The Production, Use and Disposal of Romano-British Pewter Tableware 9781407303888, 9781407321394

Citation preview

BAR 478 2009 LEE THE PRODUCTION, USE AND DISPOSAL OF ROMANO-BRITISH PEWTER TABLEWARE

The Production, Use and Disposal of Romano-British Pewter Tableware Richard Lee

BAR British Series 478 2009 B A R

The Production, Use and Disposal of Romano-British Pewter Tableware Richard Lee

BAR British Series 478 2009

ISBN 9781407303888 paperback ISBN 9781407321394 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407303888 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Dedication

I dedicate this book to my wife Judy, whose unfailing support made this work possible.

1

Abstract

There remains a wide variety of evidence for the production and consumption of tin and lead alloy tableware in Roman Britain. In this book it is the categorisation of Romano-British tin and lead alloy tableware, as well as vessel production moulds, manufacturing debris and compositional data for pewter vessels that forms the study’s foundation. Yet it is the main purpose of this book to place this data in a wider social, economic and chronological context. In particular two powerful theoretical perspectives – that social identities could be constructed through the consumption of ‘objects’, and that such identities can be recorded in an object’s depositional context – have informed this research. The main result of this study is that pewter tableware, although a ‘Romanized’ material, could create and maintain a range of different social identities. Functionally different vessels, for example, can be taken as indicators of different ‘lifestyle’ choices, the comparative values of which shifted over time. However, these identities could also be re-negotiated over time to suit a number of ‘atypical’ personal choices, such as the reuse of high status vessels in ritual or low status roles. Another key result is that pewter consumption was also constrained by a comparative absence of tin in Britain before the 3rd century. Limited pre-3rd century pewter production can be suggested as occurring predominantly where there was easy access to imported tin. However, post 3rd century production, although most prolific in regions that had direct access to Cornish tin, could also exist in central and eastern England where they were fuelled by recycled tin, the extent of which is starting to be addressed through compositional analysis of Romano-British pewter. These findings, and the data they are built on, should both contribute to research on Romano-British pewter, and more generally provide new approaches to understand Roman material culture in Britain.

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisors Dr. H. Eckardt and Dr. S. Black and the Thesis Advisory Panel convener, Dr. J. Creighton for their support and advice for the duration of this PhD. Thanks are also due to my examiners, Prof. M. Fulford and Dr E. Swift for their comments on this work. I would also like to thank the following institutions for allowing me access to their material and reference collections. The Roman Baths Museum, and in particular the collections curator Susan Fox, for allowing me access to the Lansdown moulds and the related assemblage. The Reading Museum and the curator Jill Greenaway, for allowing me access to the pewter moulds recovered from Silchester, and for allowing me to conduct an X-ray fluorescence analysis of pewter vessels from Silchester and the Thames. Thanks are also due to Jan Gadd and the Pewter Society who allowed me to access their considerable archive, and in particular Peal’s papers and correspondence. Finally I should like to thank my parents, Chris and Jill, for providing me with much needed support for the duration of my PhD. I would also like to thank my wife, Judy, for both her personal and intellectual support during this study.

3

Table of Contents

Dedication .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Contents....................................................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 10 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2 History of Research....................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Antiquarian Research and the Rise of Typology....................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Pewter Production ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Pewter and Material ................................................................................................................................................... 17 3 Material and Identity ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 20 4.1 Data Collection........................................................................................................................................................... 20 4.2 Context Assessment ................................................................................................................................................... 21 5 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 2: Pewter Production.................................................................................................................................................. 25 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 25 2 The Lansdown workshop? ............................................................................................................................................ 25 2.1 Lansdown – A Pewter Production Site? .................................................................................................................... 25 2.2 The Lansdown Moulds .............................................................................................................................................. 29 2.3 Conclusion: Lansdown a Pewter workshop?............................................................................................................. 31 3 Mendip Production Reconsidered................................................................................................................................. 31 3.1 Introduction to Mendip .............................................................................................................................................. 31 3.2 Expedience, the Mendip Industry: a Conclusion....................................................................................................... 32 4 Production ..................................................................................................................................................................... 33 4.1 Moulds as an indicator of production ........................................................................................................................ 33 4.2 Scrap, Ingots and Production ..................................................................................................................................... 42 5 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Chapter 3: Pewter Distribution ................................................................................................................................................ 51 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 51 1.1 Tin Supply and Demand ............................................................................................................................................ 53 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 53 3 Accoutrements – Spoons............................................................................................................................................... 54 3.1 Analysis of Primary Site Contexts ............................................................................................................................. 54 3.2 Site Distribution for Pewter ....................................................................................................................................... 54 3.3 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................. 57 4 Drinking Vessels – Jugs ................................................................................................................................................ 57 4.1 Analysis of Primary Site Contexts ............................................................................................................................. 57 4.2 Site Distribution for Pewter Jugs ............................................................................................................................... 60 4.3 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................. 60 5 Drinking Vessels – Cups ............................................................................................................................................... 60 5.1 Analysis of Primary Site Contexts ............................................................................................................................. 60 5.2 Site Distribution for Pewter ....................................................................................................................................... 63 5.3 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................. 63 6 Tableware – Bowls........................................................................................................................................................ 63 6.1 Analysis of Primary Site Contexts ............................................................................................................................. 63 6.2 Site Distribution for Pewter ....................................................................................................................................... 65 6.3 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................. 68 7 Tableware – Dishes and Plates ..................................................................................................................................... 68 7.1 Analysis of Primary Site Contexts ............................................................................................................................. 68 7.2 Site Distribution for Pewter ....................................................................................................................................... 70 7.3 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................. 75 8 Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Chapter 4: Pewter in Ritual Contexts? .................................................................................................................................... 77 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 77 1.1 Hoards......................................................................................................................................................................... 77 4

2 The Otherworld and the Underground – Buried Deposits ........................................................................................... 79 2.1 Hoards and Finds in Wells ......................................................................................................................................... 79 2.2 Hoards and Finds in Shafts and Pits .......................................................................................................................... 80 2.3 The Appeal of Boundaries – Finds in Ditches........................................................................................................... 81 3.0 Water Deposition?...................................................................................................................................................... 81 3.1 Hoards in Rivers ......................................................................................................................................................... 81 3.2 Deposition in Ponds and Meres ................................................................................................................................. 81 4.0 Temples, Shrines and the Advent of Churches?........................................................................................................ 82 4.1 Temples, Shrines and the Pagus-Deities.................................................................................................................... 82 4.2 Cups and Military Cult ............................................................................................................................................... 82 5.0 Burial and Ritual ........................................................................................................................................................ 82 5.1 Cremations and Containment..................................................................................................................................... 83 5.2 Inhumation and Internment ........................................................................................................................................ 83 6.0 Conclusion, Hoarding and Ritual............................................................................................................................... 83 7.0 Iconography and Graffiti............................................................................................................................................ 84 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 84 7.2 Motifs and Inscriptions .............................................................................................................................................. 84 7.3 Motifs, Inscriptions and Contexts .............................................................................................................................. 96 7.4 Ritual Iconography and Contexts – A Synthesis ....................................................................................................... 96 8.0 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................ 103 Chapter 5: Pewter Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 105 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 105 1.1 Pewter Composition................................................................................................................................................. 105 2.0 The Analysis of the ‘Reading’ Vessels.................................................................................................................... 106 2.1 Scope of Analysis and Results ................................................................................................................................. 106 2.2 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................ 109 2.3 The Consumption of Waste – Was Lead Contaminated? ....................................................................................... 109 2.4 Is Iron Contamination Meaningful?......................................................................................................................... 112 2.5 Concluding Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 112 3.0 Published Analysis of Tin and Tin and Lead Alloys .............................................................................................. 112 3.1 Published Analysis of Tin and Tin and Lead Alloy Vessels................................................................................... 112 3.2 Non-Vessel Tin and Tin/Lead Alloy Artefacts. ...................................................................................................... 136 4.0 Summary of Grades of Manufacture ....................................................................................................................... 145 4.1 The Chronological-Spatial Distribution of Tin and Tin/Lead Alloys..................................................................... 146 4.2 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................ 147 Chapter 6: Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 148 Appendix 1: Lansdown Moulds ............................................................................................................................................ 152 1.0 The Assemblage a Catalogue................................................................................................................................... 152 Appendix 2: Vessel Typology ............................................................................................................................................... 174 2 Typology ..................................................................................................................................................................... 174 2.1 Bowls........................................................................................................................................................................ 174 2.2 Spoons ...................................................................................................................................................................... 180 2.3 Jugs ........................................................................................................................................................................... 193 2.4 Cups.......................................................................................................................................................................... 198 2.5 Plates and Dishes...................................................................................................................................................... 198 Appendix 3: Pewter Hoards by Context................................................................................................................................ 220 Appendix 4: Pewter with Ritual Decoration ......................................................................................................................... 234 Site Index ............................................................................................................................................................................... 243 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................................................... 247

5

List of Figures

Fig. 1: Some representative forms of pewter .......................................................................................................................... 12 Fig. 2: Peal’s classification of pewter plates and dish rim types ............................................................................................ 14 Fig. 3: Representative pewter moulds from Westgate Street, Gloucester.............................................................................. 16 Fig. 4: A plan of the Lansdown plateau with key Romano-British sites and finds shown .................................................... 26 Fig. 5: A plan of the Romano-British site at Lansdown ......................................................................................................... 27 Fig. 6: Dish and plate moulds from Silchester and Nettleton................................................................................................. 35 Fig. 7: Dish and plate moulds from various sites .................................................................................................................... 36 Fig. 8: Bowl and patera/skillet/pan moulds from St Just, Camerton and Nettleton ............................................................... 37 Fig. 9: Jug or cup moulds from Gloucester, Silchester, and Witcombe ................................................................................. 39 Fig. 10: Moulds used in a casting stack .................................................................................................................................. 41 Fig. 11: A map of all the sites known to have produced pewter moulds or tin or tin and lead alloy ingots, with a Roman date ................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Fig. 12: Quantitative variation in the scale of deposition for dishes/plates, bowls, cups, jugs and spoons respectively, in the 1st-5th centuries AD........................................................................................................................................... 52 Fig. 13: Quantitative variation in the scale of deposition for tin and tin and lead alloy spoons in different social contexts, with special emphasis on the site types for rural and urban finds respectively ........................................... 55 Fig. 14: Map of the distribution of all known finds of tin and tin and lead alloy spoons regardless of form and context ...56 Fig. 15: Quantitative variation in the scale of deposition for tin and tin and lead alloy jugs in different social contexts, with special emphasis on the site types for rural and urban finds respectively........................................................... 58 Fig. 16: Map of the distribution of all known finds of pewter jugs........................................................................................ 59 Fig. 17: Quantitative variation in the scale of deposition for tin and tin and lead alloy cups in different social contexts, with special emphasis on the site types for rural and urban finds respectively........................................................... 61 Fig. 18: Map of the distribution of all known finds of tin and tin and lead alloy cups regardless of form and context. ......62 Fig. 19: Quantitative variation in the scale of deposition for tin and tin and lead alloy bowls in different social contexts, with special emphasis on the site types for rural and urban finds respectively ........................................... 64 Fig. 20: Map of the distribution of all known finds of type 1, 2 and 3 bowls and all bowls of unknown form....................66 Fig. 21: Map of the distribution of all known finds of type 4, 6 and 7 bowls ........................................................................ 67 Fig. 22: Quantitative variation in the scale of deposition for tin and tin and lead alloy plate/dish forms in different social contexts, with special emphasis on the site types for rural and urban finds respectively................................. 69 Fig. 23: Map of the distribution of all known finds of tin and tin and lead alloy plates regardless of context ..................... 71 Fig. 24: Map of the distribution of all known finds of type A and B, 1 and 2 dishes ............................................................ 72 Fig. 25: Map of the distribution of all known finds of type 3, 4 and 5 dishes .......................................................................73 Fig. 26: Map of the distribution of all unknown finds of tin and tin/lead alloy dishes regardless of context. ...................... 74 Fig. 27: Overview of the occurrence of pewter tableware in Hoards, wet and dry ritual deposits, temples and burials. ..... 78 Fig. 28: Three tin and tin and lead alloy vessels inscribed with a Chi Rho ........................................................................... 86 Fig. 29: Three tin and tin and lead alloy vessels with possible inscribed Chi Rho ................................................................ 87 Fig. 30: The ‘Ely Cup’ or bowl, in three images .................................................................................................................... 88 Fig. 31: A tin and lead alloy bowl and dish with unlikely inscribed Chi Rho ....................................................................... 89 Fig. 32: 3 fish dishes with fish motif....................................................................................................................................... 90 Fig. 33: Reconstruction and depiction of the Jug with inscribed fish from Dragonby .......................................................... 91 Fig. 34: 4 spoons with fish motif from London ...................................................................................................................... 92 Fig. 35: 4 spoons with canthari motif ...................................................................................................................................... 93 Fig. 36: 5 spoons with canthari and birds motif ...................................................................................................................... 94 Fig. 37: 2 dishes with decoration............................................................................................................................................. 95 Fig. 38: 3 bowls or paterae with dedications to Mars or Sulis Minerva ................................................................................. 97 Fig. 39: 2 paterae from Bath.................................................................................................................................................... 98 Fig. 40: 6 inscribed names from various pewter vessels ........................................................................................................ 99 Fig. 41: 2 dishes with names inscribed ................................................................................................................................. 100 Fig. 42: Inscribed names and dedications from various vessels ........................................................................................... 101 Fig. 43: Inscriptions and production marks from various vessels ........................................................................................ 102 Fig. 44: The relative tin and lead composition for the analysed flagons and bowls from Silchester and Cliveden............107 Fig. 45: The relative tin and lead composition for the analysed cups from Silchester ........................................................ 110 Fig. 46: The relative lead/zinc composition for the analysed vessels from Silchester and Cliveden, and bowls 03800 and N/A, measured in PPM ........................................................................................................................................ 113 Fig. 47: The relative lead/zinc composition for cups 03801, 03802 and 03803 and flagons 1952.116.1, 1995.84.27, 1995.84.23 and 1985.84.24, measured in PPM ..................................................................................... 114 Fig. 48: The relative lead/arsenic composition for all of the analysed vessels from Silchester and Cliveden, and bowls 03800 and N/A, measured in PPM .................................................................................................................. 115 6

Fig. 49: The relative lead/arsenic composition for cups 03801, 03802 and 03803 and flagons 1952.116.1, 1995.84.27, 1995.84.23 and 1985.84.24, measured in PPM ..................................................................................... 116 Fig. 50: The relative lead/iron composition of all the analysed Silchester and Cliveden vessels and flagons 1952.116.1, 1995.84.27, 1995.84.23 and 1985.84.24, measured in PPM................................................................. 117 Fig. 51: The relative lead /iron composition for cups 03801, 03802 and 03803 and bowls 03800 and N/A, measured in PPM........................................................................................................................................................ 118 Fig. 52: The relative tin/lead compositions of the published analysis of plates and dishes ................................................. 121 Fig. 53: The relative tin/lead compositions of the published analysis of bowls and spoons. .............................................. 126 Fig. 54: The relative tin/lead compositions of the published analysis of jugs and cups ...................................................... 131 Fig. 55: The relative tin/lead compositions of the published analysis of canisters and paterae .......................................... 135 Fig. 56: The relative tin/lead compositions of the published analysis of the Bath curse tablets from the Sacred Spring at the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath...................................................................................................................... 144 Fig. 57: Fluted moulds from Lansdown................................................................................................................................ 153 Fig. 58: Deep dish, cup or in the case of DD2, jug neck, moulds from Lansdown ............................................................. 155 Fig. 59: Deep dish mould from Lansdown ........................................................................................................................... 155 Fig. 60: Deep dish mould from Lansdown ........................................................................................................................... 156 Fig. 61: Flagon moulds from Lansdown............................................................................................................................... 158 Fig. 62: Internal dish moulds from Lansdown ...................................................................................................................... 159 Fig. 63: Internal dish moulds from Lansdown ...................................................................................................................... 160 Fig. 64: Internal dish mould from Lansdown ....................................................................................................................... 162 Fig. 65: External and internal dish moulds from Lansdown ................................................................................................ 163 Fig. 66: Dish mould from Lansdown .................................................................................................................................... 164 Fig. 67: Dish mould from Lansdown .................................................................................................................................... 165 Fig. 68: Plate moulds from Lansdown .................................................................................................................................. 166 Fig. 69: Plate mould and dish mould from Lansdown.......................................................................................................... 167 Fig. 70: Plate and/or dish moulds from Lansdown ............................................................................................................... 168 Fig. 71: Plate and/or dish moulds from Lansdown ............................................................................................................... 169 Fig. 72: Plate and/or dish moulds from Lansdown ............................................................................................................... 170 Fig. 73: Various misc. moulds............................................................................................................................................... 171 Fig. 74: Mould from Lansdown, various .............................................................................................................................. 172 Fig. 75: Two basic forms of hemispherical bowls ................................................................................................................ 175 Fig. 76: Five basic forms of squat spherical bowls with lip/bead ........................................................................................ 176 Fig. 77: Two basic forms of squat semi-spherical bowls ..................................................................................................... 177 Fig. 78: Two basic forms of squat spherical bowls with ovoid body flanges ...................................................................... 178 Fig. 79: 4 types of squat spherical bowl with high flange/rim, cast foot or pedestal ...........................................................179 Fig. 80: 4 types of squat spherical bowl with octagonal flange............................................................................................ 181 Fig. 81: 5 types of squat spherical bowl with cast foot or pedestal, and an octagonal rim .................................................. 182 Fig. 82: 4 types of conical bowl ............................................................................................................................................ 183 Fig. 83: One basic form of deep conical based bowl with a high rim and flange ................................................................ 184 Fig. 84: Two basic forms of squat spherical bowls with multiple rims ............................................................................... 185 Fig. 85: Two basic forms of bowls with ovoid section and pedestal................................................................................... 186 Fig. 86: One basic form of dished bowl with a wide flange ................................................................................................. 187 Fig. 87: Two basic forms of cochlear spoons ....................................................................................................................... 195 Fig. 88: Four basic forms of pear shaped spoons.................................................................................................................. 196 Fig. 89: One basic form of type 3 fiddle shaped spoons from London................................................................................ 197 Fig. 90: Six basic forms of biconical jugs ............................................................................................................................. 199 Fig. 91: Five basic forms of narrow mouthed ring necked jugs ........................................................................................... 200 Fig. 92: Three basic forms of globular jugs .......................................................................................................................... 201 Fig. 93: One basic form of handled cup ................................................................................................................................ 204 Fig. 94: Two basic forms of conical cups ............................................................................................................................. 204 Fig. 95: One basic form of stemmed spherical cup .............................................................................................................. 205 Fig. 96: Four basic forms of dish........................................................................................................................................... 208 Fig. 97: One basic form of plate ............................................................................................................................................ 209 Fig. 98: Twenty basic forms of shallow dish ........................................................................................................................ 210 Fig. 99: Seven basic forms of flat everted bowls and one angular dish ............................................................................... 211

7

List of Tables

Table 1: A table summarising the known data for moulds outside of Lansdown ................................................................. 34 Table 2: Known finds of ingots from England and Wales ..................................................................................................... 43 Table 3: Tin alloy ‘lumps’ from various sites ......................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4: Scrap and waste from various sites ........................................................................................................................... 46 Table 5: A table of correlations between every element detected in the analysis of vessels from Silchester and Cliveden ...................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Table 6: Published analysis of plates and a platter. .............................................................................................................. 120 Table 7: Published analysis of dishes from Appleshaw, the Fens and Ospringe ................................................................. 123 Table 8: Published analysis of dishes from London, Appleshaw, Appleford, Bosence, the Fens, Abercynafon and Caerwent ..................................................................................................................................................................... 125 Table 9: Published analysis of lamps from London.............................................................................................................. 125 Table 10: Published analysis of tazzas from the Fens .......................................................................................................... 125 Table 11: Published analysis of spoons from London.......................................................................................................... 127 Table 12: Published analysis of jugs from Shapwick ........................................................................................................... 129 Table 13: Published analysis of cups .................................................................................................................................... 130 Table 14: Published analysis of canisters from the Walbrook Valley in London................................................................ 133 Table 15: Published analysis of paterae from Bath and Springhead .................................................................................... 134 Table 16: Known non-vessel and non-production finds of tin and tin/lead alloy manufactured objects from England and Wales .................................................................................................................................................................... 138 Table 17: Known finds of ingots from England and Wales ................................................................................................. 139 Table 18: Tin alloy ‘lumps’ and other production debris from various sites ....................................................................... 141 Table 19: The relative compositional values for the curse tablets retrieved from the Main Spring at Aquae Sulis ...........143 Table 20: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for all the identified conical bowls ........................... 188 Table 21: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for the identified basic forms of spherical bowls .....188 Table 22: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for all the identified semi-spherical bowls ...............189 Table 23: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for all identified squat spherical bowls with ovoid flange ................................................................................................................................................................ 189 Table 24: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for all identified squat spherical bowls with high flange/rim (types 2b-2b (iii)). ............................................................................................................................. 189 Table 25: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for all the identified squat spherical bowls with an octagonal body flange ............................................................................................................................................ 190 Table 26: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for all the identified squat spherical bowls with octagonal flange/rim ........................................................................................................................................... 190 Table 27: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for all the identified squat spherical bowls with rim/bead .............................................................................................................................................................. 191 Table 28: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for a deep conical based bowl with high rim and flange........................................................................................................................................................................... 191 Table 29: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for all identified squat spherical bowls with multiple rims. .............................................................................................................................................................. 191 Table 30: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for all identified ovoid bowls with pedestals ...........192 Table 31: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for all identified wide flanged bowls .......................192 Table 32: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for dished and flatter plain and decorated cochlear spoons........................................................................................................................................................... 192 Table 33: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for dished and flatter plain and decorated pear shaped spoons ............................................................................................................................................................. 194 Table 34: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for fiddle shaped spoons ........................................... 194 Table 35: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for all forms of bi-conical jugs ................................. 202 Table 36: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for narrow mouthed jugs .......................................... 203 Table 37: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for globular jugs........................................................ 203 Table 38: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for spherical cups ...................................................... 206 Table 39: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for conical cups ......................................................... 206 Table 40: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for spherical ‘stemmed’ cups ................................... 206 Table 41: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for shallow curved dishes ......................................... 212 Table 42: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for plates and flat shallow curved dishes .................213 Table 43: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for flat dishes with everted walls.............................. 214 Table 44: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for flat everted wall dishes ....................................... 214 Table 45: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for flat shallow flanged dishes ................................. 217 Table 46: Summarises the known contextual, dating and form data for ‘fish’ dishes ......................................................... 218 8

Table 47: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known finds of Romano-British hoards that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware, for which we have no detailed context ........................................ 220 Table 48: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known finds of Romano-British caches or hoards that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware ............................................................................................ 222 Table 49: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known finds of ‘associated’ Romano-British finds that probably comprise hoards, that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware but for which we have no positive context...................................................................................................................................................... 223 Table 50: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known finds from blacksmith hoards that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware ............................................................................................................... 223 Table 51: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known assemblages from Romano-British wells that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware .............................................................................................. 225 Table 52: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known assemblages from Romano-British ‘house pits’ that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware................................................................................... 226 Table 53: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for known assemblages from Romano-British pits that include pewter tableware ..................................................................................................................................... 227 Table 54: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known assemblages that include pewter tableware from misc. pits............................................................................................................................................ 227 Table 55: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known assemblages from Romano-British votive pits that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware ...................................................................................... 228 Table 56: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known assemblages from Romano-British ditches, that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware .......................................................................................... 228 Table 57: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known assemblages from Romano-British rivers that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware.............................................................................................. 229 Table 58: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known assemblages from Romano-British ponds and meres that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware. .......................................................................... 230 Table 59: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known assemblages from Romano-British temples and shrines, that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware...................................................................... 231 Table 60: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known cremation assemblages from Romano-British burials that include tin and tin and lead alloy tableware. ............................................................... 232 Table 61: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and finds data for all known inhumation assemblages from Romano-British burials, that include tin and tin/lead alloy tableware. ..................................................................... 233 Table 62: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and epigraphic/decoration data for known tin and tin and lead alloy vessels with an inscribed chi-rho....................................................................................................................... 234 Table 63: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and epigraphic/decoration data for known tin and tin and lead alloy ‘fish dishes’........................................................................................................................................................ 235 Table 64: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and epigraphic/decoration data for known tin and tin and lead alloy vessels/spoons decorated with a fish motif. ...................................................................................................... 236 Table 65: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and epigraphic/decoration data for known tin and tin and lead alloy vessels and spoons with an animal motif. ......................................................................................................... 237 Table 66: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and epigraphic/decoration data for known tin and tin and lead alloy vessels with an inscribed dedication to a genii loci or deity............................................................................. 238 Table 67: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and epigraphic/decoration data for known tin and tin and lead alloy vessels inscribed with a secular name ............................................................................................................... 241 Table 68: Summarises the contextual, dating, form and epigraphic/decoration data for known tin and tin and lead alloy vessels with an inscription or design that cannot be otherwise classified........................................................ 242

9

Chapter 1: Introduction

for Romano-British pewter and instead conduct a wider contextual study of such material. In the remainder of this chapter, I will discuss the previous work on tin and tin and lead alloys, before looking in detail at the theoretical approaches that I will use in this book. Finally, I will conclude with an overview of the six chapters that comprise the totality of this work.

1 Introduction Pewter is a term that is both poorly defined and poorly understood in current academia. Yet as a material, it permeated every sphere of Roman life. Amongst a range of uses it was the medium on which to talk to the Gods. It was also a way in which an elite could define itself and its wealth. This book presents in detail the typological, spatial and, where possible, chronological evidence not just for pewter tableware, but also for production material such as moulds. This book will also demonstrate that such material studies can form the basis of a wider contextual study. In particular it is suggested that there might be a meaningful relationship between the selection and use of certain forms of pewter tableware and the expression of social identities, as has been achieved for other forms of Romano-British material (for example dress accessories, Swift 2000).

2 History of Research The conventional approach to understanding tin and tin and lead alloy vessels has been limited to art historical comment on the vessel function [for example a wine jug], shape and material. A minority of studies have attempted to contextualize such vessels by placing them within groups of functionally similar material, for example flagons, but few studies have tried to place finds in a wider context. One exception (Wedlake 1958) remains an attempt to understand the role of pewter vessels within a general economic-industrial framework, in which it is assumed that a proximity to lead and especially tin fields generated pewter production, but this is based on the assumption that a correlation between the late dates for pewter consumption and tin extraction are meaningful. More recently the development and application of new technology to analyse Romano-British tin and lead alloys has allowed the composition of pewter tableware to be accurately gauged (using XRF for example, Earwood, Northover and Cool 2001), but as with antiquarian typologies, it is seen as acceptable to view the results only in terms of how they relate to other tin values instead of looking at how they relate to a wider context.

Of particular importance to this book is how identity was articulated through the use of material. In anthropology a consensus has become established in which the type of material selected for ‘consumption’ (Douglas and Isherwood 1980) was deliberately chosen to express a certain identity or identities. For Romano-British archaeology this has traditionally meant that the adoption of either native or Roman material indicated a native or Roman identity (Millett 1990a, b; Woolf 1998). However, a number of recent studies have demonstrated that material might be used to express a far greater range of more subtle Romano-British identities such as ethnicity (Swift 2000) and gender or, as Eckardt (2002) argues, multiples of such identities.

In the remainder of this chapter, it is these three different corpora of literature, and indeed different intellectual agenda, vessel typology, production and material, which have come to characterise research into Romano-British pewter, that will be discussed. Such an approach is thematic, and consciously rejects both a simple historiography and the traditional categorisation of prior surveys and excavation reports which comprise the greater body of work on Romano-British pewter. Instead the seminal literature that underlies each thematic approach will be discussed, the important components presented, and their place in a wider historiography noted. In so doing the origin and development of each theme will be discussed and critiqued, and its place in alternative [notably socioeconomic] frameworks considered.

The adoption of pewter tableware in particular is suited to the exploration of multiple identities. The use of pewter was dependent on access to tin, and the rise of pewter production has become inextricably linked with post 3rd century tin exploitation in the southwest of Britain. However, the comparative expense of tin [as opposed to lead in particular] also suggests its consumption was the act of the wealthy and has led, as will be argued, to the notion of pewter tableware as ‘elite’ (e.g. by emulating silver tableware). Indeed, pewter tableware not only represented a new technology, but was also responding to a new ordering of social space. In particular, there is a strong association between the types of pewter, and indeed silver, dishes selected and new ‘Romanized’ dining patterns. In death too, pewter retained its elite associations and was chosen [albeit less frequently than for hoards] for inclusion in both cremations and inhumations. A further symbolic ritual meaning was also attached to pewter tableware, because of the ability to sacralise such vessels through inscription which led to their inclusion in both pagan and Christian rites.

The first and most widely utilised theme is typology, which may be identified within art historical comment on Romano-British pewter vessels. This is often prompted by the unusual and complete nature of surviving pewter vessels. The second theme is the production of pewter derived from an assumed economic association between high densities of pewter vessels in the south of Britain and the presence of tin ore in the southwest. The third theme, the analysis of material [pewter] is comparatively recent as

In this book then, it is suggested that it is possible, as with other groups of Romano-British material, to go beyond the art historical approaches that have previously been adopted 10

the technology that enabled such programmes has only been developed and widely utilised in the last thirty years.

art historical interest that generated the first significant corpus of recorded pewter finds.

Of course it is common to find the tripartite themes outlined above within a single study (Wedlake 1958, 8293; Beagrie 1989) and in many publications it is difficult to identify a discussion on just typology, material or production. In particular a lack of distinction between different themes is partially the consequence of a chronological development in which more recent technologies and intellectual frameworks have been based on the reinterpretation of Romano-British pewter finds first collated as part of a general art historical interest in pewter.

However, for Read, aestheticism could also be incorporated in a new comparative framework born of a general change within the sciences after the development of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. For archaeology, such theory suggested that typological change over time (Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993, 8-13) could be used to understand ancient civilisations. In relation to pewter, typology can be seen as a process of engagement with an underlying and growing acceptance that most finds of pewter, although occurring in elaborate forms, were limited both stylistically and chronologically. To articulate this, Read (Engleheart 1905) used a new functional and stylistic framework in which description such as ‘claret jug’ (Stanley 1870, 209) was superseded by the systematic recording of vessel components and forms [e.g. neck, handle], decoration and size. In applying this new scientific approach to the Appleshaw hoard (Engleheart 1905) Read had created a standardised approach to recording pewter finds that has become widely adopted in subsequent scholarship (e.g. Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933; Earwood, Northover and Cool 2001). Moreover, in imposing criteria of design and decoration on the Appleshaw hoard Read had created both a detailed dataset and points of comparison against which new finds such as the Thatcham hoard could be compared (Collingwood 1931).

However, despite such a ‘combined’ approach there remains little interest in understanding the journey of pewter tableware from creation, through consumption until deposition. Rather, where attempts have been made to draw together typological, material and production data (e.g. Beagrie 1989), it is as a number of disassociated material studies of, for example, vessels, then compositional values for tin and finally moulds. Whilst attempting to provide a wider context for pewter vessels, the creation of material and compositional studies, although providing useful data sets, continue to perpetuate the antiquarian notion that categorisation is a useful end per se, and does little to usefully expand the scope of the study of such material.

In ascribing a 4th century date to the Appleshaw hoard, and relating the find to the villa elite, Read (Engleheart, 1905) had also created an idea of pewter as consumed by a late Roman elite. As new finds were compared to the Appleshaw hoard, two pervasive ideas took root. Firstly the late date of pewter consumption; Clarke (1931, 66) in a study of a pewter bowl from the Isle of Ely states ‘Roman pewter in Britain nearly always belongs to the later period of the occupation […]’. Secondly, that the late date of pewter tableware in ‘elite’ deposits reflected a late Roman ‘crisis’ in which the elite hoarded pewter for safety (Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933, 166). Both ideas have come to dominate subsequent thinking on both the production and consumption of pewter.

2.1 Antiquarian Research and the Rise of Typology Art Historical Interest In writing an appendix on the pewter finds made during Engleheart’s (1905) excavation at Appleshaw, Read provides a retrospective of the unprecedented finds of pewter recorded in the previous century. The great hoards of pewter from Icklingham and Sutton had been discovered by the mid 1800’s, and a surfeit of smaller finds (Stanley 1870; Barker 1901; Clarke 1931; Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933) had been regularly retrieved [or identified] throughout the century. For Read, as for those that preceded him, such finds of pewter vessels were worthy of comment and study because, in contrast to ceramic material and most other forms of metalwork, pewter is rare in the Romano-British archaeological record. Moreover, a significant majority of retrieved material came from hoards within which a good level of survival was common.

Typological Surveys Perhaps the most important legacy of Read’s (Engleheart 1905) typological survey of the Appleshaw hoard was the potential to use a comparative framework to create detailed typologies for Romano-British pewter.

For Read et al. working within an archaeological discipline defined in art historical terms, such rarity and complete survival made pewter peculiarly suited to aesthetic (for example formalist) discussion. Stanley (1870, 210) in writing of the discovery of the Caerhays cup typifies such an aesthetic approach in which the focus of the article lay in the description of a vessel’s form for example where the ‘neck was perfect […] one long curved handle’ or more simply through classical comparison such as to a simpulum. Most occasional pewter finds were similarly treated, as it became tacitly accepted that the description of such vessels was itself worthwhile. Collectively it was this

It was in the 19th century that the first ‘pewter ware’ typologies were created, grouping together material of similar form. In 1901 Barker writing on a jug hoard retrieved from Brislington first identified ‘biconical’ jugs (Barker 1901, 285; Ashby 1907) and within thirty years a second group, ‘narrow mouthed’ jugs, had also been catalogued (Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933, 165). Both typologies remain largely unaltered today (Johns and May 1996).

11

Fig. 1: Some representative forms of pewter. Vessels: a) hemispherical bowl, b) small bowl, c) small flagon, e) platter from the Appleford hoard (after: Brown 1973, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of D. Brown) and f) plate, g) plate with curved side wall (after Brown 1973, fig. 3, reproduced by permission of D. Brown), and from the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath: d) pan (after Cunliffe 1988b, fig. 10, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford).

12

The first, and indeed only, complex analysis conducted for any group of pewter tableware has been for dishes, and reflects the prolific and diverse nature of this group of pewter tableware. The purpose of this analysis had been, as Peal makes clear, to create ‘a sequence and dating of rim types, exactly as has been done for seventeenth-century English pewter’ (Peal 1967, 24) based on the design and decoration of Romano-British pewter plates and dishes. Where Peal succeeds is in the creation and application of a typological framework that provides the first catalogue of plate and dish forms and decoration, which is still widely used to classify pewter dishes today. However, although potentially his methodology might work, Peal failed to achieve a chronologically bounded cohesive typology because of the constraints of a small sample size and poor dating evidence.

amend old, typologies. In particular, as new iconographic studies show, we must remain alive to new interpretations of finds data and should seek to transcend categorisation as an end in itself, choosing instead a broader contextual approach, as has been deployed for other lead assemblages such as the Aquae Sulis votive tablets (Tomlin 1988). Synthesis In the last forty years the disparate typological surveys of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have increasingly been subject to a process of re-evaluation, to create detailed maps for pewter consumption, based on the synthesis of all typological (Engleheart 1905) and spatial and chronological data. In the 1950’s Wedlake (1958, 82-93) established the initial limits for such a socio-spatial study of Romano-British pewter1 by arguing that the high density of tableware recorded from southern Britain, and the elite context and late date of many of these finds, reflected both the adoption of pewter as a silver substitute (Johns 1996, 3-4) by a late ‘Romanized’ villa elite (as initially supposed by Engleheart 1905), and access to Cornish tin. This model has become largely adopted in subsequent syntheses of Romano-British pewter (Peal 1967; Hatcher and Barker 1974), but a number of recent finds have now started to challenge Wedlake’s (1958, 82-93) theory. Beagrie (1989)2 in particular has argued that pewter tableware occurs outside both the chronological and spatial limits set by Wedlake (1958, 82-93) suggesting that the adoption of tin reflects a more complex range of social processes than hitherto thought.

Although many typological observations have been made about bowl forms (e.g. Stead and Rigby 1986; Blagg, Plouviez and Tester 2004; Greep 1988; Earwood, Northover and Cool 2001; Gray 1929; Clarke 1931; Sunter and Brown 1988; Rodwell and Rodwell 1993; Rahtz and Greenfield 1977), there remains no single typology for this form despite bowls comprising the second largest group of pewter tableware. More recently Jones and Sherlock (1996) and Jones (1983) have conducted a typological study for pewter spoons. Jones and Sherlock’s (1996) analysis of decorated spoons from London remains especially significant because they choose to group their samples not just by form but also by iconography. As a result they were able to place pewter spoons not only in typological groups, but also in a wider chronological and social context, arguing that they were ‘portable talismans’ produced by a single London workshop that operated in the 1st-2nd century AD.

A particular criticism of Wedlake’s (1958, 82-93) model relates to the interpretation of the disproportionately large number of Romano-British pewter vessels recovered from pewter hoards. Manning’s (1972) study of the context of Roman ironwork and pewter hoards has implicitly rejected Wedlake’s model of hoarding as elite ‘crisis’ deposits, arguing instead that such finds should be viewed in ritual terms. Poulton and Scott (1993) have gone further still, arguing that all pewter vessels were explicitly ritual objects, and their hoarding can only be viewed as fulfilling ritual functions. However, the ritual or non-ritual nature of hoards remains divisive (Fulford 2001; Bradley 1990, 194; Reece 1988; see also Chapter 4).

Although the use of iconography is not new, with Peal (1967, 29) for example having called for a survey of Christian iconography, the wider potential of iconographic studies is only now being realised. A number of studies of graffito and decoration have now been conducted. Jones and Sherlock’s (1996) catalogue of decorated ‘talismanic’ spoons from London has already been discussed. A range of inscriptions naming deities has also been noted by Tomlin and Frere (1991) and Tomlin (1988). Conversely Mawer (1995) and Boon (1992) in particular have catalogued a diverse amount of iconography identified on pewter vessels that they argue denotes a Christian rather than pagan role. Tomlin and Frere (1991) have identified a number of property marks and production marks that seem to bear no relationship to either pagan or Christian ritual, but that do perhaps relate to production and/or consumption (discussed in Chapter 4).

In conclusion it can be suggested that the socio-spatial model developed by Wedlake (1958, 82-93) is both limited and flawed but remains a useful framework within which most finds of pewter ware can be articulated, whilst also forcing us to approach more socially subtle uses of pewter by engaging with contrary or atypical finds that lie outside the limits for late Roman elite consumption.

In conclusion, it can be suggested that typological analysis of Romano-British pewter tableware remains a crucial diagnostic tool for approaching the study of pewter tableware (discussed in Chapter 3 and Appendix 2). However, we must accept the limitations imposed on such study by poor contextual and chronological data, and a small sample size, but still strive to develop new, and 13

1

Based on a sample of c.197 items.

2

Based on an unpublished synthesis of data for c.400 pewter vessels and c.100 small finds.

Fig. 2: Peal’s classification of pewter plates and dish rim types (after Peal 1967, fig. 4, reproduced by permission of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society).

14

2.2 Pewter Production

of structural evidence, a mould fragment from Norwich and scrap at Hatcheston and Hockwold, the latter also containing a melted ?pewter ingot, are evidence for pewter manufacture in Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. These regions had long been assumed to have had pewter production centres because of extensive local finds of pewter. More recently Beagrie (1989) has argued that not just moulds and scrap but also pewter waste and ingots were suggestive of production sites in North Yorkshire, Northumberland and Kent. Although not proven, both Peal (1967, 23) and Beagrie (1989, 189) have also both raised the possibility of the import of pewter tableware from Gaul.

Manufacture In reviewing the evidence for pewter consumption and production as part of the Camerton excavation, Wedlake (1958) provided ‘the first general survey of the RomanoBritish pewter industry’ (Beagrie 1989, 169), including a retrospective of the then known pewter production centres. Finds of pewter moulds such as those from Wick (Scarth 1884), Brislington (Barker 1901) and Langton (Goodall 1972) had comprised a source of archaeological interest from the late nineteenth century. From 1905, Bush’s (1905-13) excavations at Lansdown had uncovered a series of pewter moulds for both vessels and small artefacts that still remain the most significant find of pewter moulds yet found. More recently a surfeit of chance finds of moulds has also been made and reviewed (Tweddle 1986; Blagg and Read 1977; Beagrie 1989; Fulford and Timby 2000; Wilson 2002; Wedlake 1982; Millett and Graham 1986; Goodall 1972; Ashbee 1970). Beagrie (1989, 182) in particular has increased the range of known pewter moulds by differentiating between pewter and copper moulds by arguing that most identified pewter moulds were made from limestone that degraded if heated above 550°C, required to cast copper alloys. As most pewter moulds have no heat damage, they must have been used for casting tin and lead alloys that require a temperature below 550°C [i.e. 231.9°C]. All known pewter moulds (including unpublished examples from Lansdown) are discussed in detail in Chapter 2 and Appendix 1.

In conclusion it can be suggested that as with pewter tableware, the socio-spatial model for pewter production developed by Wedlake (1958, 82-93) is both limited and flawed, but probably does reflect the atypical nature of production in the Mendip region. However, it is important to address how far disparity in the scale of production between Mendip and the rest of Britain is a real event by more closely appraising finds of scrap and moulds in the light of more recent work that suggests that the indicators of production can be slighter than hitherto thought. Material and the Issue of Supply The late development of pewter production in Mendip is widely assumed to be a consequence of a regional exploitation of local lead and Cornish tin. Yet there have been few attempts to understand this relationship, or integrate pewter manufacture into studies of either Romano-British lead or tin production.

What characterised such initial interest was a belief based on the rarity of the finds that pewter moulds, like pewter vessels, were of sufficient interest per se to record. As with pewter vessels, moulds were also sufficiently similar to allow the development of standardised recording based on design form, material, and internal and external measurements, which in turn allowed limited typological comparison (Wedlake 1958, 82-84 esp. in relation to Lansdown, Bush 1905-13).

The archaeology of lead production in particular has been dominated by the ‘necessity’ (Hodges and Smith 1991, 60) of studying the distribution and iconography of stamped lead ingots (Collingwood and Wright 1990, 38-66). Such studies have been widely used to identify not just 1st–2nd century Imperial lead extraction in Flintshire/Shropshire (Davies 1950), Derbyshire (Clark 1940), Cumberland (Frere 1974, 259), Yorkshire (Wooler 1926; Raistrick 1934) and Mendip (Elkington 1976), but also, as Elkington (1976) argues, the resultant regional (Elkington and Vinver 1985) and inter-regional export of lead (Jarret 1964; Boon 1991, 318-22). Yet despite such epigraphic studies and the identification of elements of this Imperial infrastructure in lead producing regions (Rahtz and Greenfield 1977), we still remain, in relation to lead extraction, ‘remarkably ignorant of its development and organisation’ (Hodges and Smith 1991, 60).

It is fortunate that many pewter moulds remained ‘in situ’ or had associated evidence of pewter manufacture (Bush 1906; Ashbee 1970; Brown 1970; Blagg and Read 1977; Beagrie 1989, 181-190). Indeed strong arguments can now be made for the interpretation of structures at Lansdown, Camerton, Nettleton and Gatcombe3 in the Somerset region as pewter producing workshops (discussed in Chapter 2 and Appendix 1). For Wedlake (1958, 82-93), this high density of both pewter producing workshops and moulds and scrap in north Somerset was evidence of the primacy of the region in pewter manufacture. However, this model has become widely challenged by subsequent finds and in subsequent analysis. Peal (1967, 19-20) has argued that, despite a lack 3

Such ‘ignorance’ is exacerbated when attempts are made to understand lead manufacture in the 3rd-4th century AD. It is widely assumed that post 3rd century lead mining in the Mendips and the re-exploitation of Cornish tin underlay the development of pewter production centres at Camerton and Lansdown (Elkington 1976, 176; Wedlake 1958). However, this theory exists partially because the nature of the late phase of lead exploitation is not well understood, not least because few stamped ingots survive from this period. Although it is probable as Hodges and Smith

The latter two sites having been discovered after Wedlake’s (1958) survey of Mendip production sites.

15

Fig. 3: Representative pewter moulds from Westgate Street, Gloucester. Mould a) an internal mould for a jug or flagon, b) internal mould for a jug or flagon, c) lower mould for a flat plate, (after Garrod and Heighway 1980, fig. 13, © Richard Bryant).

16

(1991, 60) suggest, that after the 3rd century Imperial lead extraction had ceased in favour of small-scale native production, we have no real understanding of how this extraction related to the consumption of lead in the 3rd–5th centuries (Ratcliffe 1993; Holbrook 2003).

reports on finds of Romano-British pewter, such analysis was not widely conducted. Wedlake (1958, 87) and Richmond and Gillam (1951) provide rare examples of the analysis of single ‘pewter’ artefacts. The comparative lack of such compositional analysis can perhaps be attributed to the fact that chemical analysis was both destructive (Richmond and Gillam 1951, 88-9), and, even with later non-destructive analysis, expensive, requiring specialist personnel and equipment.

The study of tin is, as with lead, focussed on the study of ingots (Beagrie, 1983). In contrast to lead ingots RomanoBritish tin ingots comprise a small sample size, localised on the southwestern peninsula, presumed to relate to the proximity of tin (Dayton 1971, 56-57). A lack of the epigraphy that is common to most lead ingots makes the identification of a specific date and source for tin4 difficult. Quinnell’s (2004) review of the regionally dominant planoconvex ingots (other ingot forms are discussed by Tylecote 1966) argued that contextual evidence generates a date range of 1st–5th century AD for the ingot group. However, Thomas (1988) and Beik (1994) have cast doubt on the late date of Roman plano-convex ingots, suggesting that many are part of a previously underestimated phase of postRoman mining. In the absence of legible stamps (Warner 1967; Collingwood and Wright 1990, 67), a programme to identify centres of tin extraction (Edmondson 1989), or a clear dating framework, little can be said about the production of tin ingots beyond noting that tin was probably produced in early and late Roman Cornwall. Instead, like lead extraction, tin extraction is more widely inferred through the presence of pewter.

It was in the analysis of hoards that the expense and damage of testing seemed justifiable and so was most widely used. Gowland’s (Engleheart 1905, 13-20) appendix on the Appleshaw hoard was the first such study and at one level sought as Stanley (1870) et al. had done to identify the composition of the pewter vessels studied. However Gowland’s central aim was to compare this data with other analysed material to show and explain variation within groups of Romano-British pewter artefacts. Gowland’s results demonstrated that the tested material, although including examples of ‘unadulterated’ tin and Argentarium,6 comprised two significant groups of lead and tin alloy. ‘Group A’ (Engleheart 1905, 18), the larger of the two groups, had tin and lead alloys with an average composition7 of 71.5% tin to 27.8% lead. ‘Group B’ (Engleheart 1905, 18) had tin and lead alloys with an average composition of 78.2% tin to 21.7% lead. For Gowland the composition of Groups A and B was similar to the composition of two different cakes of pewter suggesting that these two groups reflected the ingots available for manufacture. Certainly artefacts that match the compositional range of both Group A and B are evident in Liversidge’s (1959) analysis of fenland material suggesting this composition was widely used.

To return to Wedlake’s (1958, 82-93) model, 3rd-4th century pewter manufacturing was a consequence of a 3rd4th century exploitation of tin in Cornwall that seems to fit with a post 3rd century economic re-orientation in the region. Yet, the role of Cornish tin and Mendip lead in this process cannot be known, but merely inferred.

Debate over whether the Caerhays cup (Stanley 1870) was tin or lead prompted the first attempt to develop a scientific test to identify the composition of Romano-British lead, tin and lead and tin alloy artefacts. Although this set a precedent for the inclusion of metal analysis in subsequent

In reviewing previous work on tin and lead alloys, Beagrie (1989) significantly amended Gowlands (Engleheart 1905, 13-20) position, arguing that the difference in pewter composition was a reflection not of available material, but rather a deliberate management of material for a technological advantage. In particular, Beagrie’s analysis demonstrated that pewter composition predominated at three, rather than two, different tin values: 50% Sn, 75% Sn and 95% Sn. High tin vessels are comparatively easy to explain, for tin ingots from Carnanton (Smythe 1938, 25657) and the Port Vendres wreck (Colls 1977) were available that had a purity of c.99.99% Sn. However, the predominance of 95% Sn levels indicated a systematic alloying of the metal, whether unintended through metal recycling or contamination from ore processing, or intended, as Beagrie suggested, as one of a range of additives8 to harden tin or as Smythe (1938, 263) suggested, to reduce corrosion. Tin values of 50% Sn and 75% Sn are more difficult to explain. For Beagrie these groups might have been a reflection of an attempt to utilise

4

6

An alloy for use as solder or in tinning.

7

After an error of c.4% tin is taken into account due to variation in the metal when cast and other irregularities and compositional variation throughout the form.

2.3 Pewter and Material Analysis for Identification There are inherent difficulties in distinguishing pewter from lead, non-tin lead alloys, tin alloys and tin, with neither colour nor weight as an accurate guide to the metal type. Traditionally this has prompted a wide range of assumptions about, and descriptions of, [possible] pewter artefacts of which terms such as probable pewter (Clarke 1952, 40), ‘white metal’5 (Hayter 1921, 46), tin (Richmond and Gillam 1951, 88-9), solder (Boon 1970, 57), leaden (Blair 1880) and lead can be seen as representative.

5

The only known Romano-British source for tin is the tin streaming site of Gwithian, identified by fieldwork (Thomas 1972). The suggestion that this refers to pewter is considered likely by the book’s author, as this metal is referred to as neither bronze nor silver in the text.

8

17

Such as the occasional inclusion of copper, antimony, bismuth, etc.

the eutectic point9 of tin and lead alloys for superior casting, but the selection of cheaper lead alloys as a tin replacement in the later Roman Empire and poor testing procedures should also be considered (Engleheart 1905, 13-20).

pewter, when equated with stagnum, can be used as a generic term to describe tin and its alloys, for example tertiarium and argentarium. Indeed it is telling that Beagrie only attempts further definition of pewter as a term ‘where analysis allows’ (Beagrie 1989, 171). From this we can infer that only when we understand why there is variation within Romano-British tin alloys will it be possible to categorise them adequately. For the present pewter must remain an imprecise term for this group of different poorly understood tin alloys (discussed in more detail in Chapter 5), which range from pure tin to tin and lead alloys, and is so used in the following work (Beagrie 1989, 171).

A particular criticism for all prior analysis of tin alloy vessels was that the composition of pewter varied not just from item to item, but also within a single vessel. Such variation is typified in Pollard’s (1983; and before him Gowland’s, in Engleheart 1905) analysis of the Appleshaw hoard. For plates over c.30cm in width and large bowls (18-20cm) an alloy of c.75% Sn and 25% Pb was systematically selected (Pollard 1983). Conversely, on composite vessels, such as the octagonal flanged bowl (Engleheart 1905), the results (81.1% Sn and 18.9% Pb for the body, 38.3% Sn and 61.6% Pb for the footring) were indicative of a deliberate selection of higher tin alloys for areas that were in contact with food and that were highly visible, and high lead tin alloys elsewhere (Pollard 1983). For Beagrie (1989) the deliberate selection of these different alloys for different roles was indicative of an attempt to gain a technological advantage through the manipulation of material. However, subsequent surveys are starting to identify regional variation in the tin levels of flagons, suggesting alloys were not universal but were the result of a more complex selection process including access to materials, and customer preference.

3 Material and Identity In the remainder of the chapter I will present and discuss the theory that there is a meaningful relationship between how material is consumed, and the creation and expression of social identities. It is a particular irony of Romano-British archaeology that although a finds-rich period (Eckardt 2002, 15), the potential of such finds is frequently left either un-engaged with (Swift 2000, 7-8) or underused. The primary role of material remains the construction of chronological and spatial frameworks against which the presence or absence of Roman[ized] material, and so a Roman or native identity, can be measured. Recently, the notion of a Roman or native identity, and that of ‘Romanization’ more generally (Mommsen 1885; Haverfield 1923; Vinogradoff 1911; Collingwood 1937; Frere 1987; Millett 1990a, b), has been widely criticised (Millett 2001). Identity can be seen not simply as Roman or native but as created and negotiated (Day, 1997) through ‘discrepant experience’ (Mattingly 1997a). Such discrepant experience has become widely articulated through a new material agenda in which it was the consumption of material that expressed different social identities (Eckardt 2002). It is the purpose of this section to establish how this new canon of thought initially developed across the academic disciplines (Gosden and Marshall 1999), before examining how such agendas can be adapted firstly for archaeology, then specifically how they might be applied to a study of Romano-British material, notably pewter tableware.

Definition It is exactly the lack of uniformity in the composition of Roman ‘pewter’ that is problematic for attempts to understand the material. There is no precise standardised definition of the constituent elements of Romano-British pewter, of the kind later adopted in Britain and discussed at length by Beagrie (1989, 169-70). Instead, Romano-British ‘pewter’ can be more accurately described as stagnum, a term recorded by Pliny (N.H XXX; XXXIV) and associated with Roman tin and tin and lead alloys and widely inferred as describing solder of which tertiarium10 is an example, ‘tinning’ of which argentarium11 is representative, or tin or tin alloy vessels. Problematically this definition provides very little cohesion and the term can also be applied to silver-lead alloys, lead alloys, and to tinned vessels of other materials such as copper.

Model Societies and Material The use, in the late twentieth century, of pewter to describe finds of Romano-British tin alloy was one of convenience, to describe a metal that is a tin lead alloy rather than either tin (Clarke 1931, 66) or lead. For Beagrie (1989) pewter is a term that is historically indistinguishable from tin alloy, but it is also a term that, in relation to Romano-British pewter, he applies to unalloyed tin. The reason pewter has become synonymous with such variation is because 9

The highest temperature at which an alloy or its constituent parts will solidify.

10

33.3% Sn, 66.6% Pb.

11

50% Sn, 50% Pb.

A number of recent studies have marked a rethinking about the relationship between the consumption of commodities and identity. Underlying this relationship is the belief that the desire, use, cessation of use or subversion of a ‘commodity’, an economic (Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff 1986) ‘thing’ or right that at some point can be exchanged for other ‘things’, is symbolic of particular social identities. This social role of material is not a recent development, but underlay functionalist thought (Malinowski 1939; Radcliffe-Brown 1949; 1940 Parsons 1938; 1951; 1962; Merton 1968), or the dual premise that there is interaction between all the social ‘players’ that form a society, but that each of these ‘players’ also reinforces their own identity 18

and social role through systematic behaviour (Eisenstadt 1990). The latter position is of particular relevance to material studies because it allows for objects to be systematically acquired to express and maintain a specific social identity.

representative of new cultural practices. For Weatherill (1988, 9), such goods exist either as back-stage or frontstage goods, fulfilling old and traditional or new practices respectively, whether related to the object’s function or not. Weatherill’s (1988) concept of ‘front stage’ goods has recently been applied to Romano-British archaeology (Eckardt and Crummy 2006), and in particular within the debate about how far new ‘Roman’ material was accepted or rejected in Roman Britain, by reflecting not a native or Roman identity but given how a social identity is ascribed, a more varied experience.

Identity both of the individual and the group was, and is (Gosden and Marshall 1999; Moreland 1999), created through the use of ‘objects’ (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981). For Appadurai (1986) and Kopytoff (1986) the expression of this relationship was the ‘commoditisation’ and enclaving [de-commoditisation] of an object. As Appadurai (1986) observes, in highly complex monetarised societies (‘simple’ societies being discussed by Douglas and Isherwood 1980) any ‘object’ can become a commodity because everything can have a coin value and so can be traded with any other commodity. Furthermore, in complex societies as Kopytoff (1986) argues, it is an individual or social clique, but not society as a whole, that is forced to ascribe a value to an object using their own value system to discriminate, classify, compare and sacralize objects, and so cause their singularization or enclaving [removal] from a commoditised state (Appadurai 1986). Consequently material becomes a battleground of competing identities in which individuals and groups try to create social identities such as ‘elite’ or ‘religious’ through their selection, decommoditisation and/or use of certain types of material. Because each individual and/or social group ascribes its own values to the same objects, complex multiple idiosyncratic ‘object’ ‘biographies’ (Tringham et al. 1974; 1992; 1994; 1998) or ‘histories’ (Gilling and Pollard 1999) can develop.

The process of ‘Romanization’ has increasingly become articulated in terms of post-colonial theory in which the complex interaction between native and invader are studied in terms of discrepant experience (Mattingly 1997a; Woolf 1997). Those arguments that have sought to understand the consumption or ‘appropriation’ of Roman material in these terms provide an interesting dualism. On the one hand Roman material was inherently desirable exactly because it was Roman (Millett 1990a, b). Conversely, Roman material was also adopted for functional not symbolic reasons. Indeed Eckardt (2002, 27) has persuasively argued that access to, or rather the abundance of, a particular material may have led to the widespread adoption of a particular artefact group rather than engagement with an object’s symbolic value, identifiable in the distribution of many locally produced Romano-British ceramics (Tyers 1996, 195). For pewter, both positions are of significance. As with lighting equipment (Eckardt, 2002) pewter can be taken as an indicator of new social practices, with pewter tableware responding not only to a new aestheticism, but also denoting very specific patterns of food consumption and the associated reordering of social space (Deetz 1996). Conversely, pewter is a metal that seems to be embedded within the rise of a new industry, and the area of most pewter finds appear to correlate with areas of tin and lead production and trade suggesting that it, too, was the consequence of access to raw materials.

It is a problem with the social ascription of value to an object that often its value is seen as not derived from its function alone. Indeed, for Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) every object is symbolic and its choice or rejection is meaningful. Deetz’s (1996) study of colonial and postcolonial American ‘objects’ reminds us that in addition to a functional role, material also has a symbolic social role which can fulfil both a Socio-Technic and Ideo-Technic function where objects were used as luxuries or for ritual respectively. Of particular interest to this work is how such socially ascribed identities vary between regimes of value (Appadurai 1986, 4), for example the transition of an object between two spatially and culturally different systems [chronological regimes will be discussed below]. Such arguments have been widely adopted in anthropology (Rainbird 1999) epitomised by Saunders’ (1999) use of pearls as a metaphor for illuminating the contrasting cultural attitudes of American Indians and Europeans to ‘wealth’. However, only recently have such studies become established in Romano-British archaeology with the development of a better understanding of the high status consumption of Roman material in the pre Roman late Iron Age (e.g. ceramics, metalwork, food, Cunliffe 2005; coinage, Creighton 1995).

A divisive problem remains how we can observe which ‘identity’ applies to any given find of Roman pewter. As Eckardt (2002, 29-30) observes, the meaning of an object can change from context to context and in so doing reflect different ‘styles of consumption’ (Woolf 1998). For Hodder (1991, 144-155) there is a dialectic relationship between material and contexts in which the form of ‘context’ (or relevant ‘dimensions’ or factors that relate to an ‘object’) gives meaning to the object and vice versa. Inclusion in a depositional context might show, for example, how an object was used, at least at its moment of deposition. An object in a burial would, for example, denote a different symbolic role to deposition in a rubbish pit. More broadly, the kind of site on which an object is found can tell us something about who was using it. An object found on a wealthy site, for example a villa, might denote ownership by an elite. However, a particular problem remains as to how we retrospectively identify meaningful depositional and site contexts. Although some contexts such as burial are clearly defined, most fulfilled an ambiguous role (e.g. ritual hoards: Poulton and Scott

Of especial importance, as Weatherill (1988) and Deetz (1996) suggest, is that some symbolic goods can be seen as 19

1993, 127-130; non ritual hoards: Greep 1988) and only form comparatively crude ‘site’ (Eckardt and Crummy 2006, 6) and ‘context’ or depositional assessments (discussed in Chapter 1:4.2).

Over six hundred and seventy finds of tin and tin and lead alloy vessels and forty finds of production debris have been identified through a literature survey of [pre 2005] published pewter finds that included regional and specialist Romano-British archaeological journals that cover finds from all English counties [and Wales] up to 2004, as well as approximately four hundred and fifty selected site reports.

A further approach adopted by Hodder (1991, 134) and Appadurai (1988a; 1988b) is to view objects in longerterm temporal or chronological and spatial relationships (i.e. the arrangement of objects in space). How material is adopted over time and space allows the changing importance and function of an object to be identified, and the factors affecting its adoption or rejection, potentially, made manifest. By viewing the occurrence of a particular type of ‘symbolic’ object (Weatherill 1988, 166-189) within such contexts, and in relation to chronological and spatial variation between contexts, a map of an object’s ‘social distribution’ (Eckardt and Crummy 2006, 83) can be created, and it is the methodology to do this that is outlined in the remainder of this chapter.

Although the literature survey gives a comparatively balanced approach to identifying regional variation for tin and tin and lead alloy vessels, there is significant qualitative variation between different groups of research. In particular we must be aware, especially in antiquarian publications, that although comparatively complete vessels were frequently seen as sufficiently rare to be discussed, fragmented or decomposed vessels were only rarely noted. However, comparison with more recently published finds has not significantly increased the number of known decomposed vessels and may in fact validate the rarity of such finds in the archaeological record.

4 Methodology In this book a deliberately wide-ranging approach to tableware has been adopted that embraces not just vessels, but also the evidence for the manufacture, and composition, of tableware. Six hundred and seventy-six pieces of pewter tableware12 have been identified comprising three hundred and seventeen plates and dishes, ninety-two bowls, thirty-four cups, sixty-two jugs, twentyeight spoons and one hundred and forty-three vessels of unknown form. Seventy-eight moulds and twenty-nine pieces of scrap and twenty-two ingots diagnostic of manufacture have also been identified, as has compositional data for seventy-nine vessels. The adoption of such a wide ranging collection policy remains an important aspect of this work by allowing discussion of pewter not in terms of either manufacture or vessels, but both in the same framework.

More problematic is the lack of depositional context for many antiquarian finds, especially large groups of vessels recovered from hoards that often have no clear context. Of especial importance is that although often a general, if descriptive, context is attempted, there is rarely any attempt to discriminate between chronologically disparate materials, making clear dating problematic. Indeed often it was, and is, the presence of pewter itself that is viewed as diagnostic of a late date. A pervasive problem in the analysis of all Romano-British tin and tin and lead alloy tableware, production materials and compositional data remains the comparatively small sample sizes. Tableware, despite a total sample of approximately six hundred and seventy finds, includes typological groups such as spoons that have only twentynine examples, even if published finds with poor context data are considered. This is a particular problem when production assemblages are taken into consideration, as in total only fifteen sites with moulds, twelve sites known to have produced tin and tin and lead alloy ingots/‘lumps’ (Beagrie 1989, 181) and thirteen sites that produced scrap, are known. Therefore some conclusions drawn from such datasets are based on only limited evidence, and the value of any resultant spatial or statistical data reduced.

Evidence for tableware and tableware manufacture and composition has been collected for the 1st-5th centuries from England and Wales. Although overall the numbers collected for each corpus of material are small, they are sufficient to allow both contextual and chrono-spatial models to be developed for both pewter production and consumption. 4.1 Data Collection

To identify unpublished pewter vessels, grey literature including questionnaires and field notes created by Peal prior to 1967, as part of a programme to identify unpublished pewter vessels in museum collections, were reviewed. This survey did not significantly expand the sample that had been identified through a review of the published finds of pewter, with only ten new samples identified of which most had no useful context. To increase the number of moulds identified, the largely unpublished collection of moulds from Lansdown held at Bath, exceptional for the large size of the assemblage, were recorded and analysed. Thirty-nine moulds were recorded for the first time for inclusion in this book, the data for which is presented in Appendix 1, with an additional four

A key component of the construction of ‘social maps’ of production and consumption is the collation of comparable chronological, spatial and also depositional information. To do this, finds and compositional data for RomanoBritish tin and tin and lead alloy tableware, moulds and production scrap were collated from published sources, although an XRF study was also conducted to acquire additional compositional data, and thirty-nine moulds were identified through archival work. 12

Although functionally different, all the typological groups related primarily to the consumption of food and drink.

20

published examples also known from the collection. This group has done much to reinforce the limited spatial data that suggests the Mendip region and Somerset as a hub of tin alloy production.

and post medieval pewter has prompted the realisation that it is possible to recognise historically known events (e.g. the enforcement of a pewter standard), vessel [and vessel component] type and function and social role, in groups of compositional values (Carlson 1977; Brownsword and Pitt 1984). By reassessing similar groups of pewter values for Romano-British pewter it has been possible to develop a more detailed understanding of the social role of certain alloy standards (discussed in detail in Chapter 5).

Compositional data were identified through a programme of non-destructive analysis. Nine vessels, predominantly from Silchester, held in the Reading Museum collection were chosen for analysis because, uniquely, they were from a civitas capital that also has evidence for pewter production. Non-destructive X-ray fluorescence [XRF] was used to analyse the samples, in which a portion of the vessel was exposed to X-rays that excite the surface atoms causing them to fluoresce. The degree to which each atom fluoresces indicates variation in the energy dispersed, the values of which are representative of the different elements that comprise a sample’s composition. The test was conducted using a handheld Niton XL that took approximately thirty second readings from the vessel’s unprepared surface. The data were stored to the XRF device, and downloaded later in the form of an Excel spreadsheet.

The systematic survey of published literature for finds, production and compositional data, and a grey literature survey of finds and mould data, has tried to present as authentic a picture as is possible for Romano-British pewter production and consumption in England and Wales, but no such material survey is ever complete. All finds and compositional data have been entered into a Microsoft® Access database of Romano-British pewter finds in which finds can be sorted by form (Peal, 1967), date, material, decoration, component parts (Pollard 1983), site and context[s]. All the contextual, date and form data for pewter finds is summarised and discussed in Appendices 2-4 and figs. 12-27. The data for vessels with decoration and inscriptions is summarised and discussed in Appendix 4 and figs. 28-43. The data for scrap and moulds are summarised in Appendix 1 and tables 1-4 and 16-18.

A particular problem with the adoption of XRF for testing pewter13 was that no corrosion free sample of the vessel core could be removed for testing (Bayley, Mackreth and Wallis 2001, 107), and no sample preparation such as the removal of surface corrosion was permitted. Because Xray fluorescence is only able to analyse a vessel’s surface, surface contaminants such as lead or tin inclusions, a segregation of metals and tin oxidization or environmental pollution from the burial context, notably in the corrosion layer, will distort the XRF results (Carlson 1977; Scott 1994). The latter in particular was a major distorting factor in Bayley’s (2004) analysis of the Romano-British Trethurgy ingot, and again as ‘iron panning’ in Bayley, Mackreth and Wallis (2001) analysis of the Old Buckenham Romano-British brooches. To reduce the impact of anomalous readings from corrosion products, each vessel and vessel component has been examined using multiple surface points. The data points from each sample were then compared to establish the range of values for each sample that can be compared to known values from other compositional surveys [e.g. samples without the corrosion layer] to see if it falls into any previously known data groups, a methodology that has been successfully used by Bayley, Mackreth and Wallis (2001). The tin and tin and lead alloy values against which the Silchester values will be compared come from published analyses for approximately seventy-nine vessels.

4.2 Context Assessment It is necessary to consider how a contextual approach, as suggested above, might be applied to Romano-British pewter. A particular problem with adopting such a contextual approach is that the datasets and theoretical framework for achieving even a crude archaeological context are often poor. Two common criticisms of excavation data for RomanoBritish material (Eckardt 2002, 29; Swift 2000) is the frequent disassociation of an object from its finds context and a tendency to selectively publish excavated material. Although the rarity of pewter has ensured that such finds have been widely recorded, the focus was, and often remains, only to record or categorise the vessel form (Stanley 1870; Mawer 1995). A particular criticism of such an approach is the pervasive failure in both antiquarian excavations and modern analyses of hoards, to systematically relate pewter to either archaeological features or associated material. As a result it is often difficult to build either a depositional or datable context for finds of Romano-British pewter.

A further intellectual legacy of such comparison is whether such groups are meaningful. The adoption of an intellectual agenda drawn from recent work on medieval 13

A further criticism for such finds reports is the widespread failure for many published reports to place pewter tableware within a broader site context. A particular example remains the high percentage of Romano-British tin alloy tableware from hoards that often fall outside known site context classifications. If, for example, the site types that dishes are known to have come from are considered then eighty-eight vessels are known from rural, urban and military sites, whilst one hundred and twenty eight vessels are from find spots with no clear site associations, most usually hoards. It is then clear that it is

Although widely adopted for other material (e.g for pigments Leonard, Preusser, Rothe and Scilling 1988; metal artefacts Eaton and McKerrell, 1976; ceramics and glass Farnsworth and Simmons, 1963; Ainsworth and Ratcliffe-Densham, 1974), there have been few attempts to apply XRF analysis to pewter (Carlson 1977; Brownsword and Pitt 1984).

21

insufficient to consider only site assessments with regard to finds of Romano-British pewter.

finds are retrieved from the large towns (e.g. London, Colchester and Verulamium), most finds come from small towns and large settlements. The problems of differentiating within these groups have been widely discussed (Burnham and Wacher 1990; Burnham 1995; Todd 1970; Petit and Mangin 1994). The large towns can be differentiated in functional and epigraphic/legal terms, and in this study it is intended to retain provincial capital, coloniae (Hurst 1999a; 1999b), municipia and civitas (Wacher 1995) within the urban category, accepting the incumbent problems of the terms. However, most urban finds come from small towns and large settlements. There has been little successful differentiation of types of ‘small towns’ (Burnham 1995), and there is a growing tendency, adopted in this work, to see ‘small town’ as a generic term for functionally and morphologically diverse settlement that fulfilled a range of economic or official, but not primarily agricultural, functions (Millett 2001; Burnham et al. 2001; Burnham 1995).

Nonetheless, study of both depositional and site contexts provide a useful framework for the comparative analysis of finds of Romano-British pewter and as such, it is required to systematically record both. Traditionally, site assessments have been based on Collingwood’s (1937) application of classical labels to differentiate between ‘Roman’ and ‘native’ structures, as part of the wider debate on ‘Romanization’ (Haverfield 1923; Vinogradoff 1911). It is these classificatory groups that have become widely accepted as the main RomanoBritish architectural groups: Military - Marching camps, fortress [legionary], forts [auxiliary], fortlets and mile castles, supply depots. Urban - Coloniae, municipia, civitas capitals, small towns and vici

Secondary agglomerations (Millett 2001), where identifiable, villages (Leech 1976), rural sanctuaries and native settlement, and the rural category are similarly problematic. A disproportionate quantity of RomanoBritish pewter comes from, or from the vicinity of, villas although bias in excavation and interpretation mean this classification is often assumed, as the term has no clear archaeological or architectural definition (Scott 1993; 1995). In comparison ‘non villa’ rural sites, although containing a higher proportion of the Romano-British population, have attracted little attention, and so remain relatively scarce and poorly understood, which forces their inclusion in a rural category (Eckardt 2002, 29-30). However, it still remains possible to identify a small but significant amount of tin alloy tableware from a range of non-villa ‘secondary agglomerations’ (Petit and Mangin, 1994), ‘estate settlements’ (Potter 1989; Todd 1976, 106107) or ‘villages’ (Leech 1976), that fall outside of the criteria for small towns, and ‘un-Romanized’ native farmsteads/Rounds [fortified farmsteads]. The site categories adopted in this work are then as follows:

Rural - Villa, village, farmstead, rural industry. The notion of such ‘historically derived labels’ (Eckardt 2002, 29) has been criticised recently for being too simple and homogeneous and not reflecting the complexities of either a site (Millett 2001) or a structural group (Evans 1994). A failure to improve on Todd’s (1970) definition of what comprises, or excludes, a site from becoming a small town in either functional or topographical terms is widely known (Booth 1998; Burnham and Wacher 1990; Burnham, 1995). Similar criticism can be made of ‘villas’ that predominate amongst rural sites, but which as a group retain no real homogeneity and rather act as a general term for rural ‘Romanized’ material (Clarke 1993; 1998; 1999; Scott 1993; 1995; Percival 1976). Increasingly historical labels are being re-defined by ‘material patterning’, the use of an assemblage to differentiate between different types of Romano-British site (Evans 2001). For small finds (Allason Jones and Bishop 1988; Cool, Lloyd Morgan and Hooley 1995) this has forced at one level, a pragmatic (Eckardt 2002, 29-30) choice of site assessments in which only site types that contain a large density of relevant data are retained. However, it also provides the opportunity to modify these historically derived categories, achieved in this study through the use of secondary or depositional contexts.

Military - Fortress, forts, station, posting station, vici. Urban – Coloniae, municipia, provincial capital, civitas, small towns Rural – Villa, ‘estate village’, village/secondary agglomeration, ‘un-Romanized’ farmsteads/Rounds.

For known Roman British tin alloys, it is unproblematic to retain most of Collingwood’s (1937) structural categories at a broad level; military, urban and rural, as the primary site assessments.

Other – Where only a secondary context is known (e.g. shaft, lake or river). Unknown - Where the context is unknown. This category applies mainly to antiquarian and metal detecting finds.

The military category perhaps poses fewest problems, for fortresses, forts, stations and posting stations remain tightly bounded in functional, historical and archaeological terms (Johnson 1983).

There are a number of problems with the use of just site assessments. Most importantly, a site will often fall outside of, or even between, known site assessments. Both problems can be mediated if a secondary or depositional context is taken into consideration. At a simple level, a secondary context can be used to discriminate between

The urban category provides most of the same problems discussed by Eckardt and Crummy (2006, 91). While some 22

often poorly defined site assessments. For example at Uley, despite falling between small settlement and rural site assessments, the ritual character of the site could be identified at a secondary or depositional level.

site types [for example villa or farmstead within the rural category], the data for which is presented in related pie charts. Although not in explicitly chronological order, each form is discussed in the general order in which they predominated, and if viewed with both distribution and contextual data it is possible to accrue some sense of the chronological and spatial development of pewter tableware across these different contexts.

A number of secondary contexts pose little problem as burials (Philpott 1991), temple deposits, habitation/manufacturing layers (Lethbridge 1951) and rubbish pits are all comparatively well defined.

A greater degree of detail can be achieved when the depositional context of pewter tableware is considered. In particular it is possible to identify pewter tableware from a range of ritual environments such as burials, hoards, river and bog deposits, shafts and wells. Such data relate significant information on the social role of pewter tableware, and studies of the selection of vessels for certain ritual environments and their sacralising through epigraphic inscription has yielded some particularly important results discussed in detail in Chapter 4. However such detailed contextual information is often not recorded, and where known often relates only to a handful of large assemblages as opposed to a large number of individual finds. As such any attempt to articulate such contextual data in spatial terms is likely to fail.

However, more explicitly ritual deposits are still the subject of intense debate. The archaeological evidence for ritual has undergone a widespread re-evaluation recently (Fulford 2001; Merrifield 1987), and the range of meaningful depositional contexts has been reconsidered. In particular the use of structured deposition has led to a careful reassessment of deposits in wells, pits and shafts as often diagnostically ritual. A similar consideration has also been extended to finds from other forms of wet environment, most especially rivers, lakes/ponds and bogs (Earwood, Northover and Cool 2001; Ross 1992, 46-59; Bradley 1990,155-189). Hoards in particular are poorly defined, and the debate over their ritual or non-ritual nature is still widely conducted (Manning 1972; Reece 1988; Boon, 1992, 4546). Because there is often nothing diagnostic about such finds, hoard is a term often used for vessels that do not fit within any other sphere of activity, or that have poor context data.

5 Summary The main achievement of this book is to offer a comprehensive catalogue and contextual analysis of all Roman pewter vessels, moulds, ingots and production scrap known from England and Wales. The form data for moulds, and detailed typological, contextual and chronological data for all published tin and tin lead alloy vessels, are presented in Appendices 1-3. A summary of the site information for all finds of pewter objects, scrap and moulds is given in the site index. The book chapters will instead discuss how pewter was produced and then consumed within Roman Britain.

However, at another level, hoards demonstrate how meaningless the adoption of a classificatory system based on site assessments can be, with nearly all finds of this type coming from ‘other’ contexts. It is then often necessary to adopt a second category structure for articulating such deposits through depositional contexts. The secondary contexts adopted in this work are then as follows: Secular hoards – Crisis or blacksmith hoards.

Chapter 2 will present the evidence for Romano-British tin and tin lead alloy production. In particular, the ‘pewter workshops’ and uniquely large mould assemblage from Lansdown will be re-assessed and their role considered in relation to the evidence for other pewter workshops from Avon. A comprehensive catalogue of unpublished material from Lansdown is provided in Appendix 1. The nonstructural evidence [moulds, ingots and scrap] will then be considered in relation to production both inside and outside of Avon.

Shaft and pit deposits – Wells, ditches, shafts and pits. Wet environments – Rivers, ponds and meres. Temples and shrines – Temples and shrines. Burial – Cremation and inhumation. Data Presentation

It has been argued that the consumption of pewter tableware can be seen as socially meaningful. I have argued that of particular importance are the site and depositional contexts within which pewter occurs, because such contexts can relate who was using an object and how that object was used. In Chapter 3 the site contexts from which Romano-British pewter tableware has been collected are broadly assessed for their urban, rural or military character. Of particular interest is how the consumption of pewter within these different social groups changed in both space and time. Detailed typological discussion of these data is provided in Appendix 2. Chapter

In the remainder of this study contextual data will be summarised using Eckardt and Crummy’s (2006) methodology in which both spatial maps and ‘clustered bar charts’ are utilised. The spatial distribution for all known examples of each form of pewter tableware with a known find spot is recorded in distribution maps. Context graphs show the numbers of finds for each pewter tableware group (e.g. cups) from rural, urban, military and other contexts [and sites with no known context], as well as sites for which we have no contextual information. The data from rural and urban categories are further divided into specific 23

4 refines this approach to understand how pewter was used by examining the types of tableware selected for inclusion in specific diagnostically ritual depositional contexts such as hoards, wet environments and shafts. Of especial interest is whether the epigraphy and iconography of vessels is meaningful and, indeed, whether it is such inscription that sacralised a vessel for use in such ritual contexts. Chapter 5 will discuss how compositional data vary in relation to Romano-British pewter, as well as ingots, production scrap and a limited selection of non-vessel pewter objects. It is, for example, meaningful that there are stark differences in the selection of high tin pewter for vessels and high lead alloys for non-vessel pewter objects. Chapter 6 will provide a comprehensive review of the data from the previous five chapters. Of especial interest is how these data might be used to create a single model for pewter consumption from creation to disposal. A further aim of the conclusion will be to highlight areas in which future work on Romano-British pewter might be conducted. In conclusion, this book offers the most detailed catalogues of Romano-British pewter vessels, pewter production equipment and compositional data for pewter, yet compiled. However, what sets this study apart from prior work is that by subjecting these datasets to contextual analysis we can begin to understand how the consumption of pewter was used to express a range of different social identities.

24

Chapter 2: Pewter Production

1 Introduction

wide range of poorly dated masonry structures and a significant assemblage of largely de-contextualised stone pewter moulds (Bush 1905-08; Greene 1970).

In Chapter 1, it has been argued that ‘objects’ are socially ‘active’ and that how pewter tableware was adopted, used or rejected was socially meaningful. However, little thought has hitherto been given to pewter tableware as also economically ‘active’. A particular criticism is that the impact of shifts in the availability of tin and lead on the overall availability of pewter tableware, and how comparative phases of rarity and abundance affected its use, although often assumed, are rarely subject to detailed discussion.

This chapter will offer a reassessment of the structural evidence for pewter ‘workshops’ at Lansdown, before discussing the unique assemblage of stone pewter moulds from the site (a catalogue of which is included in Appendix 1). The pewter moulds will then be discussed in typological, spatial and chronological terms. 2.1 Lansdown – A Pewter Production Site?

The foci of this chapter comprise two related aims: the categorisation of all the known evidence for pewter production from within Roman Britain; an attempt to use such evidence to develop not only a chrono-spatial model, but also a simple social context, for the pewter industry. In particular, it is intended to present the evidence for pewter production in Mendip and ask if, as widely assumed, this was atypical.

The site, a scheduled monument (AV 175) excavated between 1905-08 (Bush 1905-8), is located in Little Down Field and Oatland Field [also known as Oaklands Down] at the end of a protrusion of land that runs northeast from the limestone Lansdown plateau (fig. 4). In Roman topography, the site is located 3.3 km (two miles) northeast of Aquae Sulis, in the southeast of a 2nd-5th century Romano-British settlement associated with a temple, an inhumation cemetery and a D shaped enclosure, identified by Pitcher in a programme of fieldwork (Greene, 1970) and two programmes of Aerial Photographs (Sept. 1947; x2 1946; 9th of June 1982) reinterpreted by Miller.14 The 1905-08 (Bush 1905-8) excavations consisted of a programme to identify and excavate Roman masonry structures without reference to stratigraphy, systematic finds collection, or plan, although twelve structural features (fig. 5) can still be identified.

This chapter will concentrate on three different groups of evidence. Firstly, the structural evidence for pewter production will be considered, particularly at Little Down on the Lansdown plateaux near Bath (Somerset), that consists of a uniquely large [but largely unpublished] assemblage of moulds related to a series of poorly understood structures that probably comprised pewter workshops. The structural evidence for three further pewter production centres from Mendip is also discussed: Camerton (Wedlake 1958), where a pewter workshop and related moulds have been identified, Nettleton (Wedlake 1982) where two buildings were adapted for pewter production and an assemblage of six moulds was found. Gatcombe (Branigan 1977) is the third site, where in situ evidence of tin alloy was retrieved, but no associated pewter moulds are known.

Structural Features Structure one is located in the west of Little Down Field, and appears to sit in alignment with structure two and the areas of walling and flooring to the south that comprise structure three. It consists of a two-room rectangular building, but accounts of the walling seem to suggest an initial phase of well constructed walling, overlain by later and cruder walls of irregular shaped blocks. A scatter of stones and a carved platform for pillars overlay charcoal, bones and pottery, suggesting this and the associated areas of flooring were later additions to the structure (Bush 1905b). The wide spread of artefacts and architectural debris in the building does not suggest a specific use or date, but finds of tools and lead suggest some lead working took place here.

A second and more widely used corpus of material to understand pewter production is moulds. Detailed discussion of the exceptional mould assemblage from Lansdown is presented in Appendix 1. Thirty-five further moulds are also catalogued and discussed. The third group of evidence, and latter part of this chapter, comprises a re-evaluation of the evidence and context for tin and tin and lead alloy production, where no diagnostic evidence for the production of pewter tableware, for example moulds, is available. All the known evidence for the use of tin alloy ingots, waste and tin and tin and lead alloy scrap (Beagrie 1989) from pewter producing sites will be presented (tables 2-4) and discussed.

Structure two, interpreted by Bush (1906) as a hut, consists of a circle of stone and an associated wall of over 2½ ft in width. This structure was fitted into a section of straight wall in alignment with structure one and the walls to the south of that structure. Significant amounts of pottery including Samian were recovered from inside the building, but whether this was above or beneath the flooring remains

2 The Lansdown workshop? The evidence for pewter workshops in Little Down and Oatland Field[s], often termed Lansdown, consists of a

14

25

RCHME/EH Aerial Photographers comment Andrew Miller/28-Jul1993/RCHME: AP Primary Recording Project.

Fig. 4: A plan of the Lansdown plateau with key Romano-British sites and finds shown.

26

Fig. 5: A plan of the Romano-British site at Lansdown. Based on Bush’s excavations (1905-08) and plan showing excavated structures and trenches (1912, plan of exploration in Little Down Field, Lansdown, Bath).

27

unclear. Substantial numbers of 3rd to late 4th century coins were also recovered from inside the building, but the association is unknown.

To the east of structure four is structure eight (Bush 1906). Its component parts appear to comprise a section of circular flooring mounted into a curved section of walling at the western end of a complete and partially collapsed wall. The eastern edge of the wall had been extended by rough walling (of different construction to the rest of the building) that ran to the south, and was associated with an inhumation before terminating at the north south bank described as postdating structure ten (below). The extent of this building is unknown, as attempts to locate the northern limit of this structure have failed. The structure may have been involved with metalworking suggested by the presence of lead, but this must remain speculation. The dating for this structure is unclear. Samian was found within the building although the association is unclear, and a phase of use in the 4th century is suggested by coinage. Areas of rough possibly Pennant sandstone flooring that occur close to the south of the building may be part of structure eight, as might structure nine (below) partially suggested by a similar corpus of industrial finds (Bush 1906).

To the south of structure one were two right angle walls of different construction that comprise structure three. The thick, southern most wall, covered by a fill of bones and Samian (Bush, 1906), was a later addition as it was constructed over a pre-existing Pennant sandstone floor. A large quantity of metal slag, iron and lead ore on the structure’s floor led to Bush’s interpretation of this site as a workshop. Two walls to the north of this structure, although in alignment with this building, are hard to place in a coherent plan. A succession of investigations directly to the north of structure one uncovered extensive but irregular areas of collapsed and extant walling (structure four) that are aligned to a different direction to the surrounding buildings, with the exception of one wall that runs in alignment with structure one (Bush 1905b). Finds are varied, and included Samian and lead, but no conclusion as to their function can be drawn. However, at the northern periphery of this area of collapsed walling, Bush (1906) identified a structure that at some point was used as a pewter workshop suggested by the presence of a lias mould.

Extensive areas of flooring were uncovered north of structure eight, but without any clear form (structure nine). Part of the walling was interpreted as a hut circle by Bush (1907) but this suggestion appears unlikely and similarities in this circle of flooring with structure eight (above) might suggest an alternative association.

To the west of, and in alignment with, the northern most wall of structure four is structure five. This structure appears as a right angle section of walling of irregular thickness, partially explained by a multi phase development in which the walls predate the adjacent foundation (Bush, 1907). Areas of flooring and walling to the south suggest that a complex plan has not survived. A section of building to the south on the same alignment (structure six) may have been part of this plan or period (Bush, 1907). Moulds, lead and whetstones and an unidentified carved stone channel from the building suggest a partially industrial use, but the diversity of finds makes the identification of any particular type of production hard to discern. Dates of eighteen coins, including those contained within the walls suggest a late 3rd and 4th century date for the structure.

Structure ten was located due south of structure eight, and was built into a rock cutting that allowed construction without an outer face to one wall. Although a complete room was found, more substantial division was indicated by the partial presence of internal walling that suggested at least three further rooms within the building. A thicker external wall abuts the west side of the building suggesting it continued in some capacity to the southwest. The building use was interpreted by Bush (1907) as a ceramic ‘painting’ workshop, based on substantial finds of decorated pottery and chalk, and possibly also suggested by finds of tools, including a possible stylus and compass. Datable evidence is confused for this structure, with 4th century material alongside material from a substantially earlier phase of use (Bush 1913a; 1913b). One chronological observation is that the east end of this building underlies, and so predates, one of the main north south banks on the site.

Areas of fallen and extant walling were recorded in the western edge of Oatland Down (structure six), but as the areas of collapsed walling were unclear, and the wall was disturbed, little useful detail about these structures can be discerned. The nature of the alignment of the wall strongly suggests that it may relate to structure five, possibly comprising a southern or internal wall for the structure (Bush 1907).

Structure eleven (Bush 1907) was centred to the north east of structure nine. It consisted of a rectilinear structure with a pennant floor on which nineteen oolitic mould fragments, some with lead clamps, were found. Bush (1907) interpreted a profusion of iron tools from the site as having being used in stone, perhaps coffin, carving, but use in the production of pewter moulds appears to be more probable. Twenty-six identified coins were recovered from the structure’s fill which, with the exception of coins of Faustina and Tetricus (Junior), were all early to late 4th century.

Structure seven is immediately northeast of structure four, being centred towards the middle of Little Down Field. It comprises a circle of stones interpreted as a hut by Bush (1905b). Significant amounts of iron, wire and bone make analysis of this structure difficult, but finds of lead and slag suggest lead working. Twenty-nine coins strongly suggest a late 3rd to 4th century date for the structure.

The remaining northern half of structure twelve was located at the eastern most point of Little Down Field, on a 28

natural outcrop of bedrock amidst a mound of rubble and discoloured soil scattered with charcoal and bone. On the edge of the building was a feature running north south that Bush (1907) identified as a drain, but that can only be positively identified as a rock cut ditch (Bush 1907). An Iron Age date has been suggested for the site, but the supporting pottery identification is vague, with some sherds suggested as Bronze Age, Iron Age or RomanoBritish. A sealed layer of ‘black soil’15 appeared to underlie the first evident Roman occupation, possibly an early to late 3rd-4th century lead workshop suggested by finds of coinage and a fragment of stamped lead (Bush 1907).

demonstrates that a complex range of pewter objects could have been cast at Lansdown that went beyond just vessels. 2.2 The Lansdown Moulds The primary evidence for the production of pewter vessels at Lansdown remains the large number of pewter moulds recovered from the site. In addition to the moulds retrieved from the 3rd-4th century contexts in structures five, four and most notably eleven (Bush 1907), decontextualised pewter moulds have also been retrieved from the ?4th century fill of Coffin three (Bush 1906). Further moulds were also recovered by Gardner (1966). In total, sixty-six fragments are now known, comprising forty-three moulds, held in the Roman Baths Museum (Bath), although poor recording by Bush (1905-08), and poor collection management notably within the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution before wider dispersal in the 1960s, has meant that some moulds may remain to be identified and the contexts for known moulds are poor.

Discussion The excavated (Bush 1905-08) site forms part of a substantial c.2-5th century site that overlay an Iron Age landscape. No detailed plan can now be recovered, although two comparatively complete masonry structures can be identified, a [possible] multi-phase two-room building (structure one) that may have been an industrial workshop, and an associated ‘hut’ (structure two) of probable 3rd-4th date (Bush 1906). Bush identified a further five incomplete masonry structures, comprising probable industrial workshops (structures: twelve, eleven, ten and eight). Additional areas of flooring and walling are difficult to fit into a coherent plan (SMR 205009), but at least some appear to be the remnants of 3rd and 4th century industrial smithies and workshops (structures: three, four and seven). In addition to iron working it is probable that lead smelting and working occurred in many of the structures in the 3rd4th century, suggested in numerous finds of lead, galena (in structure three) and a lost (Bush 1907) fragment of stamped lead (in structure twelve). Of especial importance were finds of 4th century tools (Bush 1905b; 1907), notably the iron tools from structure eleven, and a stylus and compass (in structure ten) often associated with pewter production.

The Moulds Pewter moulds are conventionally viewed as dating to the late 3rd-4th century [or later] and being constructed from limestone. The forty-three moulds from Lansdown (discussed in detail in Appendix 1) are predominantly made from [oolitic] limestone, the casting temperature of pewter being low enough not to degrade the stone.17 The remainder were constructed from an indeterminate stone. The moulds, comprising both external moulds and inner moulds (hollows) were made to produce a variety of decorated and undecorated forms, including plates, deep and shallow dishes, bowls and possibly a pan or cup and a flagon base (production being discussed in detail in Chapter 2: 4.1). Deep Dish and Bowl Moulds The assemblage contains twenty-eight mould fragments that comprise five types of dish categorised and termed by form: fluted, curved, straight sided, bowl and conical as well as a fragment (BO3 fig. 62) whose form cannot be identified.

The major evidence of pewter production at Lansdown is confined to three structures, located at the northern limit of Bush’s (1905-08) excavation, in what appears to have been the periphery of the Romano-British settlement. A lias mould was retrieved from the highly confused area of irregular walling that comprises structure four (Bush 1906). A quarter mould for a dish was retrieved from the adjacent 3rd-4th century structure five where at least one phase of activity appears to have been associated with a stone feature, or channel of possibly industrial use (Bush 1907). The majority of the recovered moulds, nineteen oolitic mould fragments (catalogued in Appendix 1) for plates and dishes, some with lead clamps, were found in structure eleven (Bush, 1907) and can perhaps be dated to the 4th century on numismatic evidence.16 Of especial importance were the finds of a lunate and ‘ring’ mould that 15

Presumed to be an industrial by-product of Roman activity at the site.

16

No stratigraphy or associations were recorded for any finds during the Bush excavations (1905-08). Therefore finds of material from inside a building are presumed to be contemporary.

Six fragments have a ‘flute design’ (PM1A-3 fig. 57 and PR3 fig. 65), which comprise four internal and two external moulds. On the external mould[s] (PM1A and PM1B fig. 57) the flute is in relief, the upper surface of which has been flattened to form the underside of a rim. The two moulds were probably joined by the use of a hollow in the mould’s rim, evident on PM1B. The similar but unrelated internal moulds (PM3 PM2A, PM2B fig. 57 and PR3 fig. 65) also carry the flute design in cavorelievo,18 along the rims in the form of ‘flute’ edges and a

29

17

Bronze and copper casting can be largely disregarded for limestone moulds as they degrade if heated to above 550°C, and they seem unlikely to have produced clay or wax patterns (Beagrie 1989).

18

Sunk incised relief that does not rise above the moulds surface, where the moulds features are carved in recess.

band of raised pellets. PM2A and PM2B also show a complex lattice around the pellet band and a ‘punched dot and circle design’ marking the points of the ‘flute’ edges, suggesting them as one mould or design.

having a 2nd century date has a number of points of similarity.

Seven fragments (nos. DD1, DD4A-DD4B, DD7, DD9 figs. 58-60 and BO1-BO2 fig. 62) and two complete plain external moulds (DD3 fig. 58 and mould 41) for a ‘bowl’ or straight sided vessel that curves into a flattened base with [or without] a footring and horizontal rim were also found. Most examples have an internal lip in which the internal mould probably sat as no other provision for joining the moulds is evident, and no pouring hole can be located, a problem compounded by a lack of surviving internal moulds. In the case of DD3, the possibility that it was used for creating pans remains. The three known internal mould fragments, two spherical bowl moulds topped in a rim, and one that is perhaps an internal spherical bowl with an internal or decorative ring (DD9 fig. 60), do not seem to relate to any of the external moulds from Lansdown, but BO2 has a rim design that is similar in design to the rim design of PM03A-B.

DD5 and DD10-11 provide an interesting sub group of ‘deep dish’, being both exceptionally large, having an exceptionally thin base and having comparatively little detail with either a single lip (DD10 fig. 61) or no lip (DD11 fig. 61) present. The function of these moulds is unclear although a role as a flagon base can be suggested (Beagrie 1989, 183). Mould DD2 is almost certainly a mould for a flagon neck (Bircher and Bird 1991), although a role as a cup or small dish mould cannot be wholly discounted.

Flagon

Flat Dish or Plate Flat dishes comprise a group that have previously been subject to typological discussion (Peal 1967), but few of the identified forms seem to have been manufactured in the moulds present at Lansdown in any variation. The assemblage contains eighteen mould fragments (FD1-FD9 figs. 68-72 and mould 42) that comprise two main types of plate or flat dish that can be categorised by form as a plate with multiple footrings and as a plate with rim as well as one fragment (FD10 fig. 72) that cannot be positively identified as from a flat dish mould.

There are eight fragments that are damaged, but which probably comprised four internal (PM01-4D figs. 63-64) and two external moulds (DD6 and DD8 fig. 60) for ‘straight sided’ flat-based bowls or dishes. A pellet design for the upper surface of the rim in cavo-relievo is evident on all the internal moulds and on the internal surface of PM02’s base. The possibility of a central rosette design is suggested by PM3A-B, the only mould with a complete base. This rosette can be identified as a ‘flower’ surrounded by a pellet band in which further ‘petals’ are present, replicating a motif that also occurs on the mould’s rim.

There are ten fragments (FD1-2 fig. 68 and mould 46) of external moulds for making large plates, and possibly a third for making a smaller variant of this form (FD4 fig. 69). Each mould has provision for two and, in the case of the former, three footrings on the underside, the area for the third footing missing from FD2 and FD7-8. FD2 has a pouring channel running from the mould edge that perhaps suggests that this vessel was sealed by a further mould on its upper surface, and then cast on its side.

PR1 provides an interesting external mould comprising a conical vessel with pellet design on the underside of a rim, and a lack of a flat base suggests that this was similar to DD5 and DD10-11 (discussed below).

The majority of the plate or dish fragments comprise a small plate with both a single footring and bead rim, with an area for the inner mould to rest on beyond this point, or with a raised rim with bead on the upper surface (FD5-6B fig. 70), although the poor survival of many of this group makes such identification problematic. The internal mould FD3 comprises a flat bottomed plate that rises up to a rim that ends in a plain bead, and although not directly attributable to any recovered external moulds, this can perhaps be taken as representative of the forms cast in shallow dish moulds. It should also be noted that as with the deep dish moulds, the upper surface of the rim on FD3 had a pellet design inside a defined band in cavo-relievo.

There are no known vessels that can be related to any of these moulds although similar pewter vessels and motifs have been identified elsewhere. The flute-dish moulds are particularly unusual for pewter vessels, but two points of comparison, the presence of pellets on the rim and the flute design, can be made with the 3rd - 4th century Thatcham vessel 2 (Collingwood 1931) as can the flower-rosette design of the straight sided vessels. The flower-rosette design can also be identified on a number of spoons (Jones and Sherlock 1996) and more tentative associations can also be made with vessels 9, 4 and 2 from Appleshaw (Engleheart 1905) and vessel 21 from Appleford (Brown 1973). A further example of this motif can perhaps be suggested on a flagon from Selsey. The incised ‘flutes’ or petals and beaded rim of PM3A and PM3B are also paralleled in a dish from Appleford.

There are no known vessels for any of the plate moulds discussed. The presumed rim on FD4 remains problematic, as it seems to extend past a footring that would be unusually wide for a vessel. If this footring marked the vessel edge then a parallel could be suggested in the early vessel no. 26 from the temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath (Cunliffe 1988b).

In contrast, the flat based bowl moulds have no direct comparison with known vessels, although the Copthall Court bowl (Mawer 1995, 21) which can be inferred as

30

3 Mendip Production Reconsidered

2.3 Conclusion: Lansdown a Pewter workshop?

An intellectual legacy of the exceptionally large Lansdown mould assemblage has been the tacit acceptance that pewter production, although poorly understood, predominated in Mendip. For Wedlake (1958, 82-93), such regional pewter manufacture had been fuelled by a proximity to both local lead (Branigan and Fowler 1976; Whittick 1982) and Cornish tin. Although Beagrie (1989) increased the number of known, tin alloy, vesselproduction sites throughout Britain, the number of pewter producing sites in the Mendip region has remained exceptional.

Lansdown remains a site of unparalleled importance amongst pewter production sites, having produced an assemblage of moulds that is far larger than that from any comparable site, but few of which have a detailed context. The absence of structural evidence diagnostic of pewter production from the site, and lack of tin or tin and lead ingots, splashes, scrap, slag or hearths or furnaces identified during either Bush’s (1905-08) or Gardner’s (1966) excavations make identifying Lansdown in even simple topographical terms difficult. The high density of moulds from inside structure eleven (Bush, 1907) does though defy easy interpretation as anything other than a mould production or casting floor, a comparable example of which was also evident in the small town of Nettleton (Wedlake 1982; Beagrie 1989, 187). The location of structure eleven on the northern edge of the Lansdown site might suggest that it was part of an area of mixed industry on the periphery of an urban settlement. However, production in structures four and five at Lansdown suggests centralized production, more akin to the evidence of pewter manufacture from the forum at Silchester (Beagrie 1989, 187), rather than peripheral production. Similarly, the possibility that Lansdown rather comprised a series of villa, tin alloy ‘workshops’, evident in 3rd-4th century AD contexts at Gatcombe (Branigan 1977) and Langton (Goodall 1972), cannot be discounted.

In the remainder of this chapter, the exceptional structural evidence for pewter production in Mendip will be presented (Wedlake 1982; 1958; Branigan 1977), and the atypical nature of tin alloy production in the region discussed. I will then go on to reconstruct pewter production both in Mendip and Roman Britain more widely using non-structural evidence, most especially moulds and tin and tin and lead alloy debris, to establish how reflective production in Mendip was of RomanoBritish pewter production. 3.1 Introduction to Mendip Mendip has become a generic term for east Avon, bordered by Somerset, Gloucestershire and the Mendip Hills to the west. In terms of Roman topography, the Mendip tin alloy industry can be identified predominantly in the region’s eastern and southern rural settlements, villas and small towns (Aston 1987). Collectively these sites lie close to areas of Roman lead extraction and processing evident at Charterhouse (Elkington 1976). Similarly, such production is also close to local coal sources evident throughout the region. Coal has been recorded on numerous production sites in Mendip, including all the sites discussed below and also probably at Lansdown (Smith 1997). Limestone outcrops throughout the region should also be noted, given that local sources of limestone or ‘Bath Stone’ appear to have been widely used in the manufacture of pewter moulds from the region.

The lack of secure dating evidence from Lansdown, as most recovered objects were recorded without contextual or stratigraphic information, makes the development of any kind of chronology for the site problematic. The majority of the recovered material dates to the 2nd-5th century, and the moulds appear to predominate in assemblages including 4th century material, especially coinage. However, no clear date can be given for the start of pewter production at Lansdown and a 4th, or possibly 2nd-3rd, century date is possible. In either timeframe, it is probable that at least one major pewter workshop (structure eleven) was operating in the 4th century. The overall evidence from excavation at Lansdown remains confused, with little clear contextual or chronological evidence for either the industry or its related moulds.

Three comparatively well-excavated and published production sites from Mendip will be discussed (with moulds and lead alloy debris being discussed separately below). Nettleton (Wedlake 1982) located fifteen miles northeast of Lansdown, Camerton nine miles to the southwest and Gatcombe fifteen miles to the west of Lansdown.

However, the scale of production at Lansdown remains unprecedented. The manufacture of the forty-three moulds from the site from locally outcropping limestone suggests a highly localised production. However, as no known tin, or tin and lead alloy vessel was produced in any Lansdown mould, even in the pewter assemblage from Aquae Sulis, it is problematic to identify exactly where the Lansdown moulds fit in either local or national pewter production. It is notable that the general choice of forms and iconography seen in the Lansdown moulds do appear to be widespread in finds across southern England suggesting influences that extended outside the Mendip region.

Small Town Production at Camerton Evidence for pewter production from the small town of Camerton consists of a structure (Building XVII) adapted for pewter casting by the construction of a sunken furnace in the mid 3rd-4th century AD from near which a mould (no. 18 fig. 7) was recovered (Wedlake 1958, 83-84). Two further moulds (nos. 20 fig. 8 and N3 table 1) were retrieved from the adjacent courtyard. Two moulds (nos. 18 fig. 7 and N3 table 1) were constructed from ‘local Bath 31

at Nettleton, and the mixed metalworking economy20 in general, was expedient (the term expedient in this work refers to a small-scale, often temporary, industry based on the reuse or cheap acquisition of locally available materials and infrastructure). Unlike Camerton, pewter production at Nettleton was a survival strategy to try to compensate for a decline and cessation of interest in the shrine (Wedlake 1982).

stone’ (Wedlake 1958), and mould 20 was made of Clandown stone that outcrops within a mile of the site. The purpose of mould N3 is unclear, although it is possibly an internal dish mould. The remaining moulds were intended to cast an elliptical flanged dish (mould 18 fig. 7) and skillet or pan components (mould 20 fig. 8). Although the nature of pewter production at the site remains unclear, the assemblage from Camerton does little to alter Wedlake’s (1958, 82-93) model of pewter manufacture as an expedient industry (defined below). All the constituent elements of the pewter industry were available locally from the 3rd century. However, exactly why the economy of Camerton moved from an agricultural base to one of metalworking in the 3rd century is still widely debated.

Rural Industry, Production at Gatcombe The villa at Gatcombe (Branigan 1977) comprises the only well-excavated site with in situ evidence of tin alloy production to have no known pewter moulds. Three buildings have signs of metalworking. Tin alloy working can be suggested in Building 13-14 and Building 21. In Building 13-14 a metalworking hearth can be associated with pewter ‘dross’ (Branigan 1977, 125-127) suggesting pewter was among the metals worked here in the mid to late 4th or early 5th century AD. Building 21 produced evidence of comparatively large-scale tin alloy manufacture with three pieces of tin alloy (nos. L21-L23 table 3) retrieved from within the structure, and a further nine pieces (nos. L5-L13 table 3) recovered from 4th century layers in an adjacent Furnace (Furnace A). As with Camerton and Nettleton, Gatcombe had a mixed metalworking economy that exploited locally available material. In addition to pewter, extensive lead smelting and working (Buildings 5 and 9) were also conducted at the site in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Whether this production was associated with vessel manufacture, ingot production or another form of industrial process is unknown, but it is probable that pewter formed a significant part of the economic output of the villa.

Ritual to Industry, Production at Nettleton The nature of the pewter production in the small town of Nettleton (Wedlake 1982) and the development of its pewter industry can be more easily understood. In Roman topography, the site of the pewter industry was located within a southern extension to the site, built to contain an increasingly large metalworking industry. Pewter manufacture was restricted to two structures and one kiln that had been adapted for pewter manufacture from 330 AD. A [domestic/ritual] structure (the ‘priests house’ Building IX) was adapted for use in pewter production by the creation of a stone lined hearth and the addition of a stone platform, although its purpose remains unclear, reusing stone from the site during a phase of ‘squatter occupation’ datable to post 350 AD (Wedlake 1982, 6874). A domestic dwelling (Building XXI) was reused post 340 AD as a pewter workshop by the demolition of the northern end of the building to create a yard and back wall for a shed. The contemporary extension of the building eastward allowed the construction of a [well used] limestone furnace around which the mould19 fragments were found (nos. 5-7, 22, figs. 6-8 and N1-N2 table 1). The assemblage consists of six moulds in total, which were probably produced from locally outcropping oolitic limestone (Aston 1987). The purpose of moulds N1-N2 (Wedlake 1982, 68-74) remains unclear but may have been for producing vessel components such as a footring. The remaining moulds (discussed below) were intended to cast dishes (no. 6), plates (nos. 5-7 fig. 6) and a pan (no. 22 fig. 8). Of especial note are sixteen further stone objects from 4th century layers around the known pewter production areas (Buildings XVIII and XXI). Although not moulds, some involvement in pewter production cannot be dismissed. However, their similarity to the roof decoration suggested by Blagg at Oldbury (Allen and Fulford 1992, 118-119) perhaps suggests that they are only architectural debris. Like Camerton (Wedlake 1958), pewter production

19

3.2 Expedience, the Mendip Industry: a Conclusion The pattern of tin alloy use within Mendip demonstrates that production occurred across the settlement hierarchy. However, it is noteworthy that whether urban or rural, large or small, each settlement that adopted small-scale tin and tin and lead alloy manufacture did so as part of a 4th century economic strategy to either survive (Wedlake 1982) or supplement an existing income (Wedlake 1958). The choice of pewter production appeared to be expedient and suggests both an increased regional demand for pewter products such as tableware and, although both industries remain poorly understood, a comparatively ‘easy’ local access to lead21 and tin (Wedlake 1958, 85). However, we must also remain alive to the possibility that although no comparable structural evidence of the kind found in Mendip is known elsewhere, Mendip might not have been a region of atypical Romano-British pewter

Wedlake (1982) cites 5 moulds being found in association with the furnace in the text, but six on the plate. It is probable that six were found, and that Wedlake termed moulds 1 and 2 as a single mould because they comprise two parts. In this work each is cited as a mould in its own right.

32

20

Including iron and bronze smelting. It is sensible to ask if lead was also being smelted on site. Ore was available locally and the means to smelt lead ore present. The presence of a possible lead ingot might not be an import, but rather produced at the site for use or export.

21

Perhaps as a by-product of regional [post-military] cupellation, ore smelting or the manufacture of other leaded or tin based alloys.

manufacture, but rather is exceptional only because the evidence has survived. Particular support for the latter view comes when non-structural evidence for pewter production is also considered.

choice of local granites for non-pewter moulds from Castle Gotha (Saunders and Harris 1982). A further possibility, that granite moulds might have been used to cast alloys other than pewter, should also be considered in future work.

4 Production Collectively, the known moulds comprise both internal (hollows) and external moulds to produce a range of decorated and undecorated forms including plates, dishes, deep dishes/bowls, a paterae or pan, and components of flagons/cups.

The systematic recording of all pewter production material remains one of the main purposes of this chapter. However, a detailed study of production ‘materials’ also provides us with a further opportunity to identify, as Beagrie (1989) has done, pewter production on sites where no structures are known, increasing the number of known Romano-British [including Mendip] production sites and so allowing a reconsideration of the atypical nature of the Mendip tin and tin and lead alloy ‘industry’.

Deep Dish and Bowl Moulds Fourteen types of dish and bowl moulds are now known that produced curved dishes, angular dishes, pans and bowls.

Two groups of evidence for moulds and ingots and scrap will be presented in the remainder of this chapter. Moulds are discussed because they are both diagnostic of tin alloy production (Beagrie 1989, 181-182) and retain a wealth of functional information that allows typological analysis with other moulds and vessels. Scrap, ore and ingots are less diagnostic of the production of tin alloy tableware, but are suggestive of centres of tin and tin and lead alloy production for which no other forms of diagnostic material survive.

One internal and six external moulds for a shallow dish design with curved walls, with or without a footring and a rim (nos. 1, 9-10, 17-18, 17a, and 15 figs. 6-7), are known. The external moulds (nos. 1, 9-10 15, 17a, 18 figs. 6-7) appear to have produced bowls with a flange-and-beaded rim on the vessels underside in the case of moulds 1 and 9, and without a bead [or with a bead in the upper mould only] on moulds 15 and 18. Moulds 15, 18 and 17a remain somewhat atypical, 15 being unusually small with a sloping flange, and 18 unique in producing an elliptical dish (Wedlake 1958, 83). 17a, although producing a curved dish, has sides that slope inwards not outwards. The only known internal mould, the lower face of mould 17, has no provision for casting a flange and appears to have been used to cast a dish with a bead rim. All of the moulds were either one part of a two-part mould, or meant for inclusion in a casting stack, the latter being suggested by the presence of double-sided moulds24 (nos. 9, 15, 17 fig. 7). Two-part moulds were probably linked by the use of an internal lip. The overhang to the outer edge of the bead on the lower face of [internal] mould 17 was probably intended to sit on the upper surface of an external mould, sealing the area to be cast, with the exception of an ingate through which metal was introduced (Blagg and Read 1977, 272). Conversely a carved step beyond the casting surface for a flange and bead on mould 9 and 17a would have both provided a seal between the inner and outer moulds, and prevented the inner mould moving sideways during casting. Exactly how moulds 1, 18 and 15 related to inner moulds is problematic, as there is no survival of a related pair of internal and external moulds.

4.1 Moulds as an indicator of production Moulds for tin alloy or pewter vessels22 – plates, dishes, bowls, flagons and cups – occur widely across Britain, yet the number of known moulds has changed little since Beagrie’s (1989) first categorisation of pewter moulds.23 In total, thirty-five moulds are now known [excluding those from Lansdown], comprising fifty-one fragments from fifteen sites. The moulds are usually made from oolitic limestone, often termed Bath Stone (e.g. Fulford and Timby 2000, 391). The choice of limestone conferred the advantage of being comparatively easy to work, most notably on a lathe (Brown and Strong 1976, 33-36), which allowed the creation of intricate and accurate detailing. Conversely, the temperatures involved in pewter casting were not [in contrast to the high temperatures needed for copper and bronze casting the melting point of tin being 231.9°C] high enough to degrade limestone moulds during the casting process (Beagrie 1989, 181-182; Brown 1985). Most of the known non-Limestone pewter moulds are also constructed from sedimentary rocks, notably sandstone. The choice of greisen, a form of low quartz, and therefore soft granite (Brown 1970, 108), for moulds 19 and 21 (fig. 8), and granite for mould 14 (Ashbee 1970; fig. 7) is highly unusual because of the difficulties in working such a material compared to sedimentary stone, and probably reflects a reliance on local stone, perhaps apparent in the 22

Spoons being considered in the discussion on scrap [below].

23

Halangy Down [Isles of Scilly] and Catterick do not appear in Beagrie’s (1989) Catalogue, but are included in this discussion. Additionally, Lansdown is not included in this figure.

Two external moulds are known for an alternative angular form of shallow dish (nos. 4 and 13 figs. 6-7) that has a sloping side that extends outwards from a flat base, ending in a horizontal flange terminating in a bead. One example of this form of mould is known from Silchester (no. 4 fig. 6), and it is probable that the upper and lower surfaces were, respectively, external and internal moulds for this form of dish. Although the lower side has a double footring, it is probable that the upper surface of mould 13 24

33

A casting face on the moulds upper and lower surface.

34

Fig. 6: Dish and plate moulds from Silchester and Nettleton. Nos. 1-4, 1 (upper side dish mould), 2 and 3 (upper side plate mould), 4 (double sided plate mould), from Silchester (after Blagg and Read 1977, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London). Nos. 5-7, 5 (upper side plate mould), 6 (upper side dish mould), 7 (upper side plate mould), from the Shrine of Apollo at Nettleton (after Wedlake 1982, fig. 38, reproduced by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London).

35

Fig. 7: Dish and plate moulds from various sites. Nos. 8, 12 (double sided plate mould), 10-11 (plate mould) from Catterick (after Wilson 2002, fig. 372, © English Heritage), no. 13 (double sided mould, dish upper surface, plate lower) from Langton (after Goodall 1972, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society), no. 14 (plate mould) from Halangy Down (after Ashbee 1970, fig. 49, reproduced by permission of the Cornwall Archaeological Society). No. 15 (double sided moulds, plate upper surface, dish lower) from Gloucester (after Garrod and Heighway 1980, fig. 13, © Richard Bryant), no. 16 (see no. 8) from Neatham (after Millett and Graham 1986, fig. 97), no. 18 (oval dish mould) from Camerton (after Wedlake 1958, fig. 27, reproduced by permission of the Bath and Camerton Archaeological Society (BACAS)), nos. 9 and 17 (Dish mould and double sided mould, dish lower surface, plate upper) from Silchester (after Fulford and Timby 2000 fig. 182, reproduced by permission of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies; Blagg and Read 1977, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London). No. 17a (Dish mould) from York (after Tweddle 1986, fig. 94, reproduced by permission of the York Archaeological Trust).

36

Fig. 8: Bowl and patera/skillet/pan moulds from St Just, Camerton and Nettleton. Nos. 19 and 21 (upper side dish moulds lower side dish and plate moulds respectively) from St Just (after Brown 1970, fig. 31, reproduced by permission of D. Brown). No. 20 (upper side handle mould, lower side pan mould) from Camerton (after Wedlake 1958, fig. 27, reproduced by permission of the Bath and Camerton Archaeological Society (BACAS)). No. 22 (upper side pan/bowl mould), from the Shrine of Apollo at Nettleton (after Wedlake 1982, fig. 38, reproduced by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London).

37

also cast a similar form of dish. Mould 11 from Catterick, despite its small size, may also have been an attempt to cast a very small beaded flanged dish of this type (Wilson 2002, 300-303).

vessel nos. 16 and 20 from Appleford (Brown 1973), although the platter or plate is smaller, and the small plate from Glynde (Marsden 1979). More specifically, plate 21 from Appleford (Brown 1973, 193) appears to be of the same size as the vessel mould 4 would have produced (Blagg and Read 1977). However, the height of the vessel would only have been achieved by the use of an internal mould with a deeply incised bead such as the upper face of mould 15. An alternative vessel type depending on the upper surface would be no. 23 from Appleford (Brown 1973).

One external bowl mould has been found. Perhaps the simplest form from this group is external mould 22, from Nettleton, which comprises an extension of the shallow dish mould into a straight sided pan or paterae with a footring. On the upper surface of the mould is an octagonal pattern consisting of inward-curving lines from point to point, sunk into the rim, through which a space for a probable handle-attachment has been cut (Wedlake 1982, 68-69). A hollow in the rim of the outer mould was probably intended to hold the inner mould in place, and suggests that decoration on the upper and lower moulds had to align correctly. A band of iron staining on the carved upper side of the external mould suggests that an iron clamp further secured the assembled mould.

In contrast, there are no direct comparisons for the pan or paterae moulds (nos. 20 and 22 fig. 8), and mould 22 in particular remains without parallel and should perhaps be viewed rather in terms of a bowl or an extended curved dish. Conversely, mould 20, although without specific parallel, is more typical, and can be compared in broad terms with the Bath series of pewter paterae nos. 28-32 (Cunliffe 1988b). The St Just moulds also have a parallel in Bath and can be broadly equated with vessel no. 12 recovered from the temple complex and sacred spring (Cunliffe 1988b), in addition to vessel no. 6 from Appleford and no. 1 of the two bowls from Abercynafon in South Wales (Earwood, Northover and Cool 2001).

An internal double mould (no. 20 fig. 8) for a pan or paterae can be noted from Camerton. Of particular note is the presence of a second casting on the mould’s surface for the pan’s handle that was presumably soldered to the bowl later (Wedlake 1958, 83). The largest number of bowl moulds comprises the two complete surviving double moulds, an internal/external mould (no. 19 fig. 8) and an external mould (no. 21 fig. 8), from St Just. Collectively, the moulds, when assembled, produced a deep dish with a curved wall, bead rim and footring. A third related mould, now lost, would once have allowed two bowls to be cast in a single casting. A further mould used in conjunction with the external mould could also have cast a plate of similar style to the bowls. As with the shallow dishes, the inner mould sat inside the external mould with space between the two moulds for the vessel to be cast, the inner mould being held in place by a stone lip on the outer mould, above which an ingate is evident (Brown 1970, 107).

Jug Moulds Three internal and one external moulds, that comprise four probable moulds for casting components, specifically the neck of a jug, are now known. Mould no. 25 from Silchester (Blagg and Read 1977) remains the most complex of these moulds and it can be suggested that it was an inner mould for casting the neck of a jug, the other components being cast separately and then soldered together. A suitable style of outer mould for mould 25 can be seen in mould 26 from Witcombe and a further example of such a mould inferred from Westbury (Blagg and Read 1977, 274). It is probable that the angular bevel at the top of the internal moulds was intended to fit into such an outer mould, strongly suggested on the Witcombe example (mould 26, table 1 see also DD2 from Lansdown, fig. 58, for a comparison) by an ingate cut at this height on the mould. A role in jug production has also been suggested for mould 24 from Gloucester (Garrod and Heighway 1980), but use in casting a vessel foot, bowl or cup can also be suggested. A similar interpretation can also be offered for mould 23, a larger less sophisticated form of mould 25, that might be either a mould for a jug neck or a cup (Garrod and Heighway 1980).

There are no known dishes that relate to any of the dish moulds discussed, although similar pewter vessels and motifs have been identified elsewhere. The curved dish moulds (nos. 1, 17, 9 and 15 figs. 6-7) from Silchester and Gloucester are similar in form to two of Peal’s classificatory groups for vessels (type A and 4c(i)), examples of which are known from Bucklersbury House in London and Duston, Irchester, Whiston in Norhtants, Whittlesea and Colchester respectively (Peal 1967). The Camerton oval dish (no. 18 fig. 7), although a curved dish, remains unique. However, oval dishes are not unheard of, examples being known from Islip (Mawer 1995, 26), Thatcham (Collingwood 1931) and Berners Heath (Mawer 1995). However, the only vessel that comes close to a match with the Camerton example is no. 32 from the Appleford hoard, that, despite significant decay, still shows signs of a similar exaggerated flange at either end (Engleheart 1905, 12).

No known vessels can be associated with any of these moulds. If they do indeed form jug necks [Silchester providing cups that have a very similar alternative form], then the width of the neck produced compare well with jugs from Cliveden25 and Silchester.26 Moreover, a similar form [though the dimensions differ] appears to be

The angular group with moulds (nos. 4 and 13 figs. 6-7) from Silchester and Langton comprise Peal’s (1967) typological groups for vessels type 4, 4d(i) and 4d(ii). The upper surface of mould 4 has a good comparison with 38

25

Reading Museum Accession number 1952.116.1.

26

Reading Museum Accession number 1995.84.23.

Fig. 9: Jug or cup moulds from Gloucester, Silchester, and Witcombe. Nos. 23–24 (internal jug or cup mould) from Gloucester (after Garrod and Heighway 1980, fig. 13, © Richard Bryant). No. 25 (internal jug or cup mould) from Silchester (after Blagg and Read 1977, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London). No. 26 (internal jug or cup mould) from Witcombe (after Blagg and Read 1977, plate XLI, reproduced by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London).

39

comparatively common in jugs from Stokesley, Chew Stoke (Rahtz and Greenfield 1977), Bath (Cunliffe 1988b, no. 19), Appleford on no. 1 vessel (Brown 1973) and again Silchester. Mould 24 has no known comparison amongst pewter jugs and it appears probable that this is a mould for a small conical cup, which is known from both Icklingham and Wangford.

2c and 3, depending on the nature of the rim, although the only probable match for the mould is form 3a (Peal 1967). Many possible examples of vessels from this group can be noted from Icklingham, Coldham, Isleham, Sutton Bath and probably vessel no. 13 from Appleford, although the rim had been trimmed on the latter plate and so its exact form is now lost.

Flat Plate and Shallow Dish Moulds

Mould Based Production

Nine moulds for two types of flat plate and shallow dish are now known. Two external moulds for a flat or slightly dished plate with a footring and bead rim are known. Two flat plate moulds (nos. 2-3 fig. 6) appear peculiar to Silchester. The intended plate was slightly dish shaped, thinning from a thick centre, delineated by a footring, to the rim, and ending in a bead on either the underside or both the under and upper side. The raised curved lip forms a support for the inner mould and is not part of the casting per se, emphasised by the running of an ingate through the mould to the thick bead rim on mould 2.

The total number of known stone pewter moulds, although small, is sufficient to allow limited discussion of the mechanics of pewter vessel production. Three types of moulds for casting tin alloy are now known. Firstly, an open mould with one casting surface, the upper side being left open. Secondly, a bipartite mould in which the entire vessel or vessel component to be cast is enclosed between an upper [or outer] and lower [or inner] mould (e.g. DD5 fig. 59, DD10-11 fig. 61, ?23, 24-26 fig. 9). Thirdly, a casting stack (e.g. ?13, 4, 16-17, 19, 21 figs. 6-8) that consists of a number of generally bipartite moulds assembled one on top of the other, to allow the simultaneous casting of multiple vessels. Open moulds were cast ‘flat’27 and it is likely bipartite or stacked moulds were cast likewise, with each part/mould clamped (Bush 1907) and/or linked to the other by the use of hollows28 and binding (perhaps evident on mould 22 fig. 8).

A less well-executed or deviant version of the Silchester plate moulds is probably evident at Nettleton (nos. 5-7 fig. 6). The forms produced in moulds 6-7 can be suggested as having been intended to produce flat plates with a footring and ending in a thick bead of similar form to moulds 2-3, if areas of worked stone outside the ‘bead’ grooves of moulds 5-7 are seen as holding the inner mould (Wedlake 1982). A similar mould of this type should also be noted from Halangy Down (mould 14 fig. 7) (Ashbee 1970) and on the lower face of a mould from Neatham (no. 16 fig. 7). Although it is now difficult to prove, it is likely that the double-sided plate mould (no. 8 fig. 7) from Catterick (Wilson 2002) that had both an internal and external face for casting a flat plate was also of the Neatham type, although the deep outer groove on the upper surface remains strange for the form, and looks more like a footring. Mould 10 also from Catterick may have been for producing a flat plate with a substantial footring (Wilson 2002). Although mould 12 from Catterick may have been an attempt to produce a further internal or external mould of this type, it now appears too irregular for such a purpose.

It is likely that before casting the moulds were prepared using a solution of red ochre and egg white to improve the casting quality, as suggested by Beagrie (1989, 186) as surviving on a mould from Neatham. Once assembled tin and tin and lead alloy were introduced to the mould[s] through ingates or casting channels that are evident in the rims of many surviving moulds (e.g. FD2 fig. 68, VA8 fig. 73, 2, 15, 26, 19/21 figs. 6-8), forcing air from the mould wherever two moulds met. The close association of moulds with a furnace at Nettleton (Wedlake 1982) suggests that tin and lead alloys were prepared and cast on the same floor, but as no crucibles associated with pewter casting have been identified, the exact preparation, method of introduction [to the mould] and volume of metal that constituted one casting remain unknown. Little evidence survives for showing how vessels were finished after casting. That multipart vessels were assembled by soldering is now widely accepted and has been comprehensively reviewed by Lang and Hughes (1984). It is also probable that many types of vessel were polished and trimmed to remove excess tin and tin and lead alloy, for instance metal that had solidified in the casting channel. For Brown (1985), small vessels and vessels that

A probable variant of this group is mould 13 from Langton, the lower surface of which has provision for casting a flat plate with three footrings, or one or two footrings followed by a substantial bead, perhaps partly cast on a missing upper mould. It is probable that the upper surface of mould 15 comprised such an internal mould for a flat plate with a channel to produce the upper part of the bead on the vessel’s edge, and which fitted inside a mould such as mould 13. Moulds 2 and 17 have a good parallel for form in vessel no. 2 from Appleford (Brown 1973, 189) although the platter or plate is far smaller. However, collectively, the flat plate moulds (nos. 5-7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 figs. 6-7) pose a problem, because only the lower halves of the moulds survive. The possible variations of the type of flat dish produced in such moulds include Peal forms 1, 2, 2a, 2b, 40

27

Placed so that the vessel cast, for instance a plate, is horizontal, not vertical, to the ground.

28

A hole in both the upper and lower moulds, joined by use of a peg, to hold the mould closed in one position.

Fig. 10: Moulds used in a casting stack. Moulds a) consist of two moulds from St Just, shown separately and then assembled (after Brown 1970, fig. 31, reproduced by permission of D. Brown) and b) a mould from Lansdown in which an ingate or casting channel can be seen.

41

had been cast with decoration29 (e.g. moulds PM01-4D fig. 63-64, 22 fig. 8) would not have been subject to polishing and finishing because of the smooth finish left by using fine grain limestone moulds. Conversely larger vessels, those over 25cm, were finished by lathe turning and the processing marks for this process, notably compass marks to identify the centre of the base for a mounting point and the resultant chuck and scar points, have been identified by Brown (1973) on the Appleford vessels (nos. 11, 14-17, 20-21, 23-24, 18) and Mottram (1970) on vessels from Shingham. However it seems probable that all vessels would have required a degree of finishing to remove casting debris such as any mould preparation, for instance red ochre, and to separate metal offruns.

at Neatham, relate to tin alloy production remains unclear (Millett and Graham 1986). Less is known about rural production. Villas produced the majority of known pewter moulds from rural sites with moulds known from Wick (Scarth 1884; Beagrie 1989, 185-186), Witcombe, Langton (Goodall 1972) and Brislington (Barker 1901). Little contextual data survive for this group, but it is likely that the late 4th century moulds from Langton are representative of the date of much rural pewter production (Goodall 1972). The remaining rural moulds, notably the poorly recorded moulds from St Just (Cornwall) and a possible plate mould from a courtyard house at Halangy Down (Isles of Scilly) appear to suggest native production limited to the southwest (Ashbee 1970). This would be unsurprising given that the southwest contained extensive sources of tin.

Distribution in Time and Space The nature of tin alloy production, when the context of all sites that have produced pewter moulds is considered, appears to comprise the same 3rd-4th century expedient economic strategies [across the settlement hierarchy], as those adopted in the Mendip region.

When the spatial pattern of all sites with pewter moulds is considered, the evidence for vessel production appears contradictory. The adoption of apparently expedient pewter 3rd-4th century vessel manufacture in Mendip on sites at Camerton, Nettleton and Brislington, and perhaps even on sites at the periphery of the region at Witcombe and Wick, Gloucester and Westbury, remains widely attributed to local access to lead and tin (acccess to limestone and coal, although important, were secondary considerations). However, pewter production in northern England (at York, Langton and Catterick), the Welsh borders (at Wroxeter), southern (at Silchester and Neatham) and southwestern England (at Halangy Down and St Just) do not, with the exception of the latter, occur in areas thought to have easy access to lead or tin.

The earliest surviving moulds are known from urban centres, most notably a colonia (e.g. Gloucester, Garrod and Heighway 1980) and civitas capital (e.g. Silchester, Blagg and Read 1977). Little contextual evidence survives and so the nature of this industry remains elusive. Moulds retrieved from the colonia of Gloucester (table 1 nos. 15, 23-24) appear to be associated with a phase of reuse of a structure for industrial purposes in the late 3rd-4th century, but the nature of this reuse remains unclear (Garrod and Heighway 1980). In the civitas of Silchester tin is evident from pre 3rd century contexts, but whether this was associated with pewter production or cuppelation, bronze production, plating, solder or was a by-product of other industrial activity on the site, remains unclear (Fulford and Timby 2000, 418-420).

This dichotomy should perhaps force us to question the widely assumed model that the prevalence of tin and lead in the Mendip region alone allowed the expedient production of pewter, and question how widely tin and lead was available in the rest of Roman Britain.

Pewter production within 4th century small towns and villages appears to be on a small-scale, with tin alloy manufacture occurring widely within a mixed metalworking base. Production within the small town at Camerton occurred within a purpose-built structure or workshop developed within a mixed-metalworking economy between the mid 3rd–4th centuries AD (Burnham and Wacher 1990; Wedlake 1958). It is probable that the moulds (table 1 nos. 8 and 10-12) from Catterick (Wilson 2002) were from a similar mixed industrial base. The 4th century reuse of building material to create new hearths, furnaces and structures at the small town of Nettleton, although prompted by an economic crisis, were also part of a mixed metalworking economy intended to provide a new source of income (Wedlake 1982). How poorly recorded moulds, such as the 4th century mould from the small town

29

4.2 Scrap, Ingots and Production For Beagrie (1989), tin and lead alloy, ingots and scrap can be viewed in terms of production debris. As with moulds, the number of sites producing such material has changed little since Beagrie’s (1989) categorisation of tin and tin lead alloy waste scrap and ingots. In total, twelve sites are now known to have produced tin alloy ingots and alloy ‘lumps’ (Beagrie 1989, 181) and ten sites to have produced scrap (the evidence of all ingots, scrap and waste is presented in tables 2 and 3). The potential of such production debris has traditionally been treated with caution in relation to vessel manufacture, as a pervasive problem with any study of tin or tin and lead alloy ingots, scrap or waste is identifying its actual use. Scrap and ingots used in vessel manufacture can only rarely be identified, either by its relation to a mould (Tylecote in Branigan 1977; Beagrie 1989, 182-183) or diagnostic production debris (e.g. sprues Bayley in Blagg, Plovviez Tester 2004).

As opposed to the later addition of punched decoration on roundels and rims known from vessels 2 and 13 from Appleshaw and 21 from Appleford.

42

43

44

45

46

More commonly, the presence of tin and tin and lead alloy can be assumed to reflect a range of other industrial processes (Boulakia 1972), notably solder, tin washing (Pliny N.H XXX; XXXIV), the use of leaded copper or bronze alloys (composition is discussed in Chapter 5), or non-vessel pewter manufacture. Some collections of scrap and production debris may also be viewed in terms of ‘crisis’ (discussed in Chapter 4) or blacksmith hoards (Clark 1936).

has the significant role that recycling played in tin and lead-alloy production in rural settlement, although widely supposed, become clear, with the find of an atypically large scrap hoard from Ickham (Beagrie 1989, 188).31 Tin alloy production within villas can be understood in the same terms as production in other rural settlements. 3rd-4th century tin and lead alloy production at Gatcombe (in Building 13/14 and Building 21) appears to have been a by-product of on-site lead or lead ore [galena] smelting (Branigan 1977). Conversely, pewter production at Great Witcombe villa [in addition to the mould] (Holbrook 2003), Rockbourne (Beagrie 1991) and perhaps in a villa at Piddington, appears to be associated with copper working. A pewter ingot from Frocester Court (Price 1983) cannot currently be related to any form of production.

However, the presence of tin and tin and lead production debris does demonstrate the extent to which both metals were available in Roman Britain, as opposed to just Mendip. By adopting an explicitly contextual approach to such evidence, albeit one that is often constrained by qualitatively poor data (e.g. for tin and lead ingots, Hodges and Smith 1991, 60; Ratcliffe 1993; Holbrook 2003; Bayley 2004; Beik 1994; Fox 1995), it is possible to identify, in general terms, the scale and nature of this industry, and how such supply might have impacted on the production of pewter vessels.

Less is known about urban production. Although pre 3rd century tin and pewter production in the provincial capital is assumed (Jones and Sherlock 1996), little evidence for production in the city has been identified. Tin alloy (L14L19 table 3) and scrap (W22-W41 table 4) from 1st-3rd century deposits in the Walbrook are perhaps evidence for local vessel repair or production, but this interpretation remains divisive (Beagrie 1989; also ritual, Jones 1983). The purpose of the abnormal quantity of tin and lead alloy at Hunts House, although possibly suggesting some form of pewter production, remains equally difficult to understand (Taylor-Wilson 2002). In contrast, the atypical find of ten 4th century tin and pewter ingots from the Thames in London appear to comprise a single group meant for import or export32 (Collingwood and Wright 1990, 68-69; Beagrie 1989, 188-189; Mawer 1995, 96-98). The latter interpretation, the export of both recycled tin alloy and tin from Roman Britain, would seem both more plausible and to have a precedent in the Bigbury33 wreck (Fox 1995).

Distribution in Time and Space Pewter production, when the context of all sites that have produced tin or tin and lead alloy ingots, scrap or casting debris is considered, often appears to occur in similar 2nd/3rd-4th century small-scale economic strategies to those adopted for much mould-based vessel production. The majority of pewter production waste appears [in contrast to the occurrence of moulds] to have been largely limited to rural settlements. In rural villages and secondary agglomerations, this industry appears to be small-scale, requiring little infrastructure to operate, most commonly requiring a hearth and/or furnaces, but also reflecting the nature of the tin and lead that a settlement had access to. The occurrence of a high-tin ingot at Trethurgy (Quinnell 2004) and high-tin metalworking at Duckpool (Ratcliffe 1993) and a round at Killigrew (Cole 1999), all in the southwest of Britain, appear to be the consequence of access to a comparatively pure local, or in the case of Mount Batten, alluvial (Brown and Hugo 1983), tin source. Conversely, outside the southwest the presence of other industrial activity in the same settlement, most notably cupellation or lead ore smelting evident at Hengistbury Head (Bushe-Fox 1915), but also perhaps including bronze and copper working (perhaps evident in mixed metalworking sites at the Oldbury Flats, Allen and Fulford 1992), appears to have also supplied some of the tin and lead for pewter production. It is notable that the only pewter tableware production identified from scrap is from a small town, evident in the presence of a pewter casting sprue with spoon bowl found at Hacheston30 with a pattern for a tin alloy ring and sprues for leaded copper and bronze (Blagg, Plovviez and Tester 2004). However, only recently 30

Small-town production can be viewed in the same terms as rural production, expedient and part of a mixed metalworking economy. The proximity of Camerton [no. L20 table 3] to both local lead and Cornish tin is, for example, widely regarded as underlying pewter production at the site (Wedlake 1958). However, the major source for urban production in towns appears to be recycling. The association of a pewter plate with a building with hearths [and a furnace] in the town of Towcester, and lead alloy ingots and scrap [W14-W16 table 4] with pewter production in the small town at Nettleton (buildings 9 and 22 respectively, Wedlake 1982) both suggest ‘on site’ recycling of tin and lead alloy vessels (RCHME 1982).

Beagrie (1989) dismisses this incorrectly as a production site. The waste pewter he identified as 79% lead, 13.8% tin and 6.7% copper was probably either from the leaded copper at the site, or a mixture of debris from different industrial processes.

47

31

The results from excavation at Ickham have not been published.

32

It is telling that the size of the ingots is comparatively small, of a similar scale to tin ingots, perhaps suggesting these were the products of a small-scale industry. Stamps might denote British production; Syagri [a], Spes in deo XP [b], Suag│rius [c] and A XP W [d].

33

This ship was carrying c.44 tin ingots also suggesting the export of tin from Britain, although the date is not clearly Roman and may as easily be PRLIA or post Roman.

Fig. 11: A map of all the sites known to have produced pewter moulds or tin or tin and lead alloy ingots, with a Roman date. Finds from Avon have been shown separately.

48

The presence of scraps of vessels and tin alloy ‘lumps’ from Baldock (Bayley 1986), although without such clear association, also suggests some form of vessel recycling. Perhaps the most significant finds, in light of the significant scale of recycling at Ickham, are three pewter hoards from Hockwold (Peal 1967, 30; Beagrie 1989, 189), which along with other tin and lead-alloy production material might, despite an unclear site context, suggest recycling on a similar scale.

(Baldock). Similarly, for the first time substantial pewter manufacture can also be identified in a large scrap assemblage from Kent (Ickham). Lastly, tin alloy production in the provincial capital, although largely assumed to have belonged to a pre-3rd century tin alloy industry, can be tentatively suggested (at Walbrook, Hunts House and in the presence of tin ingots from the Thames). Although not presumed areas of manufacture, tin alloy from the military north at Corbridge, Benwell and Edlington, and from the west at Caerleon do show the geographical extent to which even high tin alloys were available.

Where pewter production differs significantly from the distribution of moulds is in their occurrence on military sites. A range of tin alloy production materials can be noted from Corbridge (Smythe 1938, 260), although of most importance is a lump of tin and lead alloy that appears to be a solder, and a high tin (94%), tin ingot from the fort. Similar high tin alloy ‘lumps’ were also retrieved from Benwell (nos. L3-L4 table 3). However in neither case is the context sufficient to identify whether they were associated with manufacture, recycling or a different industrial process. However, recycling perhaps remains the most plausible reason for lead contamination in the Corbridge tin ingot, and recycling is also suggested by Boon (1970) as the reason for tin contaminated lead bars from the fort or vicus at Caerleon (no. I15 table 2). In contrast, as with rural and urban production, tin alloy working in the southwest, evident at the fortlet at Carvossa, appeared not to be based on recycling tin and lead, but rather resulted from one of a number of different smelting operations on the site (Carlyon 1987).

It can now be suggested that the idea that access to either tin or lead ore ingots as a pre-requisite of pewter production is an over-simplification of a more complex system of tin and lead procurement. Indeed as work on sites such as Ickham is starting to suggest, even significant pewter production could be based on secondary tin and lead acquisition such as vessel recycling. 5 Conclusion This chapter has presented the totality of the known evidence for Roman Britain tin and tin and lead alloy production in Britain in a basic contextual framework. In particular I have argued that the evidence for pewter production can be deduced not just from structural evidence but also from the study of scrap, ingots and moulds themselves. Of especial importance are assemblages of moulds found in association with pewter production workshops, of which the moulds from the ‘Mendip’ workshops at Nettleton and Camerton provided the only detailed context and chronology for the development of tin and tin and lead alloy production. In particular, it is evidence from the Mendip sites that suggests that pewter production was an expedient industry that was adopted initially in urban but then rural settlements through the 3rd-5th centuries AD. Pewter moulds elsewhere in Roman Britain also appear to be associated with either 3rd-4th century urban production such as the colonia of Gloucester, the civitas of Silchester and a range of 4th century small towns, or late 4th-5th century rural production, although the dating evidence from villas and Langton in particular would benefit from reappraisal.

When the spatial distribution of all sites with tin and lead alloy ingots, production debris and scrap is considered, the complex nature of tin and pewter availability can start to be seen. Concentrations of pure and near pure tin ingots occur widely through the southwest on sites such as Par Beach (Wright 1950, 110) and Trethurgy,34 Duckpool, Killigrew (Cole 1999) and Carvossa, and probably reflect access to, and processing of, tin. Outside of the southwest, a range of different sources of tin and lead alloy were used. It is perhaps unsurprising to find evidence of lead working, cupellation and even scrap use on materially ‘poor’ settlements across Mendip (Kenn Moor, Oldbury, Gatcombe, Frocester, Camerton and Nettleton), the south coast (e.g. Hengistbury) and on other mould producing sites such as Silchester.

Although this chapter has concentrated on moulds, the greater range of evidence for tin alloy production comes from discoveries of scrap and ingots that suggest a larger tin alloy industry than moulds alone do. There is evidence for some correlation between ingots and scrap and moulds. The predominance of tin in the southwest is probably reflected in the presence of both native vessel production in Cornwall and the large number of production sites in Mendip. However there remain significant discrepancies between known production moulds and known tin and tin and lead alloy vessels, and it is probable that many assumed workshops such as the London ‘spoon’ workshop (Jones and Sherlock 1996, 174-175) and probable workshops in the Fens have not yet been identified. The widespread use and reuse of high-lead tin outside of the southwest has caused us to rethink the nature and scale of

However, for the first time the presence of tin and lead alloy production debris in Norfolk (at Hockwold, Rockbourne), and Suffolk (Hacheston), both presumed sites of pewter production, could also be identified. Pewter production in central England, again widely assumed, is also evident in finds of tin and lead alloy scrap and ingots from Northamptonshire (Towcester) and Hertfordshire 34

A number of possibly Roman finds have been discounted because the dating evidence is tenuous. Nonetheless the possibility remains that high or pure tin ingots from St Mawes, c.44 ingots from a shipwreck from Bigbury, Pymouth, Trereife, Carnanton and St Austell may all have been Roman (Quinnell 2004; Tylecote 1966; Thomas 1988; Beik 1994).

49

this industry. In particular work on sites such as Ickham is radically changing the possible locations and scale of such production. Indeed, given how slight the evidence of such manufacture can be (Blagg, Plouviez and Tester 2004) it is probable a number of production sites just have not been recognised. In conclusion, we must accept that widespread pewter manufacture (outside London) appears to be a post 3rd century phenomenon. However, the spatial relationship of pewter production to regions of tin and lead extraction is challenged by a more complex understanding of the range of tin and lead sources for such manufacture. Only when we can more accurately gauge the extent and date of pewter recycling, can a more cohesive model of pewter production in Britain be made.

50

Chapter 3: Pewter Distribution

1 Introduction

The last group are cups the known dates for which seem largely restricted to the mid 4th-5th century. The typology of each of these groups is presented in detail in Appendix 2.

In Chapter 1 it has been argued that social identities could be constructed through the adoption and use or rejection of material (Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff 1986). For tin and tin and lead alloy tableware this social identity has commonly been assumed to be as an elite (Wedlake 1958, 85-86) ‘Roman’ material, selected and used for Roman cultural practices. However, the consumption of pewter tableware is more complex than this model might imply. Of particular relevance to this chapter is that the social function of pewter tableware can change between [and within] different social contexts. The social function of pewter can also change through time. It is both of these issues that form the foci of the discussion that will comprise the remainder of this chapter.

Study of the context of these typologically different forms will demonstrate how the social role of pewter changes both between functionally different groups of RomanoBritish tin alloy, and within specific groups of tin alloy tableware, through time and space. Detailed context data for all the finds discussed in this chapter are presented in Appendices 2-4. Even a cursory study of all pewter tableware immediately demonstrates a significant numerical difference between typologically different groups. Whilst there are three hundred and seventeen dishes and ‘plates’ and ninety-two bowls, there are only sixty-two jugs, twenty-eight spoons and thirty-four cups. It is difficult to assess how reflective such quantitative variation was of ‘genuine’ consumption patterns. A particular criticism is that quantitative comparison fails to account for the relative dates of use for particular forms of pewter tableware, and compares material that remained in use for a comparatively short period (fig. 12), such as decorated spoons and jugs that predominated in the 1st-2nd and 2nd-3rd centuries respectively, with material that occurred throughout the Roman occupation such as dishes (1st-5th century).

To achieve a better understanding of the social role and meaning of tin and tin and lead alloy tableware, an explicitly contextual approach has been adopted in this chapter. The social context35 of all known finds of tin and tin and lead alloy [also termed pewter in this chapter] plates and dishes, bowls, spoons, cups and jugs from the Roman period [in this case c.50-500 AD] in England and Wales36 has been recorded. The context categories used have been defined as ‘military sites’ including fortresses, forts, stations, and vici, ‘urban’ including provincial capital, coloniae, municipia, civitas capitals and small towns, ‘rural’ including villa, ‘estate village’, village/secondary agglomeration and farmsteads, and sites with an ‘other’ or ‘unknown’ site context (refer to Chapter 1:4.2). This categorisation remains necessarily broad, but a finer degree of resolution is deployed in Chapter 4 when secondary or depositional contexts, rather than just the site contexts, are considered.

Even though the dating evidence for different groups of Romano-British tableware remains broad, it is still possible to construct a basic chronology for pewter tableware. The tight date range for decorated spoons (type 1 and type 2) does seem to reflect a ‘real’ 1st-2nd century trend, as do the respective date ranges for jugs found variously in 3rd (for type 1 jugs fig. 90) and 4th century (for type 2 jugs fig. 91) contexts. In contrast, although both bowls and dishes proliferate in 4th-5th century contexts, many of the dish types found in late deposits also have examples from 1st-2nd and 2nd-3rd century (2a-2b, A and B dishes, 1b(i)-1, 2a, 4a, 4b dishes figs. 96, 98-99) contexts. This suggests a major difference in scale between pre and post 4th century tin alloy tableware.

To provide a basic analytical framework for the use of Romano-British pewter tableware, five functionally, and to a lesser degree chronologically, different groups of material have been chosen. The earliest group of RomanoBritish pewter tableware consists of 1st-2nd or 3rd century spoons, predominantly dated by the exceptional early ‘decorated’ spoons (Jones and Sherlock 1996) and later, plain, ‘fiddle’ spoons from London. Other Romano-British pewter tableware, especially jugs, generally fall within the 3rd-4th centuries with biconical and the narrow mouth and globular forms forming the respective ends of the date range. The largest groups, bowls, plates and dishes, are known for the duration of Roman Britain but predominate in the 4th century. None of these groups are closely datable. 35

Finds without a primary social context are not discussed here, but appear as unknown, or if the secondary context is known, other, in the context charts.

36

There are no appreciable Romano-British pewter finds in Scotland except those finds that are widely regarded as having been removed from England during raids, such as the Traprain treasure.

The predominance of bowls and dishes, although known from pre-3rd century deposits (Frere 1987a, 274-276), in 4th-5th century hoards might suggest, in contrast to the consumption of spoons and jugs, that they were sufficiently valued as high status objects to remain in use for long periods, deposited for protection in ‘crisis’ hoards during times of strife (although interpretation of these hoards as scrap, or caches of stolen material, should also be considered, refer to Chapter 4:1.1 for a discussion). Conversely, there is increasing evidence for the widespread recycling (discussed in Chapter 2) of pewter tableware and it may be that the products of a pre-3rd century pewter industry were largely reused to produce 3rd-4th century pewter tableware in which the large-scale production of

51

52

In conclusion it can be suggested that although there was a symbiotic relationship between tin and tin and lead alloy production or supply and tableware manufacture, it frequently remains problematic to articulate this relationship in terms of specific types of economic activity such as ore extraction.

‘sets’ of villa plate rather than a range of small goods such as spoons, predominated. 1.1 Tin Supply and Demand A fundamental question with any attempt to chart or map the occurrence of Romano-British pewter tableware is that posed by Eckardt (2002), which is how can we differentiate between the social and economic causes for such patterning. For pewter this holds a particular resonance, as the date and distribution of vessels is traditionally understood in terms of increased post-3rd century demand and supply (Wedlake 1958, 85). There remains, for example, an interesting asymmetry between the demand for certain ceramic finewares (Tyers 1996, 188) and pewter dishes. Moreover it appears likely that at some level, the adoption of pewter in the 3rd century was related to the wider consumption patterns for pottery, and perhaps also glass, bronze, copper and especially silver vessels.

Of particular importance to this book is the impact on pewter consumption, not only of supply, but also of demand or the way in which the selection and use of a particular material expressed a particular identity. At one level, for example, it is probable that, for pewter tableware, it was function and not the social meaning that was important. At another level there was a difference in the perceived social or fiscal value of different types of pewter tableware. It is significant, for instance, that while spoons are usually found as casual discards, plates and dishes occur predominantly in hoards. To further highlight the spatial, chronological and social patterns of consumption for Romano-British tin alloy tableware, I will present a study of both the primary (site) and secondary (depositional) contexts of all identified finds of tin and tin and lead alloy tableware, defined as spoons, cups, jugs, bowls, plates and dishes. This contextual analysis will show that the earliest forms of tableware occurred largely in 1st-2nd century urban and military contexts, and that by the 3rd-4th century new forms of pewter tableware predominated across the rural and urban settlement hierarchy. I will also argue that production that had started as an offshoot of other industrial production had by the 3rd century started to mass-produce vessels which were widely adopted to express a Roman identity.

However, it is the supply of lead and tin that is most commonly viewed as the key factor in the availability of pewter vessels. I have already argued in Chapter 2 that the conventional assumption that the re-exploitation of Cornish tin in the 3rd century fuelled pewter production in leadexploiting regions such as Mendip (Wedlake 1958, 85) is an oversimplification of a more complex range of industrial activities. Nonetheless, if the contexts of all the by-products of tin and tin and lead alloy production such as scrap, waste and moulds are considered, a late date for the production of most pewter vessels appears probable (Beagrie 1989). Moulds in particular suggest the 3rd-4th century production of pewter tableware across the rural and urban settlement hierarchy of southern Britain (and in parts of the north). That scrap mostly occurs in 3rd-4th century contexts within regions of pewter vessel finds, although not necessarily diagnostic of vessel production, is also significant. It would then appear, as is widely assumed (Wedlake 1958, 85-86), that there was a strong link between the post-3rd century abundance of pewter tableware and widespread tin and tin and lead alloy production in Britain.

2 Methodology As outlined in Chapter 1 [section 4.2], five groups of Romano-British pewter tableware [or cup, jug, plate/dish, bowl and spoon] will be analysed by looking at the social context in which they occur. In this chapter, RomanoBritish tin alloy tableware will be discussed in relation to primary contexts which are defined here as ‘military sites’, ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ (other and unknown contexts being discussed in Chapter 4). In the next chapter secondary or depositional contexts will also be considered.

Conversely for Jones (1983) scrap from the Walbrook suggests tin [if not tin and lead alloy] manufacture in Britain before the 3rd century, which fits well with the dates for small-scale tin and tin and lead working in Cornwall (Cole 1999; Beagrie 1983) and finds of pre-3rd century pewter vessels. However, how far scrap is diagnostic of only vessel manufacture remains a matter of speculation. Indeed if all c.2nd-3rd century tin alloy finds from the Walbrook (Jones 1983) are considered, vessels form only a small part of the assemblage (for a detailed discussion refer to Chapter 4). With the absence of comparable pre-3rd century assemblages, it would appear that the provincial capital was unique in the early tin industry it harboured. However, such pre-3rd century manufacture of tin and tin and lead alloy tableware would have been negligible compared to the produce of post 3rd century workshops.

It has already been suggested that Romano-British tin and lead alloy vessels occur meaningfully over time and, when articulated through a study of the primary contexts, it becomes apparent that this reflects a shift in the consumption of pewter tableware from an urban phenomenon to proliferation across the rural and urban settlement hierarchy by the 4th century. In the remainder of the chapter it is this pattern that will be studied in greater detail, by looking at what primary contexts each group of Romano-British pewter tableware occurs in. This will be partly achieved by looking at ‘absolute’ numbers for each group of tableware in different primary contexts and, as with chronological distribution, this again shows a meaningful distribution. Spoons for example are unique as they occur almost exclusively in urban and military contexts. A further level of analysis is also attainable by 53

looking at the spatial occurrence of Romano-British pewter tableware, which allows the degree of regional variety not highlighted in a statistical analysis to be seen.

majority of these spoons can again be noted from London, including a dished [as opposed to flat] cochlearia and two ‘fiddle’ shaped spoons from the Walbrook (Jones 1983). Outside of London, the only urban finds of spoons comprise a ‘pear shaped’ spoon (Wedlake 1958, 265) from a 4th century context in Camerton.39 A lack of evidence compounded by a lack of context for many specimens means that it is not currently possible to assess if such scarcity is a fair reflection of the urban Romano-British consumption of pewter spoons outside of London (Brown 1982, 100; Beagrie 1989, 178; Jones and Sherlock 1996, 172). However, a general lack of recorded pewter spoons, whilst bronze and silver spoons (Johns and Pickin 1993; Johns and Bland 1994) are comparatively common, does seem to suggest a real phenomenon.

3 Accoutrements – Spoons 3.1 Analysis of Primary Site Contexts Twenty eight Romano-British pewter spoons are currently known of which three were decorated (Jones and Sherlock 1996) cochlearia with a flat circular bowl (1-1a (i) fig. 87) and fourteen decorated spoons with a pear shaped bowl (22a (iii) fig. 88). A further six37 non-decorated spoon forms are also known: three plain dished cochlearia, one pearshaped and two, ‘fiddle’ spoons. Five examples of unknown form should also be noted.

Rural Sites As a group Romano-British pewter spoons remain extremely rare. Indeed, nearly all the known samples have been retrieved from London. However, although mostly from disturbed contexts, the importance of decorated spoons from the provincial capital is partially due to their exceptionally thorough study (Jones and Sherlock 1996) and the generally poor recording of spoons found outside the city, many examples of which cannot be discussed here as a result (Brown 1982, 100; Beagrie 1989, 178).

Pewter spoons do not appear to have been widely adopted within the Romano-British countryside. Only three spoons are known from rural sites, one spoon from a scrap hoard in a secondary agglomeration and two spoons having been retrieved from villas.40 A ‘dished’ cochlearia type spoon can be noted from an ergastulum related to a villa at Chalk (Johnston et al. 1972), where its association with a plate suggests that it held little value by the 3rd-4th century, perhaps even to the extent that it was acceptable for it to be included amongst the eating equipment of slaves. A similar, cruder spoon, also cochlearia type, probably of comparable date, also appears similarly devalued as it was retrieved from near a villa outbuilding at Gestingthorpe (Draper 1985). Given the disproportionate interest in the excavation of villas in particular, it remains curious that so few pewter spoons have been identified. Moreover, it is hard to account for why there is an absence of spoons from ‘high status’ pewter hoards (refer to Chapter 4 for a detailed discussion).

Urban Sites London contains a uniquely high proportion of all the known Romano-British pewter spoons with all the known ‘fiddle spoons’ (type 3 fig. 89) and most of the decorated cochlearia (type 1 table 32) and pear-shaped (type 2 fig. 88) spoons retrieved from the provincial capital. The chronology of decorated (types 1-2 figs. 88-89) spoons appears to be an extremely important factor. The cochlearia and probably the ‘pear’-shaped spoons from London are primarily 1st-2nd century in date (Jones and Sherlock 1996) and only fit within the wider pattern for early Romano-British tin and tin and lead alloy use within the city. Indeed it is probable that all the decorated spoons from London were the products of a single workshop in or near the provincial capital (Jones and Sherlock 1996). Although much of this produce was clearly consumed in London,38 spoons from this workshop have been identified as far afield as the limes in Germany and Italy (Jones and Sherlock 1996, 172). It is tempting to ask if their size, or even their talismanic properties (refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion), made them especially desirable to traders and soldiers. If the latter, it is interesting to note there are three spoons [probably] from civil settlements associated with forts at Carlisle and Vindolanda on the British military border.

Military Sites Four pewter spoons are known from military sites, mostly in the north of England. A possible ‘fiddle’-shaped spoon is known from the fort at Richborough in Kent (Bushe-Fox 1949), and three spoons are known from forts or vici at Carlisle and Vindolanda (Jones and Sherlock 1996, 172). The only spoon from a military site with a detailed context was found in the vicus at Vindolanda (Munby 1977, 352355), and this should perhaps make us question the military or civilian nature of this group of finds. 3.2 Site Distribution for Pewter The distribution map, which shows all known finds of decorated and non-decorated fiddle, pear-shaped bowl and cochlearia spoons, shows a focus on the southeast of Britain. In relation to spoon production and consumption,

In contrast, very few non-decorated spoons are known, and all of them date to the late 2nd century or later. The 37

If the ligula from the Walbrook is ignored as it is presumed this fulfilled a cosmetic and not a tableware related function.

39 40

38

And it is important to note that the finds of spoons in London do not come from hoards but rather are disparate finds.

54

Itself a pewter production centre. A further unusual ‘pear shaped’ spoon can be noted from Lydney, but a lack of definite context makes it hard to ascribe a date or clear association.

Fig. 13: Quantitative variation in the scale of deposition for tin and tin and lead alloy spoons in different social contexts, with special emphasis on the site types for rural and urban finds respectively. Finds with no known context are included in the unknown category.

55

Fig. 14: Map of the distribution of all known finds of tin and tin and lead alloy spoons regardless of form and context.

56

London (the provincial capital) is especially well represented, containing both a suspected tin alloy workshop that produced spoons (Jones and Sherlock 1996), and acting as the largest single spoon-consumer. Only one cochlearia [without context] from the London workshop is known outside the capital, from Bury St Edmunds, and seems to provide the known northern limit for the form. The two remaining identified undecorated cochlearia from villas at Chalk (Johnston et al. 1972) and Gestingthorpe (Draper 1985), although later and of different form, all occur in the same geographical area. It remains a possibility that cochlearia were a form produced locally, and certainly 2nd-3rd century tin alloy spoon production is known in Suffolk at Hacheston (Blagg, Plouviez and Tester 2004).

4 Drinking Vessels – Jugs 4.1 Analysis of Primary Site Contexts Sixty-two complete or fragmented pewter jugs have so far been recorded from Roman Britain, of which twenty-one can be considered to be ‘biconical’ forms (type 1 fig. 90), twelve globular (type 2 fig. 91) and three narrow-mouthed (type 3 fig. 92). Twenty-six examples of unknown form should also be noted. In relation to the primary context patterns, urban sites are again of great importance. Although represented, the importance of London has effectively ceased with a new emphasis on the later civitas capitals as the producer and consumer of pewter jugs. Conversely pewter jugs also appear to predominate across the rural settlement hierarchy. Although this pattern is also strikingly evident at a secondary level (discussed in detail in Chapter 4) the dangers of assuming the distribution of primary contexts alone as representative of all finds of pewter jugs should be remembered, especially when many primary contexts are unknown (Beagrie 1989, 176; Wedlake 1958, 88-93).

A significant majority of spoons with a pear-shaped bowl (nos. SP3-SP6, SP8-SP13 table 33) were found and presumably manufactured (Jones and Sherlock 1996) in London. Three further spoons from the London workshop [probably] found in vici associated with forts at Carlisle and Vindolanda on Hadrian’s Wall (Jones and Sherlock 1996, 172) provide a northern limit for the form. The remaining identified pear-shaped bowl spoons, although of different type and probably later date, occur in the southwest in the temple complex at Lydney (Wheeler and Wheeler 1932) and the small town of Camerton (Wedlake 1958).

Urban Sites As with spoons, urban finds of jugs are well represented although there appears to be little evidence for a similar pre-3rd century manufacture of jugs. An undated jug from Moorfields (Wilmott 1984, 9) may well be the sole evidence that jugs were amongst the pewter items produced and consumed within London before the 3rd century. Instead, it is the 3rd-4th century civitas capitals (although three undated examples from Bath probably fall within the same date range) that dominate the consumption of jugs. One biconical jug is known from Venta Belgarvm (Winchester), one from Venta Silvrvm (Caerwent) and three from Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester). The three jugs from Calleva Atrebatum in particular appear to be quite exceptional because they occur in a town that has also produced pewter-production moulds including one for a possible jug (Blagg and Read 1977). It is probable that easy access to lead, and after the 3rd century tin, allowed the local small scale production of pewter objects, some of which were consumed within the town.

Although it is sensible to assume, especially in the latter case, that many of the remaining finds belong to these groups (e.g. Brown 1982, 100; Beagrie 1989, 178; BusheFox 1928, 47), there is currently insufficient contextual and typological data to identify which groups. 3.3 Conclusion The patterns of consumption for spoons contrast markedly with other forms of pewter tableware. Spoons comprise the earliest group of pewter tableware with the most prolific group, the decorated spoons, having ceased production by the 3rd century. In contrast to all other forms of tableware, spoons, especially decorated spoons, were produced and consumed predominantly in urban centres, most obviously London, where spoons were probably one of the products manufactured and exported by the early tin and, to a lesser degree, tin and lead alloy industry in the city (Jones 1983; Jones and Sherlock 1996). In contrast, the distribution of undecorated spoons remains dichotomous. There is a correlation between the distribution of spoons in the Fens and spoon production at Hacheston (Blagg, Plouviez and Tester 2004), and the distribution of spoons in the southeast and spoons in a ‘blacksmith’ hoard at Ickham (Beagrie 1989, 178). Yet undecorated spoons remain rare and, atypically, are not amongst the material present in high status hoards of pewter tableware.

Rural Sites Jugs are particularly well represented on rural sites, and it is useful to look at the groups that comprise this category in more detail. Finds from villas appear especially important, and may yet be under-represented, as jugs found within hoards with no primary or site context are not discussed here despite the presumption (Wedlake 1958, 85) that they were associated with either a villa or a villa ‘elite’. Only four sites have yielded finds directly associated with a villa: a biconical 3rd century jug from Chew Valley (Rahtz and Greenfield 1977), two ‘biconical’ (one of which is octagonal) jugs from Appleshaw (Engleheart 1905), a biconical jug from Box (Brekspear 1904) and seven 3rd-4th century biconical jugs from Brislington (Barker 1901). The jugs from Brislington are 57

. Fig. 15: Quantitative variation in the scale of deposition for tin and tin and lead alloy jugs in different social contexts, with special emphasis on the site types for rural and urban finds respectively. Finds with no known context are included in the unknown category.

58

Fig. 16: Map of the distribution of all known finds of pewter jugs. Unknown forms of jugs are marked with a 1c] are marked with a , all ring necked [2-2d] with a and all globular [3-3a] with a .

59

, all biconical forms [1-

especially striking, because they occur with other dining equipment, and architectural debris interepreted by Branigan (1972, 82-84) as from a dining room, all of which seem to have been destroyed in a single event rather than over time. Consequently, the vessels may well represent the dining equipment present at a single meal, and perhaps suggest the scale of consumption of jugs in villas.

similarity of biconical jugs outside this region, such as the example from Stokesley, to those in Mendip, suggests that they were most probably ‘exports’ (Greene 1955, 118-119) with the exception of the unique Moorfields jug, which was possibly produced in or near London. In contrast, ‘narrow mouthed’ jugs appear to predominate in the east of Britain, most notably in the Cambridgeshire fens, occurring almost exclusively without a site context, generally as either river deposits (Lethbridge 1951; Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933) or ‘hoards’ (for a detailed discussion of these finds refer to Chapter 4). It is probable that these jugs were produced in [a] workshop[s] in the Fens, suggested in part by tin and tin and lead alloy production debris in the region, but this remains unproven (refer to Chapter 2 for a more detailed discussion).

What is striking is the adoption of pewter jugs in non-elite rural contexts. Again the hoarding of jugs (for a detailed discussion refer to Chapter 4) can be noted (e.g Thatcham, Collingwood 1931 and a scrap hoard from Ickham, Beagrie 1989, 188). However the occurrence of most jugs on non-villa rural sites appears to be primarily one of practicality, as it appears to be in urban settlements. A narrow-mouth jug from the village/secondary agglomeration at Dragonby, for example, had been used as a bucket in a well (Johns and May 1996). Discarded [type 2 fig. 91] pewter jugs can also be noted from RomanoBritish farmsteds at Orton Hall (Mackreth 1996) and a Cornish Round (Appleby 1975), although the latter may simply reflect easy access to tin.

4.3 Conclusion The pattern of the consumption of jugs is significantly different from that of spoons, but is largely typical of the distribution of most post 3rd century tableware. Although it remains conceivable that the earliest production and consumption were again based in London, it is in the urban ‘civitas’ capitals and rural villas and secondary agglomerations that jugs predominate. For the first time, Mendip tin and lead alloy production can also be noted, and it is noteworthy that almost all the identified biconical jugs occur within an area bordered by jug-producing, tin alloy production-centres in Mendip, Gloucester and Silchester. In contrast the necked jugs appear to be centred in the Fens and the notion that there was a second production centre in the region is compelling (Liversidge 1959, 10).

Military Sites Jugs appear to be rare on military sites. The only certain association is a handle found at a 4th century Roman fort at Woodbury, but considering its location on the Fosse way which linked the southwest and Avon pewter production centres, this is perhaps unsurprising (Bidwell and Silvester 1984, 49). A type of lidded pewter jug may also have been found in either the fort or vicus at Corbridge that may well be related to pewter working at the site (Smythe 1938, 260).

5 Drinking Vessels – Cups 4.2 Site Distribution for Pewter Jugs 5.1 Analysis of Primary Site Contexts The southwest is far better represented in the distribution of jugs than for spoons. Biconical jugs in particular have a very significant concentration at all levels of the settlement hierarchy (for a discussion of jugs in cemeteries and hoards refer to Chapter 4) in the Mendip region, which is widely assumed to reflect the growth of local pewter workshops that exploited both local lead and imported Cornish tin in the 3rd century (Wedlake 1958, 85; Beagrie 1989, 191). One such workshop is suggested in the presence of ‘jug’ moulds (DD10-DD11 fig. 61) from Lansdown (Bush 1905-13).

Thirty-four complete and fragmentary cups have so far been recorded from Roman Britain. At a very general level, this sample can be further divided into three groups for which one ‘spherical’ cup (type 1 fig. 93), five ‘pedestal’ cups (types 2-2a fig. 94) and three ‘stemmed cups’ (type 3 fig. 95) are known. Twenty-five examples of currently unknown form should also be noted. The distribution of tin and pewter cups shows a marked disparity in not just rural and urban consumption, but also military consumption. For urban consumption, production in London is replaced by late post 3rd century production in other towns. Conversely, in rural settlements, cups occur almost exclusively in villas, with no finds from any other ‘settlement’ being identified. Cups can also be noted from military sites, and indeed all the northern examples of cups come from military sites.

However, nearly all the known biconical jugs, and all the known globular jugs, appear to occur within an area bordered by all the known pewter production sites that have ‘jug’ moulds within their assemblage, Gloucester (Garrod and Heighway 1980) and the villa of Witcombe (Blagg and Read 1977, 274) in the north, and Silchester (Blagg and Read 1977) to the East. The western border remains unclear, as many finds in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset remain unclassified. However, a damaged jug from Bossens (Stanley 1870) and a jug from Caerhays in Cornwall both appear to have a biconical body suggesting it may be this form that predominates in the region. The

A large number of sites fall outside the context definitions used in this study and show only when the depositional context (discussed in detail in Chapter 4) is considered, most especially in what are probable high status hoards (e.g. Liversidge 1959; Gray 1937a). In some 60

Fig. 17: Quantitative variation in the scale of deposition for tin and tin and lead alloy cups in different social contexts, with special emphasis on the site types for rural and urban finds respectively. Finds with no known context are included in the unknown category.

61

Fig. 18: Map of the distribution of all known finds of tin and tin and lead alloy cups regardless of form and context.

62

cases, the context is wholly unknown (e.g. Peterborough, Wedlake 1958, 92).

5.2 Site Distribution for Pewter The distribution of cups seems to fall largely within the range noted for other tin alloy forms, with finds in a belt of land from Mendip to Cambridgeshire, including the large hoard at Appleshaw and London. The finds in northern Britain occurs only on military sites on the Hadrianic Frontier. The sample is too small to identify any specific forms of cups as meaningful, although it remains interesting to note multiple finds of probable cups from Silchester, itself a tin alloy, vessel-producing town.

Urban Sites Few finds of cups were recorded from urban sites. Pre 3rd century manufacture is perhaps suggested in a possible find of a cup from London (Parnell 1985, 65), but which is here classified as a bowl (no. BF02 fig. 84). Conversely, a number of finds, although undated, can be noted from urban sites that appear to have a typically late date for pewter consumption, most notably the civitas capital of Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester), and the small town of Hockwold-cum-Wilton (Wilson and Wright 1968, 194). The occurrence of cups in tin alloy assemblages from Silchester is of particular importance as they occur in a town that has also produced moulds for pewter vessels, although no definite cup moulds have been identified from the town.41 Similarly, the finds from Hockwold also occured on a site that produced or recycled tin alloy. In either case, it is perhaps likely that cups were products of tin alloy production and/or recycling at the site.

5.3 Conclusion The consumption pattern for cups is one of the most poorly attested for any group of pewter tableware, but what little is known appears to agree with the pattern for other 3rd-4th century tin and tin and lead alloy tableware. As with jugs, there is little emphasis on London, with consumption seemingly most evident in the southern small towns, civitas capitals and villas. Where there are cups in the north, they are, as with spoons, all found on military sites. Significantly, some understanding of the production of tin alloy cups is perhaps suggested by the recovery of cups from the civitas capital of Silchester, important because of tin alloy moulds recovered from the town (Blagg and Read 1977). Similarly, the density of finds from the Fens is highly indicative of regional tin and tin and lead alloy production, perhaps including the small town of Hockwold, itself a centre for tin alloy production, from which multiple pewter cups are known.

Rural Sites Cups are comparably well represented in rural sites, and it is useful if the groups that comprise this category are looked at in more detail. Almost all the rural finds of pewter cups come from villas. Three villa sites have so far yielded finds, a ‘flanged hemispherical’ cup is known from a villa at Darenth (Payne 1897), two cups (type 3 fig. 95) from Appleshaw (Engleheart 1905) and a cup from a pewter hoard at Brislington (Branigan 1972). However, it is once again probable that the full extent of deposition by a villa ‘elite’ (see Chapter 4:1.1 for a discussion of ‘elite’ hoards) has been under-estimated by the exclusion of hoards (e.g. Manton, Peal 1967, 35; Mildenhall, Wedlake 1958, 93; and Icklingham, West and Plouviez 1976) without a site context from the discussion (instead refer to Chapter 4). It is striking that cups occur in no other identifiable rural settlement. Whether this reflects an actual trend, or is biased by the small sample size and the exclusion of non-villa rural sites without a site context from this discussion (e.g. Ospringe, Whiting 1923), remains unclear.

6 Tableware – Bowls 6.1 Analysis of Primary Site Contexts Ninety two complete or fragmentary bowls have been recorded from Roman Britain, of which, at a very general typological level, twenty nine can be considered to be ‘spherical’ (type 2 figs. 75-76, 78-81), nine ‘conical’ (type 1 fig. 82-83) and nine miscellaneous forms comprising two semi-spherical (type 6), two ribbed (type 3 fig. 84), three cauldron (type 4 fig. 85) and two flanged bowl (type 7 fig. 86) types. Circa forty-five examples of unknown form should also be noted.

Pewter cups are also recorded from a number of military sites. Three military sites have so far produced pewter cups. Two examples from Hadrian’s Wall can be noted: a 4th century pewter cup from a Mithraic temple at Carrawburgh and one at High Rochester (Richmond and Gillam 1951). These finds are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

At a simple level, the overall primary context patterns seem to show that both urban and rural sites were of great importance. London is once again important as an early pewter consumer [and possibly producer], but this is a role that was largely superseded after the 3rd century by widespread urban consumption and production, especially in the civitas capitals. Bowls also occur across the rural settlement hierarchy, most strikingly in hoards, many of which fall outside the context definitions used in this chapter (e.g. Shapwick, Gray 1929; discussed in detail in Chapter 4).

41

At a more complex level, there remain questions about the typology of bowls. In some cases, there appears to be little to distinguish two different bowls, or a shallow bowl from a deep dish, and such differentiation may in fact have held

Military Sites

Mould 25 although suggested as a cup mould is more probably a jug mould.

63

Fig. 19: Quantitative variation in the scale of deposition for tin and tin and lead alloy bowls in different social contexts, with special emphasis on the site types for rural and urban finds respectively. Finds with no known context are included in the unknown category.

64

little meaning in Romano-British society. Conversely, there appears to be small but meaningful stylistic variation within specific forms of bowls that force the refinement of the basic typological groups discussed above (refer to Appendix 2 for a full discussion).

of silverware design in pewter tableware e.g Brown 1973), it would seem likely that these bowls belonged amongst the tableware of a rural villa ‘elite’. However, the scale of this ‘elite’ consumption may well be significantly underrepresented as many hoards, in which much high status pewter appears to have been placed, are excluded from this discussion because they have no primary context (for a full discussion refer to Chapter 4).

Urban Sites London once again appears remarkable for the 1st-2nd century date of known pewter bowls from the city (Parnell 1985; Jones 1983). The natural assumption that these early bowls were part of the early pewter industry in the city (Jones and Sherlock 1996, 174-175) is especially compelling, as a number of examples come from the Walbrook which also has evidence of the manufacture or repair of tin vessels (Jones 1983).

Perhaps surprisingly, a similar pattern of use and hoarding can also be applied to the distribution of bowls across the rural non-elite settlement hierarchy. At one level, there is evidence for the comparatively widespread and expedient use of tin alloy bowls in a range of villages. Finds can be noted from predominantly 4th century layers in settlements at Welney (Lethbridge 1951), Herriott’s Bridge (Rahtz and Greenfield 1977) and a late Roman farmsted at Radwell (Hall 1973). Yet once again, the objects are often of sufficient value to be hoarded (see Chapter 4 for a detailed discussion), and 3rd-4th century hoards can be noted from rural settlements at Thatcham (Collingwood 1931) and Coldham (Potter et al. 1981, 95-96). As with villas, the breadth and scale of non-elite rural consumption may have been under-estimated as a number of site types that have no site context have again been ignored in this discussion (Clarke 1931; Gray 1939; Steane 1976; Brown 1979).

Chronology is once again important. The civitas capitals only become represented after 200 AD, a time when tin exploitation and, increasingly, pewter recycling, are widely assumed to have fuelled widespread pewter manufacture, evident in finds from Venta Silvrvm (Caerwent, Boon 1992, 45-46) and perhaps Chichester and Ratae Coritanorum (Leicester, Clarke 1952). Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester), itself a centre for tin alloy production, might be expected to produce a number of tin alloy bowls, and indeed it does (Blagg and Read 1977). However there is little evidence for the production of tin alloy bowls amongst the production assemblage from the town (a possible bowl mould being no. 1 fig. 6).

Military Sites Only two finds have so far been identified from a military site. A small bowl [or possibly cup] from a station at Wilderspool (Mat 1898), the size and nature of which makes interpretation of its function problematic and which may well fall outside the definition of ‘tableware’. A further find from a grave near the fort at Richborough (Bushe-Fox 1949) is discussed in Chapter 4.

A further result from a contextual study of pewter bowls is the degree to which tin and lead alloy bowls were consumed in the [small] towns. As with civitas capitals, a number of bowls from 3rd-5th century contexts are evident at Great Casterton (Wright 1959), Great Dunmow (Wickenden 1998), Cirencester, Hacheston (itself a small scale tin alloy producer, Blagg, Plouviez and Tester 2004), perhaps Ribchester and Baldock (Stead and Rigby 1986) and in particular Aquae Sulis (Bath). However, 2nd-3rd century bowls and pans42 also from Aquae Sulis (Sunter and Brown 1988; Cunliffe 1988b) and perhaps the veteran settlement at Ribchester (Buxton and Howard Davies 2000) suggest that pewter bowls were also being consumed, if not produced, in some urban centres a century earlier.

6.2 Site Distribution for Pewter The distribution of all tin and pewter bowls shows the same basic distribution pattern as that for jugs, with the bulk of the finds retrieved from a belt of land that runs from the Mendip region into Cambridgeshire, and corresponds well with the assumed distribution of most Romano-British pewter tableware. Of especial importance is the distribution of spherical or type 2 (forms 2-2e figs. 75-76, 78-81) pewter bowls. At a general level this group falls neatly within the broad distribution pattern for all tin and tin and lead alloy bowls. However, if the ‘sub’ forms of spherical bowls are considered, two geographical groups become evident. The first group, hemispherical bowls (including all type 6 forms fig. 77) with a circular rim/flange (types 2a-2b figs. 78-79) occur only in the Mendip and Bristol Channel region and the Upper Thames Valley. It can be largely assumed that such a tight nucleation was again the consequence of post 3rd century pewter production in workshops in Mendip, perhaps prompted by the comparatively late availability of both tin and lead in the region (Wedlake 1958, 85). The Lansdown ‘workshop’, for

Rural Sites Tin alloy bowls also appear to occur in significant quantities across the rural settlement hierarchy. Six villa sites have so far produced finds, a 4th-5th century bowl from Rivenhall (Rodwell and Rodwell 1993), a 3rd-4th century bowl from Little Oakley (Barford 2002), 4th century finds from the Appleshaw hoard and undated bowls from villas at Darenth (Payne 1897), Totternhoe (Matthews and Warren 1992) and Godmanchester (Frere and Tomlin 1991, 303). Given the assumption that pewter was an elite silver substitute (Wedlake 1958, 85; imitation 42

Not discussed here because it is not considered tableware per se.

65

Fig. 20: Map of the distribution of all known finds of type 1, 2 and 3 bowls and all bowls of unknown form. Unknown forms of bowls are marked with a , all type 3 forms [3-3a] are marked with a , all type 2 forms [2-2e] are marked by a , and all type 1 forms [11c] are marked by a .

66

Fig. 21: Map of the distribution of all known finds of type 4, 6 and 7 bowls. All type 4 forms [4-4a] are marked with a forms [7] are marked with a , and all type 6 forms [6-6a] are marked with a .

67

, all type 7

instance, contains an exceptional number of moulds for producing hemispherical bowls (nos. DD4A-5 fig. 59, DD7, DD9 fig. 60, BO1-BO3 fig. 62, PM4A-4D fig. 64),43 including those with a circular rim/flange (no. BO3 fig. 63).44 In apparent contrast, the second group of type 2 bowls, bowls with an octagonal rim/flange (types 2c-2d figs. 80-81), appear to occur widely throughout the south. However, the group can be further divided into those vessels with an octagonal rim (types 2d-2d (iv) fig. 81) that occur largely in Northants and Cambridgeshire and those from Mendip and Appleford that all have a thin octagonal flange on the body (types 2c-2c (ii) fig. 80). It is notable that all the latter finds [with thin body flange] come from sites that border Nettleton (Wedlake 1982), the only site with an octagonal rim or flange mould (no. 22 fig. 8).

7 Tableware – Dishes and Plates 7.1 Analysis of Primary Site Contexts Three hundred and thirteen complete or fragmentary dishes and ‘plates’ have so far been recorded from Roman Britain. At a very general level, this sample can be further divided into eight ‘curved plates’ (forms 1a-1b fig. 96), twentyfour ‘flat dishes’ (forms 2-2c fig. 99, 3-3b), one ‘bent flat’ type dish (form 2a iii fig. 99), one hundred and eight disparate ‘flanged dishes’ types (forms A-Aa, B-Bb, 4-4e fig. 98) and four ‘fish dishes’ (forms 5-5a fig. 32). Only three true ‘plates’ (form 1 fig. 97) can be identified (refer to Appendix 2:2.5 for a definition). One hundred and sixty five examples of currently unknown form should also be noted.

It is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusion from the study of the remaining bowl forms. Types 1 (1-1a (i) fig. 82), 7, 3 (3-3a fig. 84) and 4 all appear rare and it is possible that apart from type 1, the categories are nothing more than umbrella terms for many different forms (e.g. Parnell 1985, 65; Michaelis 1969; Potter et al. 1981, 95-96; Mat 1898; Sunter and Brown 1988). None of the forms have any evidence for Romano-British manufacture, and the 1st-2nd century date for some forms (types 7 fig. 86, 1 fig. 82, 1b ), as well as insecure dating for the remainder, perhaps suggests that these were products of a pre-Mendip industry. If the significant nucleation of unclassified [and unknown] finds in Cambridgeshire, and to a lesser degree Mendip, could be identified it might well clarify the exceptional or unexceptional nature of these finds, as has been achieved for type 2 bowls.

The social distribution of pewter plates and dishes, at a very general level, shows a marked disparity between rural and urban consumption. For urban consumption, London again appears to have been both an early, tin alloy producer and consumer in relation to both plates and dishes. Again this is a role superseded after the 3rd century by a range of small towns and rural settlements. A large number of sites fall outside the context definitions used in this study, and show only when the depositional context is considered. A lot of contexts that are indistinct (Grew 1980; Denham et al. 1996, 178) or ‘missing’ are also excluded from this discussion (Hollowell 1971, 1; Martin, Plouviez and Feldman 1986, 143; Watkin 1879; Gurney 1991, 168; Davies and Gregory 1991, 97; Wilson and Wright 1964, 168; Johnston 1974; Marsden 1979; Maynard 1952, 216).

6.3 Conclusion The consumption pattern for bowls remains largely typical of the distribution of post 3rd century tableware. Although it is probable there was pre-3rd century pewter consumption and/or production, most compellingly in London, it was in the post 3rd century urban civitas capitals and small towns and rural villages and, as widely expected, villas (Wedlake 1958, 85) that bowls proliferated. It is perhaps tempting to relate such a late date for bowls to the widespread, localised, small-scale production of tin alloy that seemed to occur after the 3rd century. In particular the impact of Mendip on tin alloy production is again important, and it is significant that almost all the identified hemispherical (2a2b (iii) tables 23-24) and octagonal flanged (2c-2c (ii) table 25) bowls occur near to bowl-producing workshops in Mendip. Conversely the proliferation of octagonal-rim bowls (types 2d-2d (iv) table 26) in Northants and Cambridgeshire may indicate further workshop[s] in the region that are yet to be identified (Liversidge 1959, 10).

43

Though not used to produce known hemispherical bowls.

44

Some moulds could also produce type 2e bowls but a wider range of vessels is hinted at by the presence of internal moulds for hemispherical bowls to which no form can be ascribed.

Urban Dishes and plates are once again amongst the pewter assemblage from London (Peal 1967, 31; Jones 1983). As part of this assemblage comes from the ‘Walbrook’ it is probable that dishes and plates were amongst the pre-3rd century tin alloy vessels consumed and possibly manufactured in the provincial capital (Jones and Sherlock 1996; Jones 1983; Mawer 1995). However, it is striking that there was also early consumption of pewter outside of London. For urban centres (rural sites are discussed below) it is worth noting an unusual ovoid dish (Frere 1987a, 274276) from a 2nd century grave (discussed in detail in Chapter 4) at the civitas capital at Durovernum Cantiacorum (Canterbury). The source of this vessel remains an important question, and it is possible that it was either a continental import, or an export from the London tin alloy workshops. The 3rd century, which marks a major increase in the scale of consumption in small towns (discussed below), appears to have had little impact on other types of urban sites. Only two finds are noted from the coloniae of Colchester (Peal 1967, 32). Similarly, only two finds are evident from a civitas capital, represented in a sole ‘Christian’ (Boon 1992, 45-46) hoard (discussed in Chapter 4) from Venta

68

Fig. 22: Quantitative variation in the scale of deposition for tin and tin and lead alloy plate/dish forms in different social contexts, with special emphasis on the site types for rural and urban finds respectively. Finds with no known context are included in the unknown category.

69

Silvrvm (Caerwent) and a probable hoard Verulamium (St Albans, Wright 1957, 232).

Chapter 4 for a detailed discussion), for example at Thatcham (Collingwood 1931), and perhaps Coldham (Potter et al. 1981), but again the scale of such activity has probably been underestimated.

from

In contrast, the consumption of pewter dishes and plates can be observed from a number of small towns (e.g. Bath, Great Dunmow, Baldock and Irchester). What is especially striking about the pattern of plate and dish consumption in small towns is its close association with centres of pewter production. In Mendip some tableware such as the 4th century dishes and plates from Camerton (Wedlake 1958) and Nettleton (Wedlake 1982) might be the products of local production, as both sites have also produced dish moulds for tin alloy casting (nos. 18, 5-7 figs. 6-7). Outside Mendip, the plates that occur in small towns, which also have evidence of pewter production, are not the products of the local industry, but are rather scrap for recycling. The occurrence of pewter plates and dishes and tin alloy producing furnaces can be noted in 4th century contexts in the small or ‘minor’ (Burnham and Wacher 1990) towns of Lactodorum (Towcester, Brown 1975), Baldock (Bayley 1986; Goodburn, Wright, Hassall, Tomlin 1976; Stead and Rigby 1986) and Hockwold (Wilson and Wright 1970; Todd 1970).

At another level, plates and dishes appear inextricably linked with centres of tin alloy production across the nonelite rural settlement hierarchy. The inclusion of plates and dishes among the scrap assemblage in the settlement at Ickham (Beagrie 1989, 188), the association of a number of plates with a crucible at Durston (Wedlake 1958, 92) and a blacksmith hoard of possible plates and dishes from Kilverston (Bird, Crocker and McCracken 1989, 168) all seem to suggest that recycling tableware was as evident in secondary agglomerations as in the small towns (see Chapters 2 and 5 for a detailed discussion). Whether the same model of plate and dish recycling can also be applied to areas in which tin was abundant remains unclear, as a single 2nd-3rd century tin alloy dish from a Cornish ‘industrial’ Round at Killigrew has no clear context (Cole 1999). Military Sites Two finds have so far been identified from military sites. In neither case is there a good context. It is possible that a supposed ‘plate’ hoard found at Manchester may have been associated with the fort (Mamucium), but no context or clear record of the find survives. A find from a grave at Richborough (Bushe-Fox 1949) is discussed in Chapter 4.

Rural Sites At a site context level, the distribution of pewter plates and dishes occurs across the rural settlement hierarchy. The association of pewter dishes with villas is again limited. Three plates or dishes can be noted from villas at Wilbraham (Taylor 1990), Llantwit Major (Nash-Williams 1953) and six dishes from villas at Caister-by-Sea, Chalk and possibly Croughton (RCHME 1982, 38). It is probable much of this pewter was deemed valueless when deposited. The depositional context where known, for example the dishes from villas at Caister-by-Sea and Chalk (Johnston et al. 1972) come from a post occupation hearth and 3rd-4th century ergastulum respectively, are poor and are not likely to reflect the importance of pewter plates and dishes among the villa ‘elite’. Instead it is probable that dishes and plates were more normally considered of sufficient value to be hoarded (such as the ‘agape’ deposit at Appleshaw, refer to Chapter 4), and so are excluded from this discussion because such finds usually have either no primary context, or an ‘other’ context. It is then probable that the true extent of tin alloy consumption amongst the villa ‘elite’ has been significantly underestimated in this discussion.

7.2 Site Distribution for Pewter The distribution of plates and dishes, when all forms are considered, falls within the same general distribution pattern as that noted for bowls, with finds retrieved primarily from a belt of land that runs from Mendip to Cambridgeshire, the latter holding the highest density of finds (Wedlake 1958, 82-93). The extent to which the Cambridgeshire fens can be seen as a focus for tin alloy dishes can be seen when the consumption of the forms of ‘flanged’ (nos. 4-4e table 45, A-Bb table 41), ‘fish’ (type 5 table 46) and ‘flat’ (type 2 table 43) dishes are considered. Of especial importance are type 4 and 4a dishes that occur almost exclusively in the region of Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire apart from outliers at Fosse Lane [in Mendip] (Leach and Evans 2001, 177) and in the large Appleford, Appleshaw and Manton hoards (refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion). Such a pattern of consumption directly contrasts with known production sites that contain moulds for type 4, A and B dishes [or their derivatives] that all fall to the west, south or north of this region, in production centres at Nettleton, Camerton (type 5 only table 46), Lansdown, Silchester, Langton and York (for type 4 only table 45) respectively.

It is in the non-villa settlements that pewter plates and dishes appear, at least in a primary context, to proliferate. At one level this appears to be illustrative of 2nd and 3rd-4th century consumption, primarily on large rural settlements such as Fosse Lane (Leach and Evans 2001, 177), Cleeve Farm (Barber and Walker 1998), Sandy (Johnston 1974), Wisbech (Denham et al. 1996) and Welney (Lethbridge 1951), but is also evident on a late Roman farmsted (Hall 1973). When the depositional context is examined, it appears that in some non-villa communities tin alloy vessels were also highly valued. In particular it is worth noting the inclusion of probable plates and dishes amongst hoards associated with secondary agglomerations (see

It is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusion from the study of the remaining dish forms. All type 3 dishes (forms 3-3b table 44) are nucleated only in the north of Cambridgeshire, but the sample is too small to identify if this was significant or not. Type 1 dishes are also poorly 70

Fig. 23: Map of the distribution of all known finds of tin and tin and lead alloy plates regardless of context.

71

Fig. 24: Map of the distribution of all known finds of type A and B, 1 [excluding plates] and 2 dishes. Type 2 forms [2-2c] are marked with a , all type 1 forms [1-1b] are marked with a and all type A and B forms [A-Bb] are marked by a .

72

Fig. 25: Map of the distribution of all known finds of type 3, 4 and 5 dishes. All type 4 forms [4-4e] are marked with a forms [5-5a] are marked with a , all type 3 forms [3-3b] are marked by a .

73

, all type 5

Fig. 26: Map of the distribution of all finds of tin and tin/lead alloy dishes of unknown type.

74

environments and the elite within those environments. London, in particular, remains atypical for the scale and early date of its pewter. Especially striking are deposits of 2nd century tin [and perhaps even tin alloy] tableware from the Walbrook valley (Jones 1983; Jones and Sherlock 1996), which seems to have been associated with an early wealthy artisan area of the city (Merrifield 1987, 28). The adoption of pewter in other pre-3rd century urban contexts also appears to have been used to reinforce an explicitly native elite identity, as at Canterbury (included amongst high status grave goods, Philpott 1991, 125; Frere 1987a, 274-276). In contrast spoons are somewhat atypical, because although both consumed and probably produced in pre-3rd century London, their distribution outside the city on vici and military sites appears to occur largely through the army and consequently appears to reflects a desire for the forms’ portability and talismanic properties rather than social meaning or function (Jones and Sherlock 1996, 174).

represented but appear to fall primarily within the distribution pattern for type 4 bowls, an exception being a find from south Wales which, if the significant nucleation of unclassified finds in the west could be identified, might well be seen as a distinct regional form. The distribution of plates is far harder to identify. The only plates of known form, type 1, occur in both the north of Cambridge and Mendip. However, once unknown plate forms are included it becomes clear that plates fall within much the same pattern as dishes, occurring in a belt of land from Mendip to Cambridgeshire and in hoards at Appleford and Appleshaw. Finds from Mendip and from the southern hoards in particular can perhaps be expected, as a large number of plate moulds are known from Mendip and Silchester, Nettleton, Catterick, Gloucester and Lansdown. 7.3 Conclusion

The small scale of pre-3rd century tin and tin and lead alloy tableware consumption and production in London might also reflect significant changes in the availability of tin. In particular it is notable that pewter is comparatively rare before the 3rd century, and London as with most of Roman Britain would not have had the access to Cornish tin that pre-3rd century tin producing sites in the southwest such as Killigrew (Cole 1999) had. Instead we should perhaps consider that uniquely the tin industry within London was based on imports (Tacitus, Annales XIV, 33). Moreover, that imported tin might have a suitably different composition from British tin to be recognisable through XRF analysis (for a discussion refer to Chapter 6).

The pattern of consumption of plates and dishes holds a great similarity with that for bowls. As with bowls, dishes from pre-3rd century assemblages are evident from London (Jones 1983), but, for the first time, they are also evident from across both the urban and rural settlement hierarchy. After the 3rd century the importance of ‘civitas’, ‘colonia’ and the provincial capital is superseded by widespread consumption in small towns and rural sites, especially villas and secondary agglomerations (villages). The comparatively late dates for dish and plate consumption may once again reflect the post 3rd century proliferation of small-scale tin alloy production across the settlement hierarchy. The impact of Mendip in particular is again important as many of the identified moulds for dishes (types A, 4 fig. 98) and plates (nos. FD1-FD4 figs. 68-69) occur in small towns at Nettleton, Camerton (type 5 only table 46) and Lansdown. Yet the high density of dishes from these groups (‘flanged’ 4-4e table 45 dishes especially type 4-4a, A-Aa, B-Bb table 41, type 5 table 46 and type 2 table 43) falls largely in Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire, outside the region of any known dish and/or plate production centre, but in the same region of apparent tin alloy recycling. Whether this distribution is a reflection of the production of dishes in the east of Britain, or of a large-scale consumption of tin and lead alloy tableware, perhaps as scrap for recycling, remains unanswered.

However, it is prudent to ask how reflective pre-3rd century finds of tin and tin and lead alloy were of a real trend, such as tin supply, as there is little realistic assessment of the impact of how either environmental factors or social practices, especially imports, recycling and hoarding, affected the distribution of pewter vessels. In the 3rd century the social context of tin alloy tableware appears to change significantly. London lost its prominence as a producer and consumer of tin and pewter ceases to occur on military sites. Instead almost all forms of pewter tableware [excluding spoons] were widely adopted in a range of urban environments, notably the ‘civitas’ capitals and small towns. At one level this proliferation is again linked to supply. There is a strong correlation between consumption and vessel production in the south and west of Britain at Silchester, Camerton (Wedlake 1958) and Nettleton (Wedlake 1982) and recycling in the east of Britain at Towcester (Brown 1975), Hacheston (Blagg, Plouviez and Tester 2004) and Hockwold. At another level some forms of tin alloy tableware became ‘signifiers’ (Eckardt 2002, 59) for an elite identity. In particular pewter dishes and bowls that both imitated and replaced some ceramic fine wares (Tyers 1996, 108-110) and silver dish forms (e.g. May 1996, 312) retained a high status meaning. Conversely, the role of other groups of tin alloy tableware, such as jugs appeared to remain largely utilitarian. This disparity of use should

8 Summary It is clear that there are significant differences in the consumption patterns for tin and tin and lead alloy tableware throughout the Romano-British period. There was both production and consumption of Romano-British tin and tin and lead alloy before the 3rd century, but it was only after this date that the scale and the variety of social contexts that both produced and consumed tin alloy tableware significantly increased. The collective understanding of pre-3rd century tin alloy manufacture and consumption remains poor, but seems to suggest that it was an industry largely limited to urban 75

act to remind us that functionally different groups of tin alloy tableware were used very differently. The 3rd-4th century marks an equally important demarcation for the proliferation of all forms of tin alloy [except spoons] across the rural settlement hierarchy. As widely assumed, all forms of tin alloy tableware occur in villas, but most forms are also evident in villages. Again there is a link between settlement consumption and production, with rural vessel production evident in the north at Langton and recycling in the east at Ickham (Beagrie 1989, 188), Durston (Wedlake 1958, 92) and Kilverton (Bird, Crocker and McCracken 1989, 168). However, it is how tin alloy tableware ‘signifiers’ (Eckardt 2002, 59) are treated within rural contexts that is exceptional, with a significant proportion of the known rural finds of pewter dishes coming from hoards, widely assumed to have an ‘elite’ association. Problematically, such a context places such finds outside of their site context, and only allows their identification when a depositional context is considered (Chapter 4). In conclusion, the distribution of tin alloy clearly reflects the changing supply of tin. Yet it is also important to realise that different forms of tin alloy were ascribed different values and associated with different social identities, partially evident in the study of site contexts. However, ironically, it is precisely this perceived value that saw the widespread hoarding of pewter by their owners, enclaving them from their site context forever.

76

Chapter 4: Pewter in Ritual Contexts?

1 Introduction However, in this chapter, it is also suggested that a broader ritual meaning can be attributed to pewter tableware by examining the contexts, explicitly the ritual depositional contexts vessels and vessel hoards occurred in (for a discussion of primary contexts refer to Chapter 3). At a simple level, we can assume that a hoard of pewter plate deposited in a conventionally ritual secondary context such as a temple probably fulfilled a very different function to one deposited in a villa, although we must remain alive to the possibility as Johns (1996, 14) suggests, of a hoard in a ritual site also fulfilling a secular role such as the banking of material, and vice versa. In this chapter these depositional secondary contexts are defined as burials, temples, river/wet environments, ponds/meres, wells or pits as well as groups, or exceptional single finds that might be more correctly called treasures or caches (Johns 1996, 5) of pewter vessels in other contexts that can be considered to have been ‘hoarded’ (defined in Chapter 1:4.2). Even cursory numerical analysis gives some idea of the varying importance of these different groups.

Both lead and tin and lead alloy objects fulfilled a range of ritual functions in Roman Britain and their use in votive assemblages in particular is well known (Cunliffe 1988b). However, only rarely is such a ritual role explicitly extended to include pewter tableware. For most finds of pewter tableware, there remains a divisive question about whether their use, and in particular their deposition, fulfilled a secular or ritual function. The definition of hoarding in particular reminds us of the difficulties of trying to make such a distinction. Although a number of different types of hoard have been suggested (e.g. storage, with an intention to recover, of personal/institutional/manufacturer wealth and disposal as part of a ritual process in temple/votive deposits, see: Johns 1996; Reece 1988; Manning 1972), it remains profoundly problematic to actually identify a particular activity or set of objects as comprising any one type of ‘hoard’. Commonly, the composition of an assemblage is used to indicate its nature. Pewter plate hoards are widely considered (Wedlake 1958, 82-93; Johns 1996, 12) to be non-ritual collections of household plate buried for security, an idea supported by the ‘packing’ of some finds (Liversidge 1962, 6). Pewter scrap can also be noted in non-ritual hoards of illicitly obtained material (e.g. Traprain, Curle 1923) and industrial hoards (Bird, Crocker and McCracken 1989, 168). Conversely pewter also occurs in deposits with ritual (Ross 1968) signifiers such as animal skulls (as at Brislington, Poulton and Scott 1993, 118-121; Merrifield 1987, 30-36), iron, complete pots and more explicitly temple equipment (as at Bath and Carrawburgh, Cunliffe 1988a, b; Tomlin 1988; Richmond and Gillam 1951, 88).

In this chapter, all three approaches will be adopted. The known finds of pewter tableware from each secondary context will be presented, along with a discussion of whether the selection of such vessels or assemblages of material is meaningful. The latter half of this chapter will then discuss the significance of the motifs and graffiti chosen for Romano-British tin alloy vessels. Although it would be useful to discuss the ritual use of pewter in wider spatial, chronological, typological and more general [primary] contextual (refer instead to Chapter 3) terms, the spatial, chronological and [primary] contextual evidence is too qualitatively poor to sustain such argumentation. However, a degree of typological discussion is possible. In particular we can ask if certain forms of pewter tableware held a specific ritual significance. Of especial interest is how valid is the widespread assumption that hoards of plate are diagnostic of elite hoarding, or more explicitly the hoarding of wealth? However, we can also ask if there is a meaningful relationship between the selection of other types of vessel and their ritual purpose.

However, we are limited in what the composition of a hoard can tell us, not least because compositional information on the majority of known ‘pewter hoards’ is generally qualitatively poor, but more seriously as Reece (1988) and Johns (1996) remind us, because we cannot usually know why a hoard was either deposited or was never reclaimed solely through its composition.

1.1 Hoards

A more useful diagnostic tool, and one that will be used in this chapter, is to identify whether a pewter vessel [or group of vessels] had a ritual function, through the study of its iconography. Often the choice of motif, or the graffito inscribed, on Romano-British pewter tableware can have a ritual meaning (Peal 1967, 28-29; Mawer 1995). It has been suggested that the use of Christian chi-rhos might reflect the selection of vessels for a ritual feast or agape (Boon 1992 45-46; refer to Chapter 4:2.2 for a discussion) before deposition. Conversely, the selection and inscription of tableware for non-Christian use, most compelling as votives (Cunliffe 1988b) but also as talismanic devices (Jones and Sherlock 1996, 174), is widely known.

A general consensus has been established in which hoards, especially pewter hoards, have become synonymous with dry land (excluding land such as marsh that has subsequently become dry land through drainage) deposits of plate. Currently one hundred and ninety-seven tin and tin and lead alloy vessels, most commonly plates and dishes, are now known from thirty-four hoards, excluding those from rivers, temples and shafts or wells (finds in burials are not considered hoards so are not included in this discussion). The ritual or secular nature of these deposits remains unclear. Most finds are still viewed in secular terms as the crisis hoards of the elite or wealthy (Greep 1988; Brown 1973, scrap hoards are discussed in Chapter 77

78

4:1.1), largely because, despite a recent reappraisal of such hoards as votive in both Christian and Pagan terms (Poulton and Scott 1993; Petts 2003, 125-127), they rarely include diagnostically ritual material or occur in explicitly ritual contexts. In Islip (Dix 1987, 154-55) the 4th century deposition of thirty-two dishes probably comprised the domestic pewter ware of a wealthy family, not least because no diagnostically ritual material was found in the hoard. It is likely that many more dish, and less commonly mixed, hoards such as those evident at North Kite (Crawford and Keiler 1928, 254) and to a lesser degree Mildenhall (Wedlake 1958, 93) and Manton (Peal 1967, 35) also fulfilled a similar function on deposition. In fact such finds have contributed to a general consensus in which any dish or plate hoard not found in a river, temple, shaft or well is viewed in secular terms. As such, nine plates from Attleborough (Wilson and Wright 1964, 168) and a possible second hoard (Engleheart 1925) of pewter from near the Appleshaw hoard (discussed below) can both be regarded as crisis hoards. Dish and plate hoards possibly from Beachemwell in Norfolk (Davies and Gregory 1991, 97), Manchester (Watkin 1879), Manea (Wright 1956, 138), Weeting (Grew, Hassall and Tomlin 1980, 375-376), Welney (Fowler 1950), an ‘ample’ hoard of pewter from Stretham (Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933, 166) and two adjacent plate hoards from Northwold are likewise generally articulated in secular terms.

that ‘hoard’ itself is a term seemingly created to explain dry land deposits that occur outside of diagnostically ritual environments such as shafts (to be discussed below). However, where the contexts are known for such hoards they can generally be dated to the 4th century or later and generally comprise apparent sets of domestic tableware, especially sets of dishes, often carefully packed before deposition. In all probability it was ‘elite crisis’ hoards that formed a large part of the known ‘pewter hoards’; ritual activity, as I shall go on to argue, being expressed through other more carefully structured deposits. 2 The Otherworld and the Underground – Buried Deposits A substantial number of pewter hoards and single finds are now known from ‘shaft’ deposits. The secular or ritual role of wells, shafts and pits, where such a distinction can be made (Ross 1968) in Roman Britain, remains unclear. Wells in particular, by retaining a utilitarian function are seen variously as receptacles for either non-ritual rubbish (accepting even such deposition can have a ritual function, Merrifield 1987, 45-48) or ritual activity (Fulford 2001; Ross 1992, 46-59; Poulton and Scott 1993). The latter interpretation remains largely dependent on the broad assumption that all human, faunal and floral remains, and most metal, ceramic and stone objects and even well equipment itself was as diagnostically ritual in Roman Britain as it was in the Iron Age (Ross 1968). In this chapter a more exacting definition of ritual is used, in which only overtly ritual material, or material that was unlikely to have entered the well through accidental loss, is discussed. For Merrifield (1987, 45-48) such overtly ritual material can include human remains, specific animal groups such as dog or horse or the selection of specific bones especially skulls, ‘perfect’ pottery vessels and where associated, metal objects most notably of iron. If the depositional context of just the groups of ‘ritual’ material that occurred in association with pewter tableware is considered, then they appear to occur indiscriminately, not only in wells but also in shafts, pits and boundaries. However, a more detailed study of the finds assemblage from each of these deposits demonstrate that each context fulfilled a very different function with notable differences in the form or forms of pewter vessel selected for deposition and, identified here for the first time, the structure and nature of the deposit. It is these differences that will be discussed below.

However, we must remain open to ritual interpretations for at least some of these hoards. High densities of dish and mixed pewter hoards in particular can be suggested as forming ritual foci especially in the fens and Cambridgeshire. The most significant deposit remains the high density of finds retrieved from in and around Icklingham (West and Plouviez 1976; Liversidge 1959), which, although apparently often comprising carefully packed45 household domestic plate (Liversidge 1962, 6), appear to follow a wider pattern of localised pagan and later Christian (see below) ritual activity (Petts 2003, 125127). A similar argument could perhaps be advanced for some of the compositionally atypical pewter and coin hoards46 from Shapwick (Gray 1937a, b). The remaining hoards associated with a crucible at Duston and a dish hoard found associated with iron tools from Kilverstone (Bird, Crocker and McCracken 1989, 168) are alone in suggesting non ‘elite’ hoards (excluding those with no clear context, e.g. Shingham, Mottram 1970; Coldham, Potter et al. 1981, 95-96; Croughton, RCHME 1982, 38; and Pakenham, Martin, Plouviez and Feldman 1986, 143). It is possible both hoards rather functioned as either a blacksmith’s hoard or as a scrap hoard for recycling.

2.1 Hoards and Finds in Wells Fifty-three finds of tin and pewter tableware come from wells, but the secular or ritual role of such deposits remains unclear with wells traditionally articulated in terms of secular rubbish pits (Merrifield 1987, 45) or receptacles for ritual activity (Ross 1992, 46-59). However, in relation to most finds of pewter vessels in wells, most especially jugs, it is perhaps important to consider a third option structured deposition (Fulford 2001) - an implication of which is the capacity for assemblages to be sequentially both secular and ritual. A typical structured well deposit might consist of, as Merrifield (1987, 48-50) infers, ritual

It remains true that diagnostically ritual material in pewter hoards has not been systematically recorded, and indeed 45

An idea reinforced by the use of hay to pack both pewter and ceramic vessels in a cauldron prior to burial.

46

A fourth find of a pewter canister, although not tableware, should also be noted from this site.

79

in nature (Manning 1972; Poulton and Scott 1993),50 appears to occur in secular hoards from wells at Appleford (e.g ‘crisis’ hoards Brown 1973, 201-204; for an alternative discussion refer to Petts 2003, 126-127) and Thatcham (for an alternative discussion refer to Ross 1992, 59).

offerings, most notably ceramic vessels at the wells completion or commencement (before use) and ceramic vessels or faunal remains at the wells termination (before infilling), with secular material in between. It is probable that assemblages from wells in London and Dragonby contain such early commencement deposits in the form of 2nd and 3rd century ceramic47 vessels (Merrifield 1987, 4849) at the base of the well, whilst the pewter jugs present in the same assemblage appear to be later accidental or deliberate losses after a subsequent prolonged phase of secular/functional use as well buckets/water carriers. However we must be alive to the possibilities that in some instances it is the pewter vessel itself that comprises a commencement deposit, and this might best explain atypical finds such as a pewter dish and ceramic pots from well 3 at Silchester48 (table 51) and perhaps the inclusion of a dish from a well at Wickford (Wilson and Wright 1970, 291).

2.2 Hoards and Finds in Shafts and Pits Fifty-eight finds of pewter vessels come from pits. As with wells, a great disparity in the range and quantity of tableware deposited in pits can be noted. Of especial interest is the presence of jugs in pit deposits because they cannot have fulfilled a secular role related to water supply. More generally the presence of pewter, notably jugs such as that found in association with an ogham inscribed column, iron tyres and an undamaged axehead from pits in Silchester (Fulford 2001, 201-205) probably, as with other wells from the site, can be viewed in ritual terms.

Conversely, the inclusion of animal bones and especially skulls in assemblages with pewter tableware is perhaps indicative of termination or decommissioning deposits that follow secular jug deposition (Merrifield 1987, 48). The exceptional jug hoard from Brislington was probably part of a clearance deposit (Branigan 1972; for an opposing ‘ritual’ argument see Poulton and Scott 1993, 119-121), associated with a termination deposit of cattle skulls that preceded the well in-filling. A dog skull, from a well at Thistleton Dyer (Wright 1959, 113), deposited before the well was finally in-filled perhaps also fulfilled a similar role. Whether the use of jugs [and a platter] in well deposits at Caerwent (Ashby 1907, 12-13), Winchester (Butcher 1955), Chew Stoke and Silchester (see also 2 cups from well no. 2, table 51) retained any ritual meaning, for example as atypical termination deposits, or as in the latter case a different form of votive or even non-ritual deposition (Fulford and Timby 2001), remains unclear.

More typical is the deposition of pewter dishes and bowls, most especially within mixed hoards, as part of a wider range of explicitly ritual activity. Perhaps one of the most significant ritual uses of pewter occurs in two ‘pits’ at Great Dunmow (to be discussed in Chapter 4 section 4.1) where pewter bowls were selected for inclusion in a ritual deposit within a shrine and in an adjacent votive pit deposit (Wickenden 1998, 36-38).51 A similar use of pewter vessels is perhaps also evident in the inclusion of pewter in a cluster of seemingly votive pits from a villa at Stanwick (Neal 1989). In more recent years the scope of ritual activity, most especially in relation to mixed hoards of pewter, has been increased by the re-interpretation of the role of Christian vessels (Boon 1992) in some pit assemblages. A mixed pewter hoard including a pewter bowl and dish from Caerwent may well have been reserved for an agape feast, or a feast held after the Eucharist, representing as Boon (1992, 46) suggests, the preparation and eating equipment associated with the preparation and consumption of kosher food. This could explain both the presence of a meat hook and knife that might, like the associated vessels, have been used to prepare kosher meat for the agape meal, and why these vesels were stored in a [hidden] sealed pot. A similar argument might perhaps also be applied to the hoard of Christian plate with cattle skulls associated with a structure at Wisbech (Denham et al. 1996, 178).52 It remains a possibility that even large hoards of domestic plate such as that from a pit dug through a villa floor at Appleshaw

Although more atypical, the deposition of mixed pewter hoards in wells can be suggested as having held a ritual importance. The most overtly ritual deposit of pewter tableware in any well remains that retrieved from Bossens49 (Stanley 1870; Ross 1968, 261) in Cornwall that appears to consist of votives explicitly dedicated to Mars. A similar situation can also be inferred for the trulla from the ritual spring at Bath (Cunliffe 1988b). However, it is important to remain alive to other secular interpretations, for what might otherwise be viewed as ritual material. It is salutatory that the association of ironwork ‘hoards’ with pewter deposits, although traditionally articulated as ritual

50

Of the other seven well assemblages, that contain both iron and pewter tableware, none meet the definition for an ‘ironwork’ hoard established by Manning (1972), excluding discussion of well bucket brackets, which are not considered to be diagnostic of ritual activity.

47

The presence of iron being discounted totally because it is atypical and does not appear to fit within Manning’s (1972) description of hoarded ironwork.

51

48

A pewter bucket from the same well may have served as a bucket later deposited accidentally or deliberately, although the site stratigraphy is unclear.

Moreover, two deposits of upright pewter bowls placed at the base of the respective pits may also be representative of ritual pairing (Merrifield 1987).

52

Although the hoarding of skulls also has a great significance in nonChristian ritual for example as a termination deposit (Merrifield 1987).

49

Which may in fact be a ritual shaft, but the evidence remains unclear.

80

(Engleheart 1905) might also comprise, at least partially, the vessels used in an agape feast. Whether the context of ‘house pit’ hoard from Hockwold is also Christian remains unclear (Wilson and Wright 1968, 194).

3.1 Hoards in Rivers So far thirty-two finds of tin and tin and lead alloy vessels including jugs, dishes, bowls and spoons have been recovered from rivers or obsolete river channels. As with wells, jugs are well represented among river deposits. In Cambridgeshire the deposition of jugs probably fulfilled a ritual function (Poulton and Scott 1993, 125-127), as they proliferate among the c.4th century deposits recorded from the Old Slade river and rivers at Quaveney and elsewhere in the fens (Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933).53 Whether the use of jugs outside of Cambridgeshire retained any ritual meaning remains unclear. The context of two jugs from Caerhayes (Stanley 1870) and Hallivick in Cornwall is poor, but the use of the former find as a container in a coin hoard reminds us we should be alive to the possibility of a secular as well as ritual interpretation for these finds, as has been widely accepted for a jug from Stokesley (Greene 1955, 118-119).

However, we must also be alive to non-ritual interpretations for other deposition in pits. It is notable that a jug retrieved from a pit at Orton Hall came from rubbish layers (Mackreth 1996). A pewter fragment from a villa at Little Oakley, although perhaps a foundation deposit, is probably rather rubbish, perhaps as Barford (2002, 194) suggests, comprising scrap left over from recycling on the site. 2.3 The Appeal of Boundaries – Finds in Ditches A terminus or boundary function (Merrifield 1987, 52-53) can be suggested for finds in ditches. However it is notable that only two finds of pewter tableware might be noted from such deposits, and in no case is the finds context explicitly ritual. A bowl fragment from Radwell (Hall 1973) seems to occur in occupation debris. A complete dish from Baldock (Stead and Rigby 1986) might have fulfilled a ritual function. However, given the damage it had sustained, it is perhaps more compelling to identify the find in terms of rubbish infilling in the ditch. Two further dishes found in a ditch near a villa at Stretham have no clear context, but might also comprise a boundary function.

Although more atypical, the deposition of pewter dishes and bowls in rivers also appears to have fulfilled a ritual function, especially in the south of Britain. In particular the exceptional deposit of pewter tableware from the Walbrook (Jones 1983) in London, consisting of a cross section of the available pre 3rd century, tin and pewter tableware in the city seemingly deposited by an affluent trading class, is problematic to explain in secular terms. Instead it is probable that the Walbrook stream itself was a ritual focus (Merrifield 1987, 26-29). Elsewhere in the city similar deposits can be noted on a lesser scale, most significantly in the River Thames (Jones and Sherlock 1996). For Merrifield (1987, 26-29) such deposition must have been widely practised, and it is notable that a further hoard which included pewter dishes and a ‘chalice’ can also be noted from an old branch of the River Ver near Verulamium, which has been interpreted as ‘devoted to the spirit of the waters’ (Wright 1957, 232).

3.0 Water Deposition? There remains a strong belief that pre-historic deposition of metalwork in wet environments was ritual, not least because of the irretrievability of such finds, although the origin and function of such deposition is still widely debated (Bradley 1990; Merrifield 1987). A key interpretation of such metalwork deposits is as grave goods (Bradley 1990), and a similarity in the material selected for deposition in British rivers to finds from continental grave goods might at one level suggest pewter deposition in rivers was a British substitute for pewter in graves, a practice that is only common on the continent (Poulton and Scott 1993, 125).

However, it is important once again to remain alive to secular interpretations, especially where the finds context is unclear (e.g. Hallivick). It is significant, for example, that three finds from the Old Welney River (Mawer 1995, 24; Lethbridge 1951) and a dish from the river at Winston perhaps occur in rubbish layers (Maynard 1952, 216).

At another level, deposition in wet environments does appear to maintain a more general pre-Roman ritual tradition (Ross 1992, 46-59). Not just rivers (such as the Ver Wright 1957, 232; Old Welney Mawer 1995, 24), ponds and meres continued to be ritual foci (evident at a secondary context level), but even specific ritual sites that had been used for millennia, such as that at Shepperton, saw a phase of use in the Roman period (Poulton and Scott 1993, 125), albeit it was expressed through a new material. However, although unlikely, we must still be alive to the possibility that some finds from wet environments could be accidental losses, such as that found at Caerhays (Stanley 1870), or less compellingly, concealment (Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933, 166).

3.2 Deposition in Ponds and Meres So far thirty-one finds of pewter vessels including plates, dishes, bowls and jugs come from either in or on the banks of ponds and meres. As with hoards on dry land, dish [and perhaps plate] hoards are well represented among pond and mere deposits. Two vessels from Abercynafon probably, as Earwood, Northover and Cool (2001, 284) suggest, were deposited next to a pond ‘for ritual or magical reasons […] in the late or sub-Roman period’ simply because there is no other plausible explanation. A further dish hoard with ironwork likewise stacked at a pond edge from Abbington 53

81

A somewhat atypical dish deposit can also be noted from the same general context in the Old Cam.

Piggotts must also be viewed as ritual in the absence of credible alternative (Pigott 1891, 111-112).

Great Dunmow (Wickenden 1988). However, in both deposits, although the use of dishes is probably meaningful (Merrifield 1987), it remains unclear if the use of pewter was anything other than functional. It would be interesting to know if the context of spoons from temples at Witham (Turner 1999) and Lydney (Wheeler and Wheeler 1932) was ritual, but in both cases it is difficult to assess the relationship, if any, with the ritual complex.

The nature of a further dish hoard from a bog or lake (Poulton and Scott 1993, 116-117, for an alternative interpretation refer to Bird, Crocker and McCracken 1989, 168) at Shepperton Ranges remains unclear, and, although in an area of possible pre and post Roman ritual activity, may in fact be a ‘crisis’ hoard related to adjacent settlement. A similar situation might also be inferred for Bardwell hoard (Owles 1970, 92-93) that despite being deposited in boggy ground, some distance from a villa (Wilson, Wright and Hassall 1971, 271), was packed in rushes before deposition suggesting an element of retrieval was envisaged. Whether the dish hoard recovered from Whittlesea Mere was a further ‘crisis’ hoard or fulfilled a more overtly ritual use cannot now be addressed as no clear context for the find was recorded (Peal 1967, 31).

Whether the use of tableware in mixed hoards retained a similar ritual meaning remains unclear. It remains problematic to differentiate between ritual deposits (for an appraisal of the epigraphic evidence for ritual see below) and accidental losses of what was probably locally produced and consumed tableware in an assemblage dedicated to a Genii Loci from the main spring in the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath (Cunliffe 1988a, b, c; Tomlin 1988). Moreover an assemblage of approximately six, tin alloy vessels from the Shrine of Apollo at Nettleton (Wedlake 1982) can almost wholly be explained in terms of the produce of the site’s late pewter industry, rather than fulfilling a ritual function or being associated with the shrine per se.

The secular interpretation of hoards from ponds and meres is perhaps further reinforced by the context of the only jug fragment recovered from a pond, at a military fort at Woodbury (Bidwell and Silvester 1984), as part of the infilling of a pond reused as a refuse tip.

4.2 Cups and Military Cult 4.0 Temples, Shrines and the Advent of Churches? A significant ritual value can be attached to the occurrence of single vessels in temple deposits, and a most notable association is cult centres with cups.54 Tin alloy cups can now be associated with military cults on Hadrian’s Wall, with the example of a cup in an altar deposit from a Mithraic temple at Carrawburgh (Richmond and Gillam 1951). It remains possible a cup with an unclear context from High Rochester may also have had a similar function (Smythe 1938, 260). However, as with Great Dunmow, although the form appears important, the selection of pewter may well be incidental, possibly a product of pewter working known from elsewhere on the wall.

The selection of vessels for deposition in temples and shrines remains complex and has seen widespread discussion. In relation to pewter tableware, deposition appears to respond to a wide variety of religious needs, and can be noted as fulfilling a function as ritual or votive vessels not only in native (e.g. Bath, Cunliffe 1988b) and imported Mithraic cults, but also increasingly in Christian activity (Petts 2003, 124-127). High-lead tableware in particular also retains a further ritual dimension as a cheap and malleable metal (Boulakia 1972) that held a widespread votive appeal because of its atypically dark heavy cold nature. It is then curious that so few examples of pewter tableware have been included in assemblages from, and near, temples. However, if a detailed study of tin and tin and lead alloy vessels from these different contexts is undertaken, then it is evident that although the selection of a particular form often remains meaningful, for example cups to hold offerings, the choice of pewter was one of practicality reflecting local availability.

5.0 Burial and Ritual The inclusion of pewter tableware in burials remains somewhat atypical in this discussion by falling completely outside the common understanding of the hoarding of material because grave goods are rather considered to be the abandonment of objects (Johns 1996). Nonetheless grave goods comprise an important secondary context in which the ritual use of pewter is evident.

4.1 Temples, Shrines and the Pagus-Deities

Inhumation and cremation practices within Roman Britain have been the subject of a series of increasingly detailed excavations and reviews (Clarke 1979; Philpott 1991). A key consequence of such intense study is the comparatively detailed knowledge that has been accrued

So far twenty-nine finds of tin and pewter vessels including jugs, dishes, bowls, cups and possibly spoons have been recovered from temple sites. As with hoards, dishes are well represented among such deposits. In small towns such deposition seems to have been related to temples and shrines dedicated to ‘pagus-deities’ (local deities) (Wickenden 1988). It is possible that it was the votive pits, rather than a structure, that comprised the focus for ritual activity related to a ‘pagus-deity’ at Great Dunmow. Although deposited in a debris layer (Leach and Woodward 1993, 209), the original use of the pewter vessels from the shrine at Uley (Leach and Woodward 1993; Ellison 1980) may well have been similar to that for

54

82

Although more atypical, one other form of pewter ‘tableware’ can in some cases also be held of ritual importance, the miniature ‘chalice’ and jug from a temple at Harlow (Frere, Hassall and Tomlin 1989; Wilson 1971). For Merrifield (1987) such miniature votives are rare, but are known from the river deposit at the Walbrook. These are not discussed here because they did not function as tableware per se.

for Romano-British burial types and grave assemblages in relation to a range of socio-economic factors, most pervasively shifting ideologies, status and ethnicity, within a comparatively clear chrono-spatial framework. By examining finds of tin and pewter tableware within these pre-existing frameworks there remains the unique opportunity to attribute a detailed context to material where information about the depositional context is very poor. The resultant study of such depostional contexts for pewter tableware in burials demonstrates that vessels occur widely in cremations, pyre deposits and inhumations. More detailed study of the finds demonstrates that across all of these contexts pewter fulfilled a very similar function as the grave goods of the wealthy, seeing a widespread adoption within southern high status burial practices.

5.2 Inhumation and Internment Although not common, seventeen finds of tin and tin alloy tableware were found in assemblages associated with Romano-British inhumations. Philpott (1991, 125-126) notes examples from Lankhills, Richborough, Whiston, Ospringe, Springhead, Sandy and Colchester, to which can be added finds from Cogenhoe, Reading, Welney and Wookey Hole (Wright 1953, 123) and London (Barber, Bowsher, Whittaker 1990, 9), with the latter two examples lacking any useful context. The best context for any of these finds remains, as suggested by Philpott (1991, 126), six vessels from five graves55 in a cemetery at Lankhills (Clarke 1979). The assemblages that accompany these finds, personal ornaments and ceramic vessels, were comparatively commonplace and can perhaps be seen in the southeast as building on a local cremation tradition. However, the reason for the selection of metal vessels for deposition remains unclear, as the ritual meaning of, for example, ‘skillet and ewer’ burials, seems to be replaced by a general association of metal vessels with an elite status (Philpott 1991, 125).

5.1 Cremations and Containment Tin and tin alloy tableware are rarely found in RomanoBritish cremations, with only nine examples currently known. For Philpott (1991, 123), the association of metal vessels, especially bronze paterae and ewers, with cremations are largely indicative of high status native burial. Although the choice of pewter dishes over bronze remains atypical in this respect, there is a precedent for the ‘ad hoc’ (Philpott 1991, 125) selection of such grave goods. Indeed whilst only one find, a possible jug from a grave at Joy Wood, has been suggested as copying the jug from skillet and ewer cremations (Philpott 1991, 123-125), eight pewter vessels of other forms are known from other cremations. Most notable is the ovoid dish that was amongst the goods that accompanied a c.2nd century ‘jar’ cremation (discussed below) from Canterbury (Frere 1987a, 274-276) and a vessel from Kelvedon (Philpott 1991, 125). Whether the selection of such forms of pewter vessels is typical remains unclear, as many vessels included with such cremations were pyre goods whose original form is unknown, such as the four vessels from a cemetery at Brougham (Cool 2004).

A number of other sites also included pewter tableware within their grave goods assemblage. A high-tin bowl and cup can be noted from two graves in a cemetery at Ospringe (Whiting, Hauley and May 1920), and it is probable that another two dishes, and a bowl and a cup also occurred in association with further graves at the site (Philpott 1991, 126), at least one grave of which was seemingly of high status.56 Graves at Reading,57 Sandy and perhaps Welney have likewise produced respectively a pewter dish or bowl (Stevens 1895), a dish (Johnston 1974) and a lanx (Fowler 1950). An association of dishes with a child inhumation58 in an area of skeletal remains at Cogenhoe was probably a disturbed grave (Hollowell 1971, 1). The inclusion of a pewter bowl in a grave at Richborough (Bushe-Fox 1949) remains atypical. Either a late 4th century or post-Roman grave, the inclusion of a bowl with military equipment remains exceptional in Roman Britain, but does have continental parallels (Beagrie 1989, 181).

A further issue is that of grave types. Philpott (1991) has argued that the grave type can be diagnostic of native, ‘Romanized’ or immigrant practices. Many finds of pewter tableware have been found associated with cremations in a pottery jar (Philpott 1991), as is the case at Canterbury (Frere 1987a, 274-276), and in the four finds from Brougham (Cool 2004), but such burials often fall as readily within native practices as they do as immigrant. Similarly, the adoption of a glass cinerary urn for a ?1st-2nd century cremation with a pewter vessel from Joy Wood can also be noted as an immigrant practice in origin, but one that was quickly fused with native belief (Philpott 1991, 125), perhaps most evident in the urn’s inclusion in a stone cist or symbolic ‘home’ (Eckardt 2002, 110). However the inclusion of tin and pewter tableware in casket and box burials at Baldock (Bayley 1986, 144) and Great Dunmow, the latter being a ‘pyre’ deposit, although including a native cremation tradition, alludes to an elite or high status ‘Romanized’ identity (Philpott 1991, 125).

6.0 Conclusion, Hoarding and Ritual So far in this chapter I have looked at the evidence for the ritual use of pewter tableware from six predominantly ritual depositional contexts, burials, temples, river/wet environments, ponds/meres, wells or pits as well as hoards and caches (Johns 1996) of pewter vessels in other 55

83

A pewter pendant is also evident in a 6th century grave but is not discussed here.

56

This grave occurring with a brooch pottery and glass.

57

And a further possibly post Roman pewter pendant and a coffin plate come from other graves in the same cemetery.

58

A pewter pot can also be noted from an infant burial at Springhead (Wright 1962).

contexts, and argued that there are meaningful differences between each. In particular I have argued that whilst deposition in wet environments, shafts, temples and burials reflect specific ritual, hoards in other contexts are primarily secular.

7.0 Iconography and Graffiti 7.1 Introduction The presence of decorative motifs and graffiti on tin and tin and lead alloy is not infrequent, and has traditionally been subject to detailed recording (with some exceptions Pakenham, Martin, Plouviez and Feldman 1986, 143; Hockwold, Wilson and Wright 1968, 194; Manchester, Watkin 1879; some Manton vessels, Peal 1967, 35). Over time a consensus has developed in which decoration retains no ritual meaning, whilst inscriptions are tacitly accepted to have denoted either a Christian role or ownership. Although widely and usefully adopted as broad classificatory labels (Peal 1967), recent work has started to blur these boundaries and re-evaluate the range of meaning within these basic groups.

However, I have also suggested that there is meaningful variation between each type of context in the choice of forms chosen for each deposit. Different forms of tableware appear to predominate in different contexts, notably dishes in hoards [in other contexts], ponds and meres and, to a lesser degree, house pits (the term house pit in this work refers to a pit constructed through the internal floor of house) and jugs in wells and fenland river deposits. In contrast temples, large ritual centres, and graves appear to contain comparatively eclectic groups of pewter vessels. I have already argued that a broad understanding of why the selection of different forms of pewter tableware was meaningful can be derived from their finds context, a dish hoard in a pond for instance fulfilling a different role to one in a villa. However, it is also important to view such pewter tableware in relation to their associated finds assemblage. Dish hoards, or hoards from other contexts, rarely contain additional finds apart from packing materials reinforcing the notion they were temporary deposits of plate such as in ‘crisis’ or blacksmith hoards (Johns 1996, 14-15; Wedlake 1958, 82-93). Conversely jugs in wells and vessels in pits appear with some comparatively clear ritual signifiers such as commencement and termination deposits, and, in the case of the latter, evidence for ritual feasting, suggesting specific forms of structured and ritual activity. Most explicit are assemblages from temples and graves that are diagnostic of specific cult activity and ritual in which pewter tableware is used. This is especially evident in the large assemblage of votive and temple equipment associated with pewter from the sacred spring at Bath.

In particular, the ritual role of iconography and graffiti has recently undergone a re-evaluation. The diversity of Christian iconography on pewter vessels has been reappraised by Mawer (1995), and how such iconography related to Christian rituals (Petts 2003, 124-127; Boon 1992, 45-46), has especially been rethought. Conversely, the publication of inscribed vessels from a ritual spring at Bath (Cunliffe 1988b) and a re-appraisal of the iconography of decorated spoons from London (Jones and Sherlock 1996) have similarly increased the volume and diversity of iconography and inscriptions on pewter vessels that were known to have been meaningfully used in pagan ritual activity. In all of these studies, it is the choice of iconography and epigraphy that matters, and these motifs will be discussed in the first part of this section. The latter half of this section will provide a wider context for such a study of ‘ritual’ imagery and epigraphy on pewter vessels by relating such vessels to primary and especially secondary depositional contexts. In this way, the selection and use of a particular type of iconography can be seen, not only in relation to the social group that are sacralising such vessels, but, at a secondary level, in relation to what depositional contexts were deemed suitable for different groups of iconography.

However, although it is possible to identify, at a broad level, a range of ritual [and non-ritual] activity, our understanding is constrained by limited and qualitatively poor finds data. As Reece (1988) and Johns (1996) have observed, it remains difficult to understand the intention behind, or differentiate between deposits, even within comparatively well-understood depositional contexts. The deposition of dish hoards of similar composition in dry environments and ponds and meres, for example, might both be viewed as secular if only the hoard composition is considered.

7.2 Motifs and Inscriptions The choice of decorative motif and inscription on tin and pewter vessels fulfilled a range of both secular and ritual functions. At one level, scars of use (e.g. Chew Stoke, Rahtz and Greenfield 1977, 280), production processes59 (e.g. vessels from Appleford, Brown 1973; Bath, Sunter and Brown 1988) and simple decoration [as part of the

In the remainder of this chapter, it will be suggested that one way in which we might refine these categories and better understand certain groups of objects is by looking at how specific groups of vessels were sacralised using epigraphic inscription, and how this relates to their depositional contexts.

59

84

Indeed the compass work that often forms a Maltese cross may in fact be nothing more than manufacturing preparation that was not removed, rather than holding any decorative effect as thought of a dish from Appleshaw (Gowland 1905). See also compass work (e.g Glynde Marsden 1979; perhaps Appleford Brown 1973), chuck marks (e.g London Tower Parnell 1985), rotary polishing, lathe mounting, turning marks (e.g. Abercynafon, Northover and Cool 2001) and soldering.

production process] such as lathe-turned circles60 and the imitation of silverware motifs and rim decoration61 appear to retain, as widely supposed, little social meaning.62 At another level, the presence of certain groups of iconography and certain forms of inscription and epigraphy are only now being understood not only in aesthetic terms, but also as culturally active, with very specific cultural and/or ritual meanings.

latter interpretation is true, then it is interesting to note the associations of peacocks (see also pagan use of peacocks below) and chi-rhos on a second possibly liturgical vessel from southern Britain (Mawer 1995, 21). A further motif that is commonly presumed to hold a strong Christian association is that of the fish. A common expression of this relationship is the ‘fish dish’, oval dishes inscribed with an often-naturalistic fish on their base (fig. 32), but no explicitly Christian association (discussed below in relation to pit hoards) has been demonstrated for any of these vessels (Appleshaw, Engleheart 1905; Icklingham, West and Plouviez 1976; Islip, Dix 1987, 154155; for an interpretation as secular fish dish refer to Liversidge 1959, 8-9). Similarly, the depiction of multiple fish and fish skeletons on four spoons from the Walbrook (fig. 34) appear to predate the adoption of this particular form of Trinitarian motif within Christianity (Mawer 1995, 51) and can perhaps be more satisfactorily interpreted as secular decoration which is maybe related to the spoon’s function, or as holding a pagan significance (Jones and Sherlock 1996, 174; see also Thetford, Johns and May 1996, 313). The only instance of a fish having been inscribed on a vessel, other than a fish dish, comes from a jug at Dragonby (fig. 33), and whilst this may yet be the best evidence for the use of an ichthys on pewter tableware, there remain fundamental questions about both the nature of this design and its meaning (Johns and May 1996).

It is traditionally assumed that the presence of an inscribed Chi Rho only indicates the faith of the vessel’s owner. However, Boon (1992, 45-46) has argued that the use of a Chi Rho might rather reflect the sacralising of vessels for ‘ritual activity’. In particular Boon has reinterpreted a hoard from Caerwent arguing that all the vessels in the hoard might have fulfilled a ritual function at an agape or ritual feast, and that the pewter bowl [with Chi Rho, figs. 28-29 and 31] perhaps acted as a ‘common cup’. Consequently this causes us to reassess the meaning of this motif not just in other hoards (e.g. Appleshaw, Engleheart 1905) but also in finds of single vessels and ask if these too were ritual vessels perhaps related to an agape (e.g. Welney, Lethbridge 1951; Ely, Boon 1992, 45-46; Clarke 1931 and perhaps Copthall Court and Old London Bridge, Mawer 1995, 21; a chi-rho or lota-chi should also be noted from Stamford although this is probably a poor copy of a decorative roundel, Mawer 1995, 24). An alternative interpretation for vessels sacralised with a chi-rho relates to the additional iconography on the chosen vessel. Mawer (1995, 20) has argued that the choice of a bowl from Ely, decorated with peacocks and ‘seamonsters’, to be sacralised [with a chi-rho, alpha and omega] might reflect the co-opting of the vessel’s iconography as symbols of immortality of the soul and ‘baptismal regeneration’ respectively, to reinforce the bowl’s role as a portable baptismal font (as might be its octagonal form, Cookson 1987, 427). Conversely the Ely cup might be better seen as a liturgical cup, and may carry an inscription to this effect (RIB. 2417.29 fig. 30). If the 60

E.g. concentric rings on dishes (e.g. Fosse Lane, Leach and Evans 2001; Coldham Potter, Johns, Hall, Hassall and Shotter 1981; Shapwick, Gray 1937a; Shepperton Ranges, Bird, Crocker and McCracken 1989; Peal 1967), jugs (e.g. Moorfields, Wilmott 1984; R. Cam Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933; Shapwick, Gray 1937b; Thatcham, Collingwood 1931; multiple Walbrook vessels, Jones 1983; Appleford vessels, Brown 1973; Icklingham dishes Liversidge 1959) and cups (as at Shapwick, Gray 1937a).

61

E.g. dot (e.g. Islip, Dix 1987; Sandy, Greep 1988; Lankhills, Clarke 1979), scallops (e.g. Appleford, Brown 1973, Appleshaw, Gowland 1905) and ‘castellation’ on rims (e.g. Little Oakly, Barford 2002; Shepperton Ranges, Bird, Crocker and McCracken 1989; Peal 1967) and other designs (e.g. Bath, Sunter and Brown 1988; Shingham, Mottram 1970; Thatcham, Collingwood 1931). See also wave decoration in bands, (Cambs, Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933). See also roundels not discussed here but reviewed by Peal (1967).

62

Another approach to decoration and inscription on tin and pewter vessels is to view the iconography and epigraphy of a vessel in pagan not Christian terms. Jones and Sherlock (1996, 174) in particular have argued that the iconography of c.1st-2nd century decorated spoons from London might reflect the ‘sacralising’ of such objects as pagan talismans. In particular Jones and Sherlock (1996, 174) interpret the use of canthari, often akin to a crater and in five cases associated with a parrot, on spoons as linked to Bacchus (fig. 35-36, Mawer 1995, 51; Henig and Munby 1977, 532555). Similarly, as Mottram (1970) suggests, the inclusion of a range of beasts on the rim of a dish from Shingham was probably also meaningful to the viewer by reflecting a well-known mythological scene.63 Whether a crudely depicted female nude from Blackwardine (fig. 37 RIB 2417.4) and the possible incision of horses on the neck of a jug from Thatcham are also meaningful remains a matter of speculation (Collingwood 1931). Nonetheless such pagan iconography remains rare, and we must also be aware of the possibility that some pagan iconography could retain a secular, not ritual, meaning. The more potent act, as with Christian vessels, appears to have been the sacralising of an object through inscription, most explicitly as a votive. Stanley (1870, 211) has noted

63

Handle design on jugs (refer instead to e.g. Bath, Sunter 1988; Brislington, Barker 1901) and hatching that may be for decoration (e.g. Stokesley, Greene 1955; Thatcham, Collingwood 1931) do not appear to have been meaningful and so is also excluded from this discussion.

85

Although presumed to be Christian, the possibility remains that the depiction of sea monster on the Ely cup may also allude to pagan mythology (Mawer 1995). It is also interesting that Dolphins are cast on a handle on a trulla from the sacred spring at Bath.

Fig. 28: Three tin and tin and lead alloy vessels inscribed with a Chi Rho (no images are to scale). No. 1, A bowl from Caerwent (after Mawer 1995, no. C2.Pe.1+), nos. 2 and 3, dishes from Appleshaw and Welney respectively (after Mawer 1995, nos. C3.Pe.1 and C3.Pe.4).

86

Fig. 29: Three tin and tin and lead alloy vessels with possible inscribed Chi Rho (no images are to scale). Nos. 1 and 2 a ‘lamp filler’ from Old London Bridge (after Mawer 1995, no. C2.Pe.4*) and a bowl from Copthall Court in London (after Mawer 1995, no. C2.Pe.3+) respectively, and no. 3 a dish from Stamford (after Mawer 1995, no. C3.Pe.3*).

87

Fig. 30: The ‘Ely Cup’ or bowl, in three images (no images are to scale). The upper images are of the body (after Mawer 1995) and flange (after Clarke 1931, Fig. 2, reproduced by permission of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society), the lower image is of an inscription on the flange (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, no. 2417.29).

88

Fig. 31: A tin and lead alloy bowl and dish with unlikely inscribed Chi Rho (no images are to scale). The bowl is from Sandy (after Greep 1988, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of the Bedfordshire Archaeological Council) and the dish, vessel no. 3 from Appleford (after Brown 1973, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of D. Brown).

89

Fig. 32: 3 fish dishes with fish motif (no images are to scale). Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are from Icklingham (after Mawer 1995, no. C4.Pe.2+), Islip (after Mawer 1995, no. C4.Pe.3+) and Appleshaw (after Mawer 1995, no. C4.Pe.1+) respectively.

90

Fig. 33: Reconstruction [above] and depiction [below] of the Jug (no images are to scale) with inscribed fish from Dragonby (after May 1996, fig. 11.44).

91

Fig. 34: 4 spoons with fish motif from London (no images are to scale). Nos. 1 and 2 from Billingsgate, no. 3 from Vintry and no. 4 from Bucklersbury House (after Jones and Sherlock 1996, fig. 20.1, reproduced by permission of Nick Griffiths and the Museum of London).

92

Fig. 35: 4 spoons with canthari motif (no images are to scale). Nos. 2 and 3 from Billingsgate and no. 4 from an unknown context in London, no. 1 from Carlisle (after Jones and Sherlock 1996, fig. 20.3, reproduced by permission of Nick Griffiths and the Museum of London).

93

Fig. 36: 5 spoons with canthari and birds motif (no images are to scale). Nos. 1 and 2 from Billingsgate and no. 3 from Princes Street in London and nos. 4 and 5 from Vindolanda Roman fort and Carlisle respectively (after Jones and Sherlock 1996, fig. 20.3, reproduced by permission of Nick Griffiths and the Museum of London).

94

Fig. 37: 2 dishes with decoration (no images are to scale). No. 1 a crude depiction of a female figure on a plate rim from unknown context near Blackwardine (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, no. 2417.4) and no. 2, a dish with various mythical creatures from Shingham (after Mottram 1970, plate 1, reproduced by permission of the Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological Society).

95

an inscription to Mars on a pewter jug [or possibly bowl] included as part of a ‘votive’ assemblage from a shaft at Bossens (also termed Bosence, fig. 38, RIB 2417.1). The same formulae are also evident on a trulla from the sacred spring at Bath, inscribed with the name of the Genii Loci prior to deposition (fig. 38-39; Sunter and Brown 1988, 20). Conversely Tomlin (1988, 146-147) records a pewter plate inscribed only with secular names and probably used atypically as a curse tablet also from the main spring at Bath. This at least poses the question of how we regard other such inscribed vessels.

7.3 Motifs, Inscriptions and Contexts I have already suggested that the choice of motif and in particular the choice of inscription used on tin and pewter vessels often retained a ritual meaning. Inscription in particular appears to have been used to sacralise an object, that might otherwise have fulfilled a secular role, for a specific ritual function. It might then be supposed that there is an explicit link between sacralised vessels and certain ‘ritual’ contexts. At another level it is also necessary to ask if we can place the use of any particular group of iconography in a wider context (discussed in Chapter 3). In particular we might ask if particular cult apparatus such as vessels with chi-rhos relates to a rural, urban or military population.

A general consensus has become established in which the inscription of names on pewter tableware are viewed as ownership marks, and Tomlin and Frere (1991) have now identified not only a number of such property marks (e.g. Icklingham, RIB 2417.18 and Silchester, RIB 2417.31; Wickford, Wilson and Wright 1970, 291; Appleshaw, Engleheart 1905, and maybe also Welney), but also the use of multiple property marks interpreted as successive ‘owners’ (e.g. Suffolk, RIB 2417.10). However, secular inscription on pewter vessels also appears to have fulfilled a range of other roles. A possible ‘ownership’ mark on a dish from St. Albans (fig. 43, RIB 2417.44; Wright 1957) occurs in relation to what appears to be a maker’s production mark (similar marks can also be noted from two dishes from Brislington), and so may actually rather indicate a customer’s name. We should also be alive to the possibility of inscriptions fulfilling a more abstract role as, for example, a secular ‘good wish’ (e.g. North Oxons, Mawer 1995, 23).

7.4 Ritual Iconography and Contexts – A Synthesis Both Pagan and Christian iconography and inscriptions can be noted on tin and pewter vessels64 from a range of secondary contexts in Roman Britain. Pits and Christian Ritual The widespread use of Christian iconography is perhaps best attested in the inscription of the chi-rho. The dual realisation that the chi-rho was used to sacralise a vessel, and that these sacralised vessels are often part of an agape assemblage has led Boon (1992, 45-46) to argue that pit hoards are in fact not pagan or secular but are rather storage pits for ritual Christian equipment. Of the two known contexts that we have for chi-rhos both occur in house pits65 in what can be viewed as agape assemblages (Boon 1992, 46). We do not know the context for finds with a chi-rho from Welney, nor for the decorated possible liturgical cups from southern Britain and Ely (Boon 1992, 45-46; Clarke 1931), but we must not preclude the possibility that these also originated in agape house pits (excluding vessels from the Walbrook and Stamford because these probably display identification marks not chi-rhos). A similar interpretation is also applied to the presence of ‘fish dishes’. Mawer (1995) argues that fish dishes from both the house pit at Appleshaw and a hoard in an area of Christian activity at Icklingham (Petts 2003, 127) could both fall within an established pattern for agapes, a third fish dish from a ‘secular’ hoard at Islip (Dix 1987, 154-155) perhaps finding better interpretation as a non-Christian fusiform.

Nonetheless, Poulton and Scott (1993, 128) have argued trenchantly that some inscriptions of single names on pewter vessels fulfilled not a secular, but a ritual, function; the occurance of multiple names on different vessels within a single deposit suggests, rather than belonging to a single family, plates were assembled from a variety of donors for a collective [votive] purpose (e.g. Icklingham, Manton, High Rochester, Godmanchester; see also the same inscription on multiple vessels e.g Southwark). In particular a ritual interpretation might best explain why in hoards of vessels from Icklingham and Appleford (Brown 1973), vessels are inscribed not only with different names, but in the former case, with different spellings of a single name (for example ISARNINVS, RIB 2417.12 and IXARINVS, RIB 2417.19, fig. 40). Moreover, as Poulton and Scott (1993, 128) argue, it would also explain why in the case of the Appleford hoard, there is a dedication inscribed on one of the deposited dishes. However, in most cases there remain profound difficulties in identifying either use with any degree of certainty.

Iconography and Pagan Deposits A range of meaningful decoration, as opposed to inscription, can be noted on pewter vessels. Of particular importance is the realisation that the inclusion of canthari, and, more ambiguously, fish and flowers on decorated spoons might, as Jones and Sherlock (1996, 174) have

In conclusion, I hope to have demonstrated that the choice of motif and inscription was often directly related to the role that a vessel had been sacralised for. In the remainder of this chapter, I will examine whether there is a relationship between the role that a vessel was sacralised for, and both the group that sacralised it, and the type of [secondary] context that was chosen for its deposition.

96

64

Some forms without a secondary context are excluded from this discussion although these are noted in the respective tables.

65

A term used to infer storage under internal floors of a building, generally a domicile.

Fig. 38: 3 bowls or paterae with dedications to Mars or Sulis Minerva. No. 1, a bowl from Bosence dedicated to Mars (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, no. 2417.1), and nos. 2 (after Cunliffe 1988b, fig 11, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford with inscription by Tomlin and Frere 1991, no. 2417.8) and 3 paterae (after Cunliffe 1988b, fig. 11, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford with inscription by Tomlin and Frere 1991, no. 2417.7) from the sacred spring Bath dedicated to Sulis Minerva.

97

Fig. 39: 2 paterae from Bath. No. 1 (after Cunliffe 1988b, fig. 10, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford with inscription by Tomlin and Frere 1991, no. 2417.5) and no. 2 (after Cunliffe 1988b, fig. 10, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford with inscription by Tomlin and Frere 1991, no. 2417.6) with dedications to Sulis Minerva from the sacred spring at Bath.

98

Fig. 40: 6 inscribed names from various pewter vessels. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 from Icklingham, (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, nos. 2417.22, 2417.2, 2417.12, 2417.20 and 2417.19) no. 3 from Manton (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, no. 2417.21).

99

Fig. 41: 2 dishes with names inscribed. No. 1 with no context from Suffolk (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, no. 2417.10) and no. 2 from the sacred spring at Bath (after Frere, Hassall and Tomlin 1985, fig. 4, reproduced by permission of R. Tomlin.).

100

Fig. 42: Inscribed names and dedications from various vessels. Nos. 1 and 4 from Southwark in London (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, nos. 2417.23, 2417.24), nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 from Appleford (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, nos. 2417.26, 2417.25, 2417.27, 2417.28).

101

Fig. 43: Inscriptions and production marks from various vessels. No. 1 from Silchester (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, no. 2417.31), nos. 2 and 6 from Appleshaw (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, nos. 2417.33 and 2417.35), no. 3 from St Albans (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, no. 2417.44), nos. 4 and 5 from Brislington (after Tomlin and Frere 1991, nos. 2417.43 and 2417.42).

102

argued, have a talismanic role (Mawer 1995, 51; for an opposing secular interpretation refer to Swift 2007). It is perhaps unsurprising to find that three of the four decorated spoons for which we have a secondary context were deposited locally in the Walbrook valley, a focus for ritual activity (Merrifield 1987, 26-29). Conversely, larger items with decoration appear to have been less casually disposed of. As Mottram (1970) suggests, the deposit of a decorated plate from Shingham was probably as part of a hoard,66 as was a jug inscribed with horses from Thatcham (Collingwood 1931), but it remains possible that these hoards were non-ritual.

The adoption of spoons once again remains atypical. Their consumption in London remains unsurprising given the proximity of a spoon-producing workshop. However, the portability and talismanic property of decorated spoons saw their wide dispersal, not only to the militarised north of Britain, but also the limes in Germany, and seemingly among traders, not only on the Thames water front but also the water front at Minturnae in Italy (Jones and Sherlock 1996, 172). There is little evidence for the hoarding67 of inscribed or decorated vessels. An inscribed jug from Thatcham was part of a non-elite rural hoard in a village, and falls within the wider pattern for what could be either secular or ritual hoarding. More meaningful is the inclusion of inscribed vessels in hoards in wet environments, which can be seen not only in the spring, wells and even river deposits in small towns (e.g. Bath, Cunliffe 1988a, b) and civitas capitals (e.g. Silchester, Fulford 2001, 201-205; St Albans, Wright 1957, 232) but also villas (e.g. Brislington, Branigan 1972; Appleshaw, Engleheart 1905; Godmanchester, Frere and Tomlin 1991, 303) and farmsteads (e.g. Wickford, Wilson and Wright 1970, 291).

Inscription and Ritual Deposition As with Christian vessels, it is inscription that is most clearly related to the sacralising of a vessel before deposition, most notably in wells and shafts. A jug inscribed to Mars can be noted in a ‘votive’ assemblage in a shaft at Bossens (Stanley 1870; RIB 2417.1). Four trulla [or paterae] inscribed to Deae Suli Minerva were retrieved from the sacred spring in the temple complex at Bath along with a plate re-used as a curse tablet (Sunter and Brown 1988, 20; Tomlin 1988, 146-147), as were a number of non-inscribed pewter vessels that may or may not have been intentional deposits.

8.0 Conclusion In this chapter I have presented and discussed the evidence for the ritual use of pewter tableware. In particular I hope that I have demonstrated that even using qualitatively poor data, it is possible to develop a comparatively detailed understanding of the breadth of ritual activity in which pewter tableware was active.

The meaning of pewter inscribed with names from elsewhere has become a matter of considerable debate and both ritual and secular arguments are persuasive. Some finds are probably secular, suggested in the presence of property marks (refer to Tomlin and Frere 1991), but this does not preclude their eventual deposition in ritual contexts. It remains likely that a wholly ritual interpretation applies in many other cases (e.g. Bath, Cunliffe 1988a, b). It is especially interesting that, if taken as a whole [including both secular and ritual inscriptions], vessels inscribed with names from known secondary contexts did predominate in what I have argued are largely ritual environments, notably wells (e.g. Brislington, Branigan 1972; Silchester, Fulford 2001, 201-205; Wickford, Wilson and Wright 1970, 291; and probably Appleford, Brown 1973), but also ‘river’ hoards (e.g. St Albans, Wright 1957, 232), and in a hoard in the pagan/Christian landscape of Icklingham (West and Plouviez 1976). However, how far this should be taken as indicative of the use of inscribed vessels in ritual activity remains unclear.

Of especial importance has been the adoption of depositional contexts for pewter finds that have demonstrated an important difference in consumption between secular [other] hoards and the ritual environments of burials, temples, river/wet environments, ponds/meres, wells or pits. However, it is important to realise there are also meaningful biases towards certain groups of material within such contexts, for example in the form of pewter tableware deposited in wet environments, which shows a marked disparity between the jugs deposited in rivers in the fenlands and more complex and eclectic deposition in the Thames, Walbrook and Ver. One approach adopted in this chapter to identify the reason behind these material choices has been to understand how pewter became ritually active, most recently through the dual approaches of detailed epigraphic study of iconography on pewter tableware and careful examination of the relationship of pewter to non pewter material in structured deposits. However, such analysis remains constrained by limited and qualitatively poor finds data. Only with careful excavation

The Broader Context As with the use of pewter more widely, the adoption of inscribed and meaningfully decorated pewter appears to predominate across both rural and urban centres, but falls largely outside of the military. The use of Christian ritual in particular, although slight (cf. Pits and Christian Ritual for examples), suggests that the use of a chi-rho held meaning in rural and urban centres alike. 66

67

No context exists for the Blackwardine dish fragment and one must question if it was indeed a complete dish that had been deposited, or just the inscribed fragment (Frere and Tomlin 1991).

103

We do not sufficiently understand the contexts of the finds form Icklingham (Frere and Tomlin 1991), Appleford, (Brown 1973) and Bossens to discuss them here. It remains likely that the Appleford finds were from a well, but it is unknown what the well was associated with. Bossens occurs in relation to a ‘camp’ of unknown nature. Icklingham consists of many hoards in a landscape of both pagan and Christian ritual foci, but which might in fact best relate to a villa.

of new ritual finds of pewter can we start to go beyond these quite broad conclusions and develop a more complex understanding of the ritual use of pewter.

104

Chapter 5: Pewter Analysis

1 Introduction

subtle factors such as date, location, function, method of casting and metal source.

In the previous chapters it has been argued that there is a causal link between the shifting availability of lead and tin, and pewter manufacture. South western and urban pre-3rd century production is interpreted as a reflection of limited access to tin, and large-scale post 3rd century production, as a partial product of widespread tin recycling, and a greater availability of tin and lead. However, the selection and use of specific alloys is more complex than this contextual model might suggest. Of particular relevance to this chapter is that not just shifting availability, but other industrial processes such as recycling and de-silvering, can leave specific compositional markers in pewter. More broadly, the tin and lead values of tin and tin and lead alloy tableware can also vary not only between vessels, but also between vessel components, in response to manufacturer preference (the production process is reviewed in depth in Chapter 2). Both of these general issues form the foci of the discussion that will comprise the remainder of this chapter.

1.1 Pewter Composition The compositional standards for Roman stagnum [generally meaning tin] and tin and lead alloys in general, remain remarkably enigmatic. The use of stagnum for vessels is well attested in Pliny’s description of vasa stagnea (Pliny N.H XXX, 57) and can be inferred in Suetonius’ criticism of Vitellius for replacing temple silver with tin whilst proconsul in Africa. However, exactly what comprised stagnum, which was also a term for solder, tin washing and silver and lead alloys, remains unclear. That stagnum generally represented tin or a high tin, tin and lead alloy is perhaps evident in the fact that Pliny (N.H XXXIV, 160-1) differentiates between stagnum and the lower tin, tin and lead alloys of tertiarium68 and argentarium.69 It is particularly notable that the tin content of counterfeit stagnum recorded by Pliny (N.H XXXIV, 160-1) as either one part of perhaps bronze (which also contains tin) or brass70 to two parts tin (Beagrie 1989, 170-171), or the misuse of argentarium, was sufficiently low compared to the tin content of stagnum ‘proper’ to make their use economically viable.

To achieve a better understanding of the disparate composition of tin and tin and lead alloy vessels, material composition has been adopted as an analytical tool in this chapter. Tin, lead, and, where applicable, copper and iron values, from all published surveys of tableware have been recorded. Tableware is defined as plates, dishes, bowls, spoons, cups and jugs. Canisters and paterae, are also included to act as a comparative study for pre-3rd-century pewter (the former probably not fulfilling any tableware function). The results from a separate Portable X-ray fluorescence survey of nine vessels from Reading and Cliveden designed to collect tin, lead, copper and iron values, as well as a wider range of other elements (U, Zr, Sr, Rb, Se, As, Hg, Zn, Ni, Co, Mn, Cr), have likewise been included and discussed. Finally tin, lead and, where applicable, copper and iron values from all published surveys of tin and tin and lead alloy lumps, ingots and nonvessel objects have also been presented and discussed. These categorisations remain necessarily broad as neither the analytical procedures nor the compositional information sought for each survey are standardised, and this disparity must be remembered in this chapter.

In modern analysis, such subtle variation is difficult to discern. A number of tin content values for tin, and tin and lead alloy vessels have become established, and have been reviewed by Gowland (Engleheart 1905, 13-20), Liversidge (1959), Pollard (1983) and Beagrie (1989). Some known classical values have been identified, most notably argentarium and ‘pure’ tin (Engleheart 1905, 18). However, there remains a general discrepancy between the known classical compositions, and many of the compositional values identified through the analysis of tin alloy vessels. In this chapter the known compositional data for RomanoBritish tin and tin and lead alloys will be presented and discussed. Firstly, the analysis of a group of previously unanalysed tin and lead alloy vessels from Silchester and the Thames will be presented, and the relative occurrence of tin, lead, rubidium, strontium, arsenic, zinc and iron in their composition discussed. The second part of this chapter comprises a wider study of the analysis of tin and tin and lead alloy vessels. Initially, the analysis results from eighty tin and tin and lead alloy vessels (and a further six canisters and paterae) will be considered in relation to their date [where known], form and function and to a lesser degree their spatial distribution. Then, although tin and tin and lead alloy vessels remain the primary consideration of

However, even if a very broad study of the relative compositional datasets for tin and tin and lead alloy vessels and objects, scrap and ingots, is undertaken, significant differences between the groups are evident. At one level, tableware and other high quality manufactured goods, such as tableware and decorative items, appear to have adhered to high tin standards, and conversely, low-tin values were adhered to for low quality goods and industrial, for example architectural, materials, such as rivets, pipes and vats. However, at another level it is evident these standards were only very roughly enforced and variation between and within vessels was dependent on a range of more

68

A solder consisting of one part tin to two parts lead.

69

Made of 50% or 66% Sn and often called silver mixture.

70

105

Bronze being an alloy of copper and up to one third tin, and brass generally an alloy of copper and zinc.

this survey, the composition of other types of tin and tin and lead alloy objects will also be discussed, including tin alloy ingots, waste and scrap and curse tablets.

In all sixty points were analysed on the interior and exterior of nine vessels. Multipoint analysis was used primarily to identify compositional difference between the different parts of multipart vessels, for example the handle, body and base. However, multipoint analysis also compensates for being unable to remove the surface layers of corrosion and treatment from the tin and lead alloy tableware analysed, by allowing the generation of a normal range of compositional values for each vessel (Pollard 1983, 84). The analysis of the nine vessels showed traces of lead, tin, uranium, zirconium, strontium, rubidium, selenium, arsenic, mercury, nickel, cobalt, manganese, chromium, copper, iron and zinc. It is only practical to systematically discuss the presence of lead and tin, which comprise the major components of tin and lead alloy vessels. These results have been calibrated and are presented as a percentage of the total [100%] weight of a sample.

2.0 The Analysis of the ‘Reading’ Vessels The collection of Romano-British tin and lead alloy vessels in the Reading Museum consists of nine vessels, two bowls,71 three cups72 and four jugs73 from the civitas capital of Silchester and the River Thames at Cliveden. None of these vessels have been subject to a prior compositional analysis. This chapter will offer an analysis of this group of material and will discuss the results in relation to vessel form, function and date. These results will then be placed in a broader context by comparison with all the published analysis data for other tin and tin and lead alloy vessels, ingots and other tin and tin and lead alloy items, to establish whether the Reading data fits within the compositional values known for other tin and tin and lead vessels and non-vessel objects.

The presence of copper, iron, arsenic, rubidium, strontium, zinc and uranium will also be discussed, not as a percentage, but rather by looking at correlation – or a relationship between two sets of data.77 ‘Relationship’ is a propensity for two sets of data to change consistently, for instance two sets of data might both increase in parallel (Swinscow 1983, 62). In this paper this relationship [coefficient] is expressed as Pearson’s ‘product moment coefficient of correlation’ that uses a numerical value on a scale of –1.0 to +1.0 to express the strength of any correlation. If two values increase in unison, for example a vessel’s weight increases in relation to its size, then this would generate a ‘positive’ correlation [+]. If one value increases while a related value decreases, then this would be a negative value [-]. In either case a value of +/-1.0 can be seen as the perfect correlation [which is rare], whilst values such as 0.8, or in this case +0.678 (Swinscow 1983) is a more usual but still significant correlation. This same relationship [coefficient] can be visualised by use of a scatter diagram in which every pair of data values, plotted as single points, is shown. In the case studies discussed, both correlation values and scatter diagrams are used.

2.1 Scope of Analysis and Results Nine vessels, two bowls,74 three cups75 and four flagons76 were selected for non-destructive analysis using a portable X-ray fluorescence (PXRF) system. The analysis was conducted over two days by Richard Lee under the supervision of Dr Stuart Black, using a Niton PXRF system supplied by the University of Reading. Eight of the nine vessels analysed came from the civitas capital at Silchester. The ninth vessel, a flagon, was retrieved without context from the River Thames at Cliveden. The analysis technique used (reviewed in Chapter 1:4.1), Energy Dispersive X-ray fluorescence, measures the surface elements of an object after an energy source has been used to fluoresce a sample forcing it to emit a spectrum of X-rays. The fluorescent X-ray is produced when a photon emitted from the PXRF system dislodges an electron from an atom’s lower [quantum] energy orbital shell, forcing an electron from a higher [quantum] energy orbital shell to fall inwards. The resultant fluorescent X-ray produced is a reflection of the difference in energy between the electron’s high and new low energy states. Each atom has a different quantum energy state and so gives a unique spectrum of fluorescent X-rays when exposed to the energy source in the PXRF system.

71

Accession Nos. 03800, 03802, N/A., a cooking vessel is not included within this analysis.

72

Accession Nos. 03801, 03803.

73

Accession Nos. 1995.84.23, 1952.116.1, 1995.84.27, 1985.84.24.

74

Accession Nos. 03800, 03802, N/A.

75

Accession Nos. 03801, 03803.

76

Jugs Four jugs were examined using PXRF multipoint analysis, three from the civitas capital at Silchester - 1995.84.27 (7 points of analysis), 1995.84.23 (4 points of analysis) and 1985.84.24 (10 points of analysis), and a jug from the River Thames at Cliveden 1952.116.1 (8 points of analysis). All four vessels analysed were of one identifiable jug form, a biconical jug with handle (1995.84.23, 1952.116.1, 1995.84.27, type 1 and 1985.84.24 a type 1b).

Accession Nos. 1995.84.23, 1952.116.1, 1995.84.27, 1985.84.24.

106

77

Measured in PPM or parts per million. Anomalous negative readings have been removed.

78

0.6 being the lowest value that can be considered significant in this study. No significant negative values having been recorded.

Fig. 44: The relative tin and lead composition for the analysed flagons [above] and bowls [below] from Silchester and Cliveden. Values are presented as a percentage of total (100%) metal weight.

107

The overall tin content range for all the analysed jugs (fig. 44) falls within c.58.9-99.8%79 tin. For jugs 1952.116.1 and 1995.84.27, the tin content of the vessels appears comparatively constant (c.82-85% Sn). The tin range for the body of the Cliveden Flagon (1952.116.1) is also uniform with both the upper (c.81-85% Sn) and lower (c.81-82% Sn) sections of the flagon’s body made from a comparatively high tin, tin and lead alloy. However, the highest tin content recorded from the vessel relates not to the flagon’s body but to solder, most notably used as an attachment (84.93% Sn) for a handle.80 Conversely, the lowest tin reading from the vessel is at the join of the flagon’s body to the foot (77.80% Sn), which may represent the use of a high lead footring or a distortion in the sample. Similarly, there is little variation in the composition of the body of jug 1995.84.27, the lower part of the body containing only slightly higher levels of tin (c.84.6% Sn) than the upper part of the body and neck (c.82% Sn). However, the jug’s handle (99.76% Sn), was constructed from near pure tin, possibly to increase its durability.

which can be observed throughout most of the components of the analysed vessels (c.13-39% Pb) and comparatively high concentrations of lead in the footring of flagon 1952.116.1 (20.2% Pb), and conversely low lead levels in the handles of 1985.84.24 and 1985.84.27 have already been discussed. The pattern of the remaining elements follows the pattern of lead concentrations closely. Iron, arsenic, zinc and manganese are all especially well attested, and copper can be noted. The possible meaning of these inclusions is discussed below.

In jugs 1995.84.23 and 1985.84.24 the range of tin used in the jug’s body is far more diverse. The composition of the ‘Ogham’ jug (1995.84.23) has a high tin upper body and near pure tin neck, recording respective tin ranges of c.7386% Sn and c.86-96% Sn, which may suggest the neck as a separate casting to the rest of the jug’s body.81 Jug 1985.84.24 has an even wider range of tin values82 (c.58.999.8% Sn) and in particular a discrepancy can be noted between the lower (58.9-65.6% Sn and 32.8-39.7% Pb) and upper (99.2-99.8% Sn) halves of the jug’s body. Moreover, as evident on jug 1995.84.27, the vessel has a high tin handle (c.92-99.3% Sn), the upper part of which falls within the range of alloy used for the upper part of the body. It remains likely that the different compositions for the upper and lower halves of jugs 1995.84.24 and 1995.84.23 were the result of the casting of the vessels in two parts, and the compositional difference the result of an inability, or lack of desire, to mix exactly the same alloy for the two castings, even within the same workshop. Conversely, it can be argued that in the case of jug 1985.84.27 and the Cliveden jug, the same alloy was used for both halves, as it is improbable that a complete jug could be made in one casting. This may well reflect the use of a single, prepared alloy for the casting of both halves, perhaps the consequence of casting from a single [not multiple] crucible[s] (discussed below).

The overall tin content range for all the analysed bowls (fig. 44) is c.68.5-99.7% Sn.83 In general terms, bowl 03800 has a lower tin content than that for N/A, the shallow bowl. The tin range for Bowl 03800 ranges from c.68.5-98.4% tin and the lead from c.1.4-29.8% Pb, although it was only possible to conduct an analysis of the upper portion of the vessel’s side. In comparison, the shallow bowl (N/A) records a systematically higher tin content for the rim (c.93.2-99.7% Sn) with only negligible lead content (1.5-5.2% Pb). However, although the base of the shallow vessel (N/A) falls predominantly within the tin limits of vessel 03800 (c.85.6-89.9% Sn) it contains far higher levels of lead (8.1-12.1% Pb). This can perhaps be explained in terms of attempting to use a lower tin, tin and lead alloy for the footring, an effect noticed on other bowls and forms of vessel (for example jug 1952.116.1 and cup 3803).

Bowls Two bowls from Silchester were examined using PXRF multipoint analysis - 03800 (8 points of analysis) and N/A (12 points of analysis). Both analysed vessels are identifiable bowl types. Type 2, a hemispherical bowl with low footring and type 2a (i), a squat spherical bowl with an ovoid body flange (N/A and 03800 respectively).

A number of additional elements can also be identified. Perhaps the most pervasive is iron. It remains problematic to understand why this element is so widely included across the sample range. It is interesting that the highest iron figures correlate with the external measurements for the shallow bowl, which perhaps suggest iron contamination during the smelting or casting of the tin or lead used in the vessel (see below). This may also account for a match, albeit less well attested, between the concentrations of copper,84 arsenic, and zinc and iron in the analysed bowls.

A wide range of other, non-tin, elements can also be noted in the Silchester and Cliveden jugs. Most obvious is lead, 79

Excluding one seemingly anomalous result for the handle of 1985.84.24 which has a tin content of 0.02556%.

80

And possibly a soldered joint joining the upper and lower halves of the jug [85.93% Sn].

83

81

It was not possible to take comparative data from the lower portion of the vessel.

Only 2 of 8 points of analysis occur outside 92-98% Sn, which may indicate these results of 68% and 79% Sn as anomalous.

84

82

It was not possible to test either the lower surface of the vessel, or the footring.

The copper content of the base of the shallow bowl varied between c.1841%. In this study this data is presumed anomalous and is excluded from discussion.

108

remainder of this chapter it is this relationship that will be explored in more depth, through comparison with the published evidence for tin and tin and lead alloy vessels and non-vessel forms of tin and tin and lead alloy including [non-vessel] manufactured objects, scrap, ingots and curse tablets.

Cups Three cups from Silchester were examined using PXRF multipoint analysis - 03801 (4 points of analysis), 03802 (1 point of analysis) and 03803 (6 points of analysis). All 3 cups analysed are of 2 identifiable types. Type 2a, a flat bottomed cup with 45 degree straight side ending in a flanged lip and an unknown type, a pedestalled cup the form of the upper portion of which remains unclear, but a fragment of which would appear to suggest it was of the same basic nature as type 2a cups (03802, 03803 and 03801 respectively).

However, because of the range of elements examined in the PXRF analysis of the ‘Reading’ vessels, a second tier of analysis can also now be discussed. In the remainder of this conclusion, I will argue that a wide range of questions pertaining to the source (Wedlake 1958) and manufacture of tin and lead alloy vessels can be at least partially answered if all the elements [not merely the relative tin and lead values] within a tin and tin and lead alloy object are used as an ‘analytical tool’. Although the potential of such a study is slowly being realised (Earwood, Northover and Cool 2001) there is still a woeful gap between the potential of such work (Brill and Wampler 1967) and the supporting data.

The overall tin content range for the cups analysed (fig. 45) is c.63.4-98.1% Sn. There is a marked compositional difference between the three cups. The lowest tin value belongs to the Type 2a cup (03803). The side of this form (03803) is comparatively high in tin (c.73-75% Sn), but whether this grade was atypical or typical of the entire vessel remains unclear as the tin composition of the base ranges from c.63.4-69.5% Sn to c.72.4-93.9% Sn [for the external and internal surfaces respectively]. In contrast, the tin values of cup 03803 fall into two specific groups, a near pure tin for the vessel’s sides (96.8-98.1% Sn) and an apparently separately cast high lead base (71.7-75.3% Sn). Whether the comparatively high tin side (89.2% Sn) of cup 03802 is related to the compositional values of either cup 03801 or 03803 remains unclear, as only one reading could be acquired due to the vessel’s fragmentary nature.

In the two case studies that follow I will look at the correlation between lead and a range of other elements (table 5) in the Silchester and Cliveden vessels, and what these correlates might be suggesting. 2.3 The Consumption of Waste – Was Lead Contaminated? In the samples studied from Silchester and Cliveden, there is a strong correlation (the exact figure is given in brackets after each element), that is a meaningful relationship, between lead and rubidium, strontium, arsenic, zinc (table 5) and iron [discussed separately below]. Rubidium (0.8) and strontium (0.7) appear as little more than a trace across the vessel forms and will not be further discussed.86 However, zinc (0.7) arsenic (0.8) and iron (0.6) are well represented across the forms. Of particular importance is the variation that can be noted in the proportions of zinc and arsenic used in different vessels. At a general level zinc and arsenic can be suggested as related to function, predominating in bowls more then flagons and cups. Yet at an intra-group level it can be observed that each vessel has a unique proportion of zinc and arsenic. Bowl N/A for instance has consistently higher levels of zinc and arsenic than bowl 03800. Similarly, there is a higher proportion of zinc and arsenic in cups 03801-03802 than cup 03803 [see also iron]. Conversely, although far more confused, there appears remarkably little differentiation in the proportion of zinc87 between flagon components.88

A number of additional elements should also be noted for the cups. Lead is perhaps unsurprisingly very well attested on two of the cups analysed, 03803 which has between c.535% lead,85 and the base of 03801 which has between c.23-26% Pb. It remains curious as to why the sides of 03801 and 03802 have essentially no lead contained within them, and it can perhaps be suggested that the bases of 03801 and 03803 were of a heavier metal for stability or reflect the use of a cheaper lead based alloy for less visible areas of the vessel. A similar range of elements to those known for the two Silchester bowls is also evident on the cups. Iron, arsenic and zinc are evident and appear to match the concentration pattern for lead within the vessels. The bases of 03801 and 03803, and the side of 03802 generally show high levels of predominantly iron, arsenic and zinc. In contrast, the sides of 03801 generally show very low levels of iron, arsenic and zinc. What this might be showing is discussed below. 2.2 Conclusion The tin values and general composition for the analysed Silchester and Cliveden tin and lead alloy vessels remain comparatively typical and fall both within the accepted range of tin and tin and lead values for pewter vessels (40100% Sn), and the ranges established for specific tin and tin and lead alloy forms (cups: 45.38-100% Sn; flagons: c.48.8-90% Sn and bowls: c.75-100% Sn). In the 85

86

Excluding one of the results from the base that has 3.3854% lead.

109

The percentage of selenium [not cited in the text] does vary, predominating more in bowl N/A and cups 03801-03802 than cup 03803 although there remains little useful differentiation in relation to jugs. Similarly, strontium has division between jugs 1995.84.23 and 1985.84.24 and 1952.116.1 and 1995.84.27, but again little conclusion can be drawn about such variation.

87

The results for arsenic in jugs are quite erratic and so not discussed.

88

Only the zinc content in jug 1952.116.1 appears anomalous, and has little discernable pattern.

Fig. 45: The relative tin and lead composition for the analysed cups [above] from Silchester. Values are presented as a percentage of total (100%) metal weight, and the relative composition of arsenic [As], zinc [Zn], iron [Fe] and lead [Pb] in the analysed cups from Silchester [below] presented in PPM (parts per million).

110

111

A probable reason for the occurrence of such elements is suggested by the presence of zinc, arsenic and iron in lead ingots (Tylecote 1962). Indeed an ingot from St Valérysur-Somme has arsenic, zinc and iron present (Whittick, 1982, 118). It remains plausible that the lead used for each vessel came from a different lead source, for instance a lead pig, each of which had a unique set of probably natural contaminants in the ore89 or from smelting (Wertime 1973), that was recorded in the composition of the resultant cast vessel. In the case of the analysed vessels, it is interesting to note that a single source of lead appears to have been used for each vessel. But there appears to be no definite correlation between the lead used for any two vessels, implying different phases of manufacture. It would perhaps be useful to apply a similar study to similar vessels such as plates P10 and P11 from Appleford (Brown 1973, nos. 17-18).

to the choice of alloys for a particular vessel, and provides a point of comparison with prior surveys of tin and tin and lead alloy objects. Yet, it is only the analysis of all the discernable elements present in tin and tin and lead alloy vessels that can significantly increase the range of questions that can be addressed. In particular traditional assumptions, such as where the lead and tin in a vessel originated (Wedlake 1958, 82-93; Reid 1918), whether lead was a by-product of de-silvering and whether metals such as copper and antimony were deliberate or accidental inclusions, can for the first time be addressed through systematic study of all a vessel’s elements, and it is to be hoped that such analysis will become common practice in subsequent surveys. 3.0 Published Analysis of Tin and Tin and Lead Alloys The composition of Romano-British pewter vessels, and tin and tin and lead alloy in general, remains poorly understood. Few systematic studies of tin and tin and lead alloy have been undertaken, and the level of analysis has changed little since Beagrie’s (1989) review of RomanoBritish ‘pewter’. The collective aim of such analysis remains both the identification of different tin and lead alloy compositions, and an attempt to relate these compositions to the tin and tin and lead alloy compositions evident in the classical sources (Engleheart 1905, 18; Liversidge 1959, 10; Beagrie 1989, 170-175).

2.4 Is Iron Contamination Meaningful? In the vessels analysed from Silchester and Cliveden there is not just a strong correlation between lead and arsenic and zinc (table 5 and figs. 50-51) but also between iron and lead (0.69) and, although not discussed here, iron and tin (0.3). Indeed, in general terms, the patterns that are true for arsenic and zinc contamination are also true for iron contamination.90 However, iron contamination retains a greater importance than arsenic and zinc because iron does not occur naturally in lead and so must have been added during either lead or tin production or tin and lead alloy casting. Conventionally the presence of iron is viewed as a contaminant, perhaps from the melting pot, tools, or the use of iron contaminated zinc (Carter 1966). However, there is a growing realisation that iron might have actually been used in the smelting of both tin (Tylecote and Earl 1989; Earwood, Northover and Cool 2001, 282-284) and lead from Galena ore (Wertime 1973). In the case of the iron contamination in the Silchester and Cliveden vessels it appears that iron was a contaminant in lead because its concentrations relate so closely to other contaminants in lead, specifically arsenic and zinc (figs. 46-49). However, how representative this is of iron contamination in plate P20 from Camerton and in many other dishes, bowls, and tazzas, conducted as part of other analytical programmes, remains to be seen.

In the remainder of this chapter the published evidence for tin alloy composition will be reviewed, initially for vessels, and then for other forms of tin and tin and lead alloy. The evidence for vessels will be presented and discussed to establish whether or not variation in the tin content values of vessels have any meaningful relationships [for instance with form]. The analysis data for other non-vessel tin and tin and lead alloy groups, including manufactured objects, scrap, ingots and curse tablets will then be presented and compared to the compositional values for vessels to establish whether the compositional range for vessels was unique or common amongst Romano-British tin and tin and lead alloys. 3.1 Published Analysis of Tin and Tin and Lead Alloy Vessels

2.5 Concluding Analysis The composition of most tin and tin and lead alloy artefacts [including vessels], when compared with the analysis of precious metals and copper alloys, has been largely ignored (Pollard 1983, 83). Most analysis of tin and tin and lead alloy vessels was conducted as part of the study of complete assemblages of pewter, generally from a hoard, where the expense and/or damage from testing seemed justifiable. Three hoards have now been analysed. The Appleshaw hoard, published by Gowland (Engleheart 1905, 13-20) and summarised by Tylecote (1962, 68), and hoards from Icklingham and Appleford, the results and analytical techniques for which have been discussed by

I hope that I have not only been able to increase our understanding of a group of tin and tin and lead alloy objects, but that I have also expanded the ways in which these objects might be better interpreted. At a general level, a comparative study of the relative proportions of lead and tin in the Silchester vessels remains revealing with regard 89

However, the source of such contaminants still remains unknown and natural contamination, impurities from smelting and casting can all be suggested.

90

With the exception of the two bowls where the inverse is true. A sample from cup 03802 has the highest iron content of all the cups, but is not discussed here because of the small sample size.

112

Fig. 46: The relative lead [bottom axis]/zinc composition for the analysed vessels from Silchester and Cliveden [above], and bowls 03800 and N/A [below], measured in PPM.

113

Fig. 47: The relative lead [bottom axis]/zinc composition for cups 03801, 03802 and 03803 [above] and flagons 1952.116.1, 1995.84.27, 1995.84.23 and 1985.84.24 [below], measured in PPM.

114

Fig. 48: The relative lead [bottom axis]/arsenic composition for all of the analysed vessels from Silchester and Cliveden [above], and bowls 03800 and N/A [below], measured in PPM.

115

Fig. 49: The relative lead [bottom axis]/arsenic composition for cups 03801, 03802 and 03803 [above] and flagons 1952.116.1, 1995.84.27, 1995.84.23 and 1985.84.24 [below], measured in PPM.

116

Fig. 50: The relative lead [bottom axis]/iron composition of all the analysed Silchester and Cliveden vessels [above] and flagons 1952.116.1, 1995.84.27, 1995.84.23 and 1985.84.24 [below], measured in PPM.

117

Fig. 51: The relative lead [bottom axis]/iron composition for cups 03801, 03802 and 03803 [above] and bowls 03800 and N/A [below], measured in PPM.

118

Liversidge (1959)91 and Pollard (1983) respectively. Although not a hoard, the exceptional tin and tin and lead alloy finds from the Walbrook valley have also been subject to analysis, and the results published by Jones (1983).

published by Rahtz and Greenfield (1977), Pollard (1983), Earwood, Northover and Cool (2001), Jones (1983) and Jones and Sherlock (1996). The compositions of pewter vessels, regardless of the analytical process used, are usually tin and lead alloys in which different quantities of tin generally comprise the greater part. At one level the occurrence in tin and lead alloy of varying quantities of tin is well attested in classical accounts (Pliny N.H XXX; XXXIV), with ‘pure’ tin and Argentarium93 being widely accepted as Romano-British standards. However, in more modern analysis of pewter vessels, a range of other [non-classical] ‘average’ tin standards of 71.5% tin, 78.2% tin (Engleheart 1905, 18-20; Liversidge 1959, 10) or 75% Sn (Beagrie 1989, 171-175) have also been suggested.

A small number of small or single finds of tin alloy vessels have also been analysed (Clarke 1931; Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933; Brown 1970, 110) and the results reviewed by Smythe (1938), Pollard (1983), Beagrie (1989) and Jones and Sherlock (1996). Most recent analysis of Romano-British tin and tin and lead alloy vessels has been of non-hoard vessels and much of this work has not yet been subject to review, notably the analysis of vessels from Killigrew (Cole 1999), Abercynafon (Earwood, Northover and Cool 2001), Totternhoe (Matthews and Warren 1992) and Caerwent (Boon 1992, 45-46).

Even a broad overview of the variation in the tin content of vessels suggests a number of deliberate material choices. In general, specific alloys appear to have been chosen that might allow the eutectic point of a metal to be obtained for high quality castings, to create a hardened alloy (Beagrie 1989, 173) or reduce corrosion (Smythe 1938, 263). More specific to particular vessels has been the deliberate variation in the tin value (Engleheart 1905, 18-20; Pollard 1983) in relation to, for example, vessel size or component function [when part of a composite vessel].

The combined data from these surveys will be discussed here, not to establish the relative tin content value of vessels that has been widely discussed elsewhere (Pollard 1983; Beagrie 1989, 171-175), but to address the question of why such fluctuations were present. In particular, the larger part of this survey seeks to explain why the tin, lead, copper and iron content varies between different vessel forms, and within the components of multipart vessels (Pollard 1983). The smaller part of this survey will reengage with the larger debate on how variation in tin composition related to both date and the known classical values for tin and tin and lead alloys. Chronological discussion remains constrained by a shortage of accurate dates for tin and tin and lead alloys. However, a comparative study of classical tin values can be achieved through systematic comparison with the tin values for both pewter tableware and non-vessel tin and lead alloys identified in modern analytical works (Smythe 1938, 263265; Engleheart 1905, 13-20; Pollard 1983; Beagrie 1989, 171-175).

In the remainder of this chapter the analysis of a range of decorated and undecorated forms including plates, dishes, bowls, paterae, cups, platters, lamp fillers/bases and jug components is presented and discussed in detail. Contexts and dates of the finds (discussed below) are given in Chapter 3, and summarised in tables 6-15. Plates and Shallow Dishes So far the analyses of twenty-five plates or shallow dishes, the distinction being unclear in many programmes of analysis,94 from nine sites (table 6) have been published, the contexts, results and analytical techniques having been reviewed by Pollard (1983), Wedlake (1958), Cole (1999), Liversidge (1959), Jones (1983) and Gowland (Engleheart 1905) respectively.

Tin and Tin and Lead Alloy Vessels - The Range of Analysis In total, eighty-six vessels have now been analysed from thirty-seven sites. The range of techniques that can be used to analyse tin and tin and lead alloys has been comprehensively reviewed by Caley (1964), and their results reviewed by Cole (1999), Mawer (1995), Whiting (1923), Wedlake (1958), Gowland (Engleheart 1905, 1320) and Smythe (1938). Conventionally such quantitative analysis has relied on a series of destructive chemical analytical processes such as sublimation, determination and emission spectrography (Caley 1964). However, in the last 40 years there has been a growth in the use of X-ray fluorescence (XRF - see above) to analyse tin and tin and lead alloys (Pollard 1985), and a succession of XRF results and methodologies have now been summarised92 and 91

Albeit with some omissions (Wedlake 1958; Whiting 1923).

92

There is a difference between these different testing approaches, notably in the analytical techniques used, but also in their objective, methodology and interpretation of the results, which does generate a

Twenty-three of twelve identifiable ‘plate’95 and/or shallow dish forms (those that have been published) have been analysed. Type B and A (P2 and P3 respectively table 6), and their derivatives BA and BA (i) and BA (iii) (P10, margin of error. However, the lack of tested samples forces a reliance on data from all the available tin/lead alloys. It is also important to note a number of key XRF surveys yet remain to be published. 93

119

An alloy for use as solder or in tinning.

94

We are forced in some part to adopt the typological classifications used within each analytical work rather than those outlined in the earlier typology in chapter 3. It remains especially problematic to differentiate between vessels identified as plate and shallow dish in most surveys.

95

As termed in the respective programmes of analysis, although within this book they are considered to be dishes.

120

Fig. 52: The relative tin/lead compositions of the published analysis of plates and dishes. Plates [above] are from London (after Jones 1983), Appleford (after Pollard 1983), Killigrew Round (after Cole 1999) and Camerton (after Wedlake 1958) and dishes [below] from Appleshaw (after Engleheart 1905), Fens (after Liversidge 1959) and Ospringe (after Whiting 1923).

121

P11, P8 and P25 table 6) with an extant rim or flange but no bead. Three variant types, type 4, 4c and 4d, a dished plate with extant96 flange and rim (P22, P24, P1, P5, P7, P9, P4, P13-P15 table 6). Four curved dishes, type 1a a slightly dished dish with bead on the vessel’s underside and 1a (i), a slightly curved vessel of similar form (P4, P12, P21 table 6). Three type 2c dishes (P16-P17, P23 table 6) with pronounced flange and sharply sloping wall. Only one true plate, type 1, can be noted, from Camerton (P20 table 6). The forms of the other two vessels (P19 and P6 table 6) are unknown.

P20 fall within 70-80% tin content, suggesting that most plate forms adhered to this approximate standard. Certainly, it appeared problematic for Romano-British producers to accurately replicate a particular tin content. This is evident when the tin content of pairs of plates is considered. The tin values of two ‘pairs’ of dishes from Appleford, P10-P11 and P16-P17 (Brown 1973, nos. 1718, 23-24) differ by a couple of percent, and in the case of plates P16 (Brown 1973, no. 23) and P17 (Brown 1973, no. 24), only the larger plate P17 had a copper content. The reason for such variation is unclear, and may be the result of flawed analysis, disparate analytical techniques, and/or a failure to consistently record non-lead/tin values. However, it is plausible that tin alloy recycling or the addition of material during casting (see below) may have affected the relative composition of tin and lead alloy vessels. Certainly, for the few known copper values for the Appleford dishes (Brown 1973, nos. 19, 24, 4, 14) there appears to be no similarity in either plate size or style. The very low copper levels, 0.07-0.16% although possibly deliberately added, are rather perhaps accidental inclusions, maybe from the recycling of fake stagnums (Pliny N.H XXXIV, 160-1).

The overall tin content range for all of the analysed shallow dishes and plates is c.58-97.9%, within which three distinct groups of alloys can be identified, c.90-98% Sn, c.67-80% Sn and 58-64% Sn. For Pollard (1983), writing on the Appleford hoard, the fluctuation in the tin content of a plate or shallow dish between 80-58% Sn was affected by size. For example plates that range from 20.450.0 cm in size do not appear to contain more than 70-80% tin, (plates over 50 cm having erratic tin values e.g. P22 and P24 with 64% and 90% tin respectively). Although Pollard’s (1983) conclusion was based on the disproportionately high number of Appleford vessels analysed, the same effect is evident in other finds. The 33cm plate from Isleworth (P1 table 6) in London has a tin and lead content of 76.1/23.6% respectively, and falls within the compositional range for the Appleford group, as does a pewter plate from Camerton (P20 table 6) analysed by Wedlake (1958, 87).97 Only when the diameter falls to 14.0cm as it does on plate 4 (P18 table 6) from Appleford (Brown 1973, 189) does the tin content reduce considerably to 58.0% Sn. However, the relationship between size and composition noted by Pollard (1983, 88) does not appear to apply outside of the 3rd-4th centuries AD. It is probable that two shallow dishes from London (P2-3 table 6) of c.19.5cm in diameter have an unexpectedly high tin content (96.2 and 97.9% respectively) that does not relate to their size, but rather to their early c.1st-2nd century date. Conversely, small high tin vessels are also known outside of the 1st-2nd century. The 4th century Appleford hoard contains both a tin platter (P21 table 6), and fluted dish (P25 table 6), but whether these were prized possessions that had seen centuries of use before deposition, or were made of tin for aesthetic or functional reasons, for instance as a ‘charger’, remains unclear.98

Dish The analyses of sixteen ‘deep’ dishes from ten sites (table 7) have been published, and the results, contexts and analytical techniques have been reviewed by Gowland (Engleheart 1905, 13-20), Liversidge (1959) and Whiting (1923) respectively. Six vessels of four identifiable dish forms have been analysed. Type 5a, an ovoid ‘fish dish’ (D2 table 7). Type Bb, a deep dish with plain rim (D3). Type Aa, a deep dish with slight or no rim (D14-15 table 7). Type 4a, a deep dish with everted walls (D13, D16 table 7). The forms of the other ten dishes tested from the hoards at Icklingham, Sutton, Isleham, Abington Pigotts and West Row (Mildenhall) are not known. The overall tin content range for all the analysed dishes is 43-99.8% within which three different groups of tin values can be identified, c.99%, c.62-79% and 43-49% tin. It is problematic to identify any particular tin values for specific forms because so few items have been published. For the two forms for which we have comparative vessels, types Aa and 4a (D14-D15 and D13 and D16 table 7), it is interesting to note that there is no compositional similarity. Of the type Aa dishes, D15 contains c.76% tin, but D14 contains only c.45% tin, an accidental or intentional high lead stagnum, despite coming from the same hoard at Appleford. A similar compositional disparity is evident in the two type 4a vessels from Appleford (D13 table 7) and Abercynafon (D16 table 7) that comprise c.49% and 99% tin respectively. In the case of the high tin dish from Abercynafon, it remains possible this was high tin because the dish fulfilled a symbolic role (discussed in Chapter 4). It is notable that the ‘fish dish’ (D2 table 7), a probable religious or secular display piece, is also high tin,

It remains problematic to differentiate further within each alloy group. Of the known forms all but P18, P22-P24 and 96

Extant meaning standing proud of the upper surface, inverted, on the underside or sloping downwards.

97

Wedlake (1958) citing an iron content of 30.93% and a tin content of 40.57% tin in the analysis results, but ignoring this result in favour of a tin value of circa 66% in the text. The exact figure is unknown but possibly c.69% Sn.

98

The unique beaten tin dish from Killigrew should also be noted, but it is probable that the Killigrew vessel was high tin due to the local availability of tin and remains somewhat anomalous.

122

123

99.18%, as was99 a possible tray from Ospringe (D9 table 7), and this perhaps suggests the selection of high tin alloys for important or presentation pieces as can be suggested for platters (P21 table 6).

are the forms for the pewter tazzas. The three lamp bases have not been classified. The overall tin content range for the analysed bowls is 980.6%, within which three general groups of alloys can be identified,100 c.76-100% Sn, c.67-38% Sn and near pure lead. The lowest tin of any bowl is the high lead lamp filler/base (B3 table 8). It is likely that the presence of tin in this vessel was accidental, and that lead was chosen as an expedient, cheap and easy to construct, material. This perhaps explains why all the lamp fillers/bases from the Walbrook valley in London appear to have an extremely high lead content (table 9), which is otherwise anomalous within the conventionally high tin 1st-2nd century assemblage (Jones 1983). Conversely, a high tin group of vessels can also be identified. All type 1 vessels (B1 and B7 table 8) are essentially c.91-98% tin. Curiously, the depositional dates for vessel B1 is pre 3rd century and conversely 3rd-4th century for vessel B7. However, in both cases, the depositional context can be viewed as ritual (see Chapter 4 for a discussion), and as such it can be suggested that the selection of high tin alloys in either case related to the vessel’s use as a high status object (as perhaps was the case for vessels D2, D9 table 7, P21 table 6), or that both vessels were produced at a similar 1st-2nd century date, and the Abercynafon vessel was retained as a ritual vessel for a prolonged period. However, this ethos does not seem to apply to Christian deposits, as a vessel sacralised with a Chi Rho from an agape deposit at Caerwent has a tin composition of only 67.8% (B5 table 8).

It remains problematic to differentiate further within each alloy group, as there are no meaningful links by form, date or location between the remaining dishes. Indeed most of the remaining dishes (D1, D4-D8, D10-D11 table 7) fall within a similar range of tin values to those for bowls and plates, c.62-79% tin, and this can be suggested as comprising an approximate standard tin content for such vessels. It is probable that the large compositional range of this alloy group (c.62-79% tin) reflects a failure to adequately standardise the casting alloy, although some vessels, notably the Mildenhall (D1 and D4 table 7) dishes, do both appear to have been made from a standardised alloy (73.35-74.25% tin respectively). The reason for dishes with tin values outside this tin standard remains unclear and may be the result of flawed analysis or the use of different analytical techniques. Conversely, it may reflect a deliberate or accidental failure to consistently apply set lead and tin values during vessel production. The latter is perhaps attested by the presence of dishes with a 43-45% tin content, which are essentially made of argentarium, and which can perhaps be taken as an indicator of fake stagnum (Pliny N.H XXXIV, 160-1). It is also plausible that tin alloy recycling or contamination of the lead or tin sources used during a vessels production may also have affected its composition. This could perhaps also explain the presence of silver, possibly from the use of argentiferous lead in vessels D7-D10, and iron in all but the Ospringe (D9 table 7) and Appleford (D13-15 table 7) dishes.

It remains problematic to differentiate further within each alloy group, as there are no meaningful links by form, date or location between the remaining bowls. Most (excluding B4 and B6 table 8) of the remaining bowls (B2, B5, B8B12 table 8), fall within a similar range of tin values as those for plates, c.67-85% or 62.2-85% tin if three tazzas101 (table 10) analysed by Liversidge (1959) are included.

Bowls The analyses of twelve bowls, three lamps and three tazzas, from fourteen sites (tables 8-10) have been published, and the contexts, results and analytical techniques reviewed by Jones (1983), Gowland (Engleheart 1905, 13-20), Liversidge (1959), Pollard (1983), Earwood, Northover and Cool (2001), Brown (1970) and Mawer (1995).

A series of exceptions is evident in Pollard’s (1983) XRF analysis of the multipart bowls from the Appleford hoard, each component of which was analysed and recorded (B6, B8, B12 table 8). Vessel B12, although having a comparatively high tin body (c.77.4% Sn), had a separate footring with a tin content of 42.2%. Similarly, the body and base of vessel B8 are also 81% and 38% tin respectively. It is probable in both cases that the foot was deliberately low tin, perhaps for cost, weight or function rather than fulfilling a direct aesthetic role or a role as an ‘eating’ surface (Jones 1989, 30). However, on vessel B6, the tin content of both the footring and body is 48.8%. It is conceivable that this bowl fulfilled a different purpose to bowls B8 and B12, for which the use of lead did not matter, although it remains a possibility that this was made from argentarium possibly as an attempt to fake a higher

Eight vessels of seven identifiable bowl forms have been analysed. Type 1, a plain conical vessel (B1 and B7 table 8). Type 2e, a squat spherical bowl (B2 table 8). Type 2a (i), a hemispherical bowl with round body flange. Type 2c (ii) (B8 table 8) comprises an equivalent vessel to type 2a (i), except with octagonal body ring and pedestal. A related group to type 2c, types 2b (i)-2b (iii) comprise a hemispherical bowl with a sloping rim and footring (form 2b (ii) no. B12 table 8), slight pedestal (form 2b (iii) no. B6 table 8) and high pedestal (form 2b (i) no. B11 table 8). An unclassified lamp filler/base (B3 table 8) should also be noted. The forms of the other four dishes are unknown, as 99

Although the possibility remains the identification of this item as high tin may in fact be a mistake in the analysis.

124

100

The results of the alloy groups include separate values for each component analysed, which will give a misleading picture as to the number of vessels in any one compositional range, when in fact it is a fairer reflection of the number of components tested.

101

Essentially bowls.

125

Fig. 53: The relative tin/lead compositions of the published analysis of bowls and spoons. Bowls, lamps and tazzas [above] from London (after Jones 1983), Appleshaw (after Engleheart 1905), Appleford (after Pollard 1983), Bosence (after Brown 1970), the Fens (after Liversidge 1959), Abercynafon (after Earwood, Northover and Cool 2001) and Caerwent (after Mawer 1995), and Spoons [below] from London (after Jones 1983) and Kirkby (after Jones and Sherlock 1996).

126

127

quality stagnum, or to provide a cheaper product. It is interesting to note that it is a small bowl beneath 20cm in size that, as with many small plates and dishes, occurs in the 50% tin/lead stagnums (Pollard 1983, 88) which perhaps reflects a lack of value compared with larger vessels, or a reduced need for strength.

be identified, 85-90% and c.50% tin. There appears to be little diagnostic compositional difference between the two forms of jug. Of the three comparatively high tin flagons, the two flagons with the highest tin content are both biconical (types 1 and 1a, nos. F1 and F4 see also F2 table 12) jugs, as is the vessel with the lowest tin content (F5 table 12). The globular jug (type 3a, no. F3 table 12) has the lowest tin content of any vessel in the high tin group with a tin content of c.48-55%.

Spoons So far the analysis of nine spoons from four sites, three of which are from London (table 11), have been published, and the results, contexts and analytical techniques reviewed by Jones and Sherlock (1996) and Jones (1983).

Problematically, the conventional approach to the analysis of jugs (e.g. F1, F3-F4 table 12) has been to establish a single compositional value. As Pollard’s (1983) analysis of the Appleford hoard has demonstrated, jugs are constructed not from a single piece but from many compositionally varied components. Although in relation to the Appleford jug (F2 table 12) the tin content varies comparatively little between the body (48.8%), footring (49.9%), and handle (55.4%), the PXRF data for jugs from Silchester should act to remind us that the difference in tin values between a jug’s components can be substantial. Given that jugs are invariably constructed from such compositionally different parts, it is difficult to know how representative a single compositional value for all the individual components of a vessel can be, particularly where the results are anomalous, as they are with the Bosance jug (F3 table 12).103

Nine spoons of four identifiable bowl forms have been analysed. There are three forms of decorated spoons. Type 1a-1a (i) with circular bowls (S1-S2 table 11), type 2 (S3 table 11) 2a (S4 table 11) and 2a (iii) (S5-S6 table 11) with pear shaped bowls and type 3 fiddle shaped bowls (S7-S8 table 11). The only non-decorated spoon is a ligula102 for which I have no classification (S9 table 11). The overall tin content range for all of the analysed spoons is 66.2-97%, with no significant difference between different types of decorated spoons. The only clear compositional anomaly appears to be the ligula that had a tin content of 97%, compared to the nearest high tin content for a decorated spoon, which was 88% tin.

Cups Further differentiation among the decorated spoons remains problematic. However, it is interesting to note the only two analysed spoons, S4 and S5, with the same motif, a cantharus with triangular designs above, have a respective tin content of 69% and 70% perhaps suggesting a contemporary phase of manufacture or that they were the produce of a particular workshop. Indeed, it is probable that all the spoons were from the same 2nd century London workshop (see above), within which a standard of between 66-88% tin was being systematically attempted, maybe for strength but more likely for aesthetics or perhaps more importantly to negate the taste of lead (Jones 1989, 30). It is interesting that copper is present in some of the analysed spoons, but its indiscriminate use across the forms (S1-S4 table 11) suggests that its inclusion was accidental rather than intentional.

So far the analyses of seven cups from six sites (table 13) have been published. The results, contexts and analytical techniques used in these surveys have been reviewed by Whiting (1923), Pollard (1983), Gowland (Engleheart 1905, 13-20) and Smythe (1938). Only one vessel of one identifiable form of cup has been analysed. Type 3, (U2 table 13) a spherical bowl on an elongated pedestal or foot. The forms of the other six cups are predominantly unknown, or too fragmentary to reconstruct. The overall tin content range for all the analysed cups is 45.38-100%, within which three distinct groups of tin values can be suggested, near pure tin, c.70-76% and c.4547% tin. The near pure tin cups (U1, U5, U7 table 13) from Melandra Castle, High Rochester and Carrawburgh (Richmond and Gillam 1951) are all from northern Britain and predominantly military contexts. The group of cups with a c.70-76% tin content (U2-U3 table 13) all occur within the Appleshaw hoard, and fall within the range for most pewter from the hoard, [typical of late 4th century tin and lead alloy vessels]. The very low tin cups from Brislington and Ospringe remain curious. The Ospringe cup perhaps was made for burial. The Brislington cup can be inferred as for use, and yet has an extremely low tin content that perhaps reflects the proximity of the cup to large lead fields, and the local availability of material.

Jugs The analyses of five jugs from five sites (table 12) have been published and the contexts, results and analytical techniques reviewed by Rahtz and Greenfield (1977) Pollard (1983) Brown (1970), Smythe (1938) and Greene (1955). Four vessels of two identifiable bowl forms have been analysed. Types 1 (F1 and F3 table 12), 1a (F4 and F5 table 12) and 1c, biconical jugs and type 3a (i), a globular jug (F2 table 12). The overall tin content range for all the analysed jugs is 48.8-90%, within which two different groups of alloys can 102

103

Which probably does not have a tableware function.

128

Which remains unique in being constructed from 10% copper.

129

130

Fig. 54: The relative tin/lead compositions of the published analysis of jugs and cups. Jugs [above] from Shapwick (after Smythe 1938), Chew Stoke (after Rahtz and Greenfield 1977), Appleford (after Pollard 1983), Bosence (after Brown 1970) and Stokesley (after Greene 1955) and Cups [below] from High Rochester (after Smythe 1938), Carrawburgh (after Richmond and Gillam 1951), Appleshaw (after Engleheart 1905), Melandra Castle (after Pollard 1983) and Ospringe (after Whiting 1923).

131

meaningful links by form, date or location. However, Pollard’s (1985) review of the Bath paterae has shown the paterae, as with bowls, to be multipart, the handle being a separate component to the body, the analysis of which is presented in this paper (table 15). In both instances, the tin content of the body is c.96% tin, and variation in the handles, although more substantial, is only c.93-97% which does not seem to have been considerably different from the patera bowl. It can perhaps be inferred that the vessel was cast in two parts, not because a different alloy was required, but rather for ease of casting.

Canisters The analysis of three canisters from the Walbrook valley in London (table 14) has been published, and the contexts and analytical techniques have been reviewed by Jones (1983). Three vessels of two identifiable canister forms have been analysed. A canister with a plain lip here termed plain, and a canister with an incised lip here termed decorated. The overall tin content range for all of the analysed canisters is 96.8-99%, within which two slight variations in tin content can be suggested, 98.9-99% and 96.8% tin. The highest tin content belongs to the 1st-2nd century plain canisters. The lowest tin content 96.8% belongs to a different and later 2nd-4th century decorated canister. It is highly probable that this group was one of many essentially pure tin 1st-2nd century vessels manufactured in, or imported to, London.

Distribution in Time and Space In general terms, the range of the analysed tin and tin and lead vessels can be dated to the 1st-4th century AD. A 1st-3rd century date-range seems especially likely for early urban, notably town and provincial capital, production followed by the late 3rd-4th century development of rural production. A detailed overview of the spatial distribution, contexts and dates of these forms is provided in Chapters 3-4.

The presence of lead, although an artificial presence in tin, was probably accidental, perhaps contaminant from recycling, although its deliberate use as a hardener (Tylecote 1962, 68-69) or as an additive to increase a vessel’s resistance to corrosion (Smythe 1938, 263) cannot be entirely dismissed.

In this survey the earliest analysed vessels, from the 1st-2nd centuries, are known from urban sites, most notably from the Walbrook valley (Jones 1983) in the provincial capital of London, but also from some early towns such as Bath (Cunliffe 1988a, b) and perhaps the civitas capital of Caerwent (Ashby 1907). The nature of this early phase of pewter production appears to be varied, but can be viewed in terms of a wide range of mostly [excluding lamp fillers/bases] high tin goods including early plates, bowls, spoons, paterae and canisters.

Paterae The analyses of three paterae [or paterae components] from two sites (table 15) have been published, the contexts, results and analytical techniques having been reviewed by Pollard (1983), Harker (1982) and Jones (1983).

The majority of the analysed tin and lead alloy vessels have been recovered from 3rd-4th century rural sites although higher lead alloys did occur in the later small towns such as Camerton (Wedlake 1958). There is a considerable bias towards finds from villa or ‘crisis’ hoards, largely caused by the analysis of the large c.4th century pewter hoards at Appleford (Pollard 1983) and Appleshaw (Engleheart 1905) and the small ‘hoard’ from Brislington (Smythe 1938, 260). However, a range of nonvilla rural finds has also been analysed and their impact on the composition of rural vessels should be noted, even though most of these sites do not have a clear context.104 Collectively, the nature of this late 3rd-4th century phase of consumption and production can be viewed in terms of a wide range of mostly high lead tin alloy goods including plates, bowls, flagons, cups, platters, tazzas and dishes. However, in contrast to most earlier tin and lead alloy vessels, the relative lead/tin content of post 3rd century pewter vessels fluctuated significantly both between vessels, vessel components and form.

Two vessels, not of a classifiable form, but comprising a curved bowl patera with footring and attached flared handle are known (T1-T2 table 10). The form of the remaining patera is unknown. The overall tin content range for all of the analysed paterae is 39.8-97%, within which two different groups of alloys can be identified, c.93-96% and 39.8% tin. The highest group of tin is associated with the ‘Bath’ (Aquae Sulis) paterae (T1-T2 table 10) from the Temple of Sulis Minerva (Cunliffe 1988b, nos. 29-30), and it seems sensible to conclude that these were roughly contemporary and have a 2nd-3rd century date, perhaps accounting for the high tin levels. The Springhead Patera (Harker 1982) appears to contain an unusually high percentage of lead (?47.2%). However, it is not unique, and a high lead, 2nd century tin alloy handle from London can also be noted (Jones 1983, no. 18) from the Walbrook. Why there should be such a discrepancy in tin content between the Bath and Springhead paterae remains unknown. The high lead (the exact composition is unknown) patera handle from the Walbrook suggests that the date of manufacture is not the reason for such compositional difference and that it might relate instead to a difference in vessel function, or represent different products from different workshops.

One final context for the studied specimens should also be noted. Three vessels have been analysed from northern military sites, the 2nd century Kirkby spoons and the tin cup

It remains problematic to differentiate further within each alloy group, as the sample is too small to identify

104

132

Such as the 2nd-3rd century find from a Cornish round at Killigrew.

133

134

Fig. 55: The relative tin/lead compositions of the published analysis of canisters and paterae. Canisters [above] from the Walbrook Valley in London (after Jones 1983) and paterae [below] from Bath (after Cunliffe 1988b) and Springhead (after Harker 1982).

135

from High Rochester. However, this sample is too small for meaningful discussion.

ingots have also been studied and the results published by Price (1983, 62), Bayley (2004) and Smythe (1938). In contrast only two examples of ingots with a c.0-2% tin content from the larger group of lead ingots, or pigs, have been identified (Boon 1970; Tylecote 1962).

Conclusion So far in this chapter I have looked at the compositional evidence for the Romano-British pewter tableware, here defined as plate and dish (the meaning often used differently in the respective analytical surveys reviewed, to those outlined in Chapter 3), bowl, spoons, cups and jugs, as well as examining paterae and canisters, and argued that there are meaningful variations in the alloys used in each group. In particular I have argued that the contaminants and different tin values in pewter vessels represent different manufacturing processes [including shifts in supply], both of the tin and lead used in vessel production, and the type and size of a vessel produced.

The more recent study of non-vessel tin and tin and lead alloys has been one of scrap,105 perhaps reflecting a growing understanding of the potential of such research, much of which has been reviewed by Tylecote (1962) and Smythe (1938). However, most of the analysis of scrap has gone un-reviewed and instead falls within the remit of more recent post excavation work, the results from which have been discussed by Branigan (1977), Wedlake (1958), Bayley (1986), Allen and Fulford (1992), Rippon (2000) and Cole (1999). In the analysis that follows, the combined data from these surveys will be presented, along with analysis of nonvessel objects (discussed below), to establish, as has been done for tableware, the range of tin content within functionally different groups of tin and tin and lead alloys. In particular, the issue of whether the tin content of ingots, production debris and non-vessel tin and tin and lead alloy objects [such as curse tablets] was typical of the composition of other pewter objects, such as vessels, will be addressed.

However, I have also suggested that the selection of specific compositions of tin and lead alloy reflects a more meaningful array of social choices. Of particular importance are the relative values ascribed to lead and tin in tin and lead alloys. High lead alloys were consistently used for non-high status roles such as lamp fillers. Conversely high tin alloys were used for prestige items such as platters and fish dishes. Even within a vessel, significant variation is still evident in the use of high lead alloys for ‘hidden’ areas such as footings compared to the high tin alloys chosen for vessel bodies.

Tin, Tin and Lead Alloy, Non-Vessel Objects - The Range of Analysis

In the remainder of this chapter, I shall consider in more detail how we might better understand these dual effects of tin alloy manufacture and social identity on the choice of tin values for pewter tableware. In particular I will examine how the composition of the tin alloys being worked shifted over time, and conversely, for what types of objects these standards were adopted, and why.

One hundred and forty nine tin and tin and lead alloy nonvessel objects, ingots and industrial scrap have been analysed from thirty-four sites. The range of techniques that have been used to analyse tin and tin and lead alloys has been comprehensively reviewed by Caley (1964) and Tylecote (1962), and Turgoose’s (1985) observations about tin and tin and lead alloy corrosion remain true for this group. The results of the analyses of non-vessