated) Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250) Site: 50 50 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Possible settlement. Principal References: FRT 327.

OS Grid: 502-/03 7Community: 6 FRT: 5003? Plan: FRT Map 12.

Site: 50 50 02 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

OS Grid: 519-/009Community: 6 FRT: 5100

Site: 5112 01 OS Grid: 5161/1043 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:WNWl Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 -91.

179

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Chronological Group: 22 (100 - 250)

Site: 51 23 08 OS Grid: 5279/1307 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSJ 11 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 22 01 OS Grid: 4513/1339 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TYL30 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 54, 59.

Site: 51 23 09 OS Grid: 5275/1546 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TSJ20 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 22 02 OS Grid: 5187/1424 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WPP 9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 23 10 OS Grid: 5270/1545 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSJ 21 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Chronological Group: 23 (100 - 350)

Site: 51 23 01 OS Grid: 5188/1014 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: MSJ2 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 31 - 32.

Site: 51 23 11 OS Grid: 5707/1532 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TYL 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 54, 59.

Site: 51 23 02 OS Grid: 5282/113 7 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSJ 3 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 12 OS Grid: 5400/1330 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TYL29 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 54, 59.

Site: 51 23 03 OS Grid: 5259/1416 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TSJ 6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 13 OS Grid: 5161/1065 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPP 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 23 04 OS Grid: 5304/1268 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSJ 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 14 OS Grid: 5202/1156 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPP4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 23 05 OS Grid: 5306/1315 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TSJ 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 06 OS Grid: 5303/1310 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSJ9 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 15 OS Grid: 5264/1140 Community: Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WPP 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76. Site: 512316 OS Grid: 5175/1077 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPP 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 23 07 OS Grid: 5294/1310 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSJ 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 17 OS Grid: 5155/1260 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WPP 8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern Stone. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

180

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 51 23 18 OS Grid: 5159/1363 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: WPP 10 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

FS: TSJ I Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 50 02 OS Grid: 5282/1140 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSJ2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44. Site: 51 50 03 OS Grid: 5287 /1139 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TSJ 4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 19 OS Grid: 5149/1352 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WPP 14 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 23 20 OS Grid: 5137/1244 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPP23 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 50 04 OS Grid: 5308/1141 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSJ 5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 21 OS Grid: 5062/1220 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPP24 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 50 05 OS Grid: 5284/1302 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS:TSJ12 Plan: Description: Settlement and saltem. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 22 OS Grid: 5049/1249 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WPP25 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 50 06 OS Grid: 5259/1504 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TSJ 13 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44. Site: 51 50 07 OS Grid: 5343/1555 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:TSJ15 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 23 OS Grid: 5175/1556 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPP 80 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 23 24 OS Grid: 4946/1558 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPP 105 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 50 08 OS Grid: 5347/1551 Environment: Silt Fen Conununity: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TSJ 16 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 25 OS Grid: 4641/1580 Community: Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WPP 106 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 50 09 OS Grid: 5347/1555 Community: Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TSJ 17 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 23 26 OS Grid: 5162/1018 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WNW60 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 90 - 91.

Site: 51 50 10 OS Grid: 5349/1558 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSJ 18 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 51 50 11 OS Grid: 5270/1551 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TSJ 19 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 50 01 Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1

OS Grid: 5275/1137 Community: FRT: NF

181

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Site: 51 50 12 OS Grid: 5297/1392 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: TSJ 25 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 50 22 OS Grid: 5010/1781 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: WPA I Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 67 - 68.

Site: 51 50 13 OS Grid: 5286/1385 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TSJ26 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 50 23 OS Grid: 5016/1799 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WPA2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 67 - 68.

Site: 51 50 14 OS Grid: 5298/1385 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSJ27 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 50 24 OS Grid: 5025/1777 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPA3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 67 - 68.

Site: 51 50 15 OS Grid: 5266/1574 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TSJ 28 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 42 - 44.

Site: 51 50 25 OS Grid: 5197 /1098 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPP2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 50 16 OS Grid: 5530/1454 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TYL5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 54, 59.

Site: 51 50 26 OS Grid: 5195/1108 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WPP 3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76. Site: 51 50 27 OS Grid: 5157/1312 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WPP 90 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 50 17 OS Grid: 5531/1463 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TYL6 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 54, 59.

Site: 51 50 28 OS Grid: 5104/1327 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPPU2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 50 18 OS Grid: 5654/1552 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TYL 7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 54, 59.

Site: 51 50 29 OS Grid: 5095/1778 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WPPU3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 71, 75 - 76.

Site: 51 50 19 OS Grid: 5421/1346 Community: Environment: Silt Fen Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TYL 31 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 54, 59. Site: 515020 OS Grid: 5415/1350 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: TYL32 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 54, 59.

Ten KM Square: TF 60

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

Site: 60 13 01 OS Grid: 61 7-/092Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: 6109 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement and saltern. Unspecified evidence of Iron Age occupation. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 330.

Site: 51 50 21 OS Grid: 5412/1377 Environment: Silt Fen Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: TYL 21 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 54, 59.

182

Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Sites Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 60 50 01 OS Grid: 676-/024Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 7 FRT: 6702 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified evidence of occupation. Building stone. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FRT 329.

Site: 61 50 01 OS Grid: 6550/1440 Environment: Fen Edge Community: Status Rank: I FRT:NF FS: MDT4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 127 - 129.

Iron

Age

Site: 61 50 02 OS Grid: 6718/1172 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WGY2 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Iron Slag. Principal References: FS (MNV) 145 -146.

OS Grid: 670-/030Site: 60 50 02 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 8 FRT: 6703 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Stone, roof tile and brick. Unspecified Roman coins. Unspecified Roman pottery. Quern stone. Principal References: FRT 330.

Site: 61 50 03 OS Grid: 6729/1186 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WGY3 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Iron Slag. Principal References: FS (MNV) 145-146.

OS Grid: 697-/007Site: 60 50 03 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 2 FRT: 6900 FS:NS Plan: Description: Settlement. Possible unspecified Late Iron Age pottery. Unspecified Roman coin. Unspecified Roman pottery. Cremations. Well. Principal References: FRT 330.

Site: 60 50 04 Environment: Fen Edge Status Rank: 1 FS:NS Description: Settlement. Principal References: FRT 330.

Site: 61 50 04 OS Grid: 6718/1184 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WGY4 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Iron Slag. Principal References: FS (MNV) 145 -146.

OS Grid: 615-/07 6Community: 9 FRT: 6107 Plan: -

Site: 61 50 05 OS Grid: 6752/1208 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: WGY5 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Iron Slag. Principal References: FS (MNV) 145 -146.

Site: 60 50 05 OS Grid: 6812/0939 Environment: Fen Edge Community: 9 Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: SHD 1 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 133 - 134.

Site: 61 50 06 OS Grid: 6709/1170 Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WGY19 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Iron Slag. Principal References: FS (MNV) 145-146.

Ten KM Square: TF 61

Chronological Group: 12 (0 - 250) Ten KM Square: TF 70 Site: 6112 01 OS Grid: 6609/1431 Environment: Fen Edge Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT: NF FS: MDT8 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 127 - 129.

Chronological Group: 50 (Undated)

Site: 70 50 01 OS Grid: 7060/0964 Environment: Fen Edge Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS:MRM7 Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 121, 123.

Chronological Group: 13 (0 - 350)

Site: 6113 01 OS Grid: 6714/117Environment: Fen Island Community: Status Rank: 1 FRT:NF FS: WGYl Plan: Description: Settlement. Unspecified Roman pottery. Principal References: FS (MNV) 145 - 146.

183

Illustrations

Picture Credits:

Figures 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.19, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15, 5.16, 5.17, 5.18, 5.19, 6.2, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.14, 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18, 7.19, 7.20, 7.21, 7.22, 7.23, 7.24, 7.25, 7.26, 7.27, 7.28, 7.29, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7, 9.11, as well as tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13 were all prepared by the author. Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.18, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 7.1, 7.10, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13, 8.5, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7 were prepared by Melanie Cameron.

184

Illustrations

Harsh master/ overseer

Indulgent master or overseer

Whites having no direct authority

f···················{

Slaves and free blacks

Closest slave friends

Immediate family

f·················· ➔

Public Transcripts

Figure 1.1:

Slaves of same master

Hidden Transcripts

Hypothetical discursive sites under slavery (arranged by audience). Adapted from Scott (1990: 26).

185

Illustrations

.. (f ..

KEY

0 □

i:

.

D

0

10

Peat Fens

Silt Fens

Post-Roman Silts

20

KM

Figure 2.1:

The Fenland landscape (after Phillips '1970, Sheet K).

186

Illustrations

700

600 co 500

~

...400 300 00 0

0 z 200

100 0 Period

Figure 3.1:

Site numbers in the study area over time.

400 Cl)

!fh

300

.... 200 0 0

z

100

0 FE

Fi

ff

SF

Environment

Figure: 3.2: Number of sites by period per environment.

187

Illustrations

KEY

0

D D

PeatFens

Silt Fens

Post-Roman Silts

N

• 0

20

10

KM

Figure 3.3:

Distribution of sites in the study area in period one.

188

Illustrations

KEY

0

•

Peat Fens

D D

·•· •

-·

Silt Fens

Post-Roman Silts

N

. .

.

.

. .

~-

........

•

.

.•••.

-.--,-. ·•· . •

.

.

.

.

.

.ik

.Jc.

~

j.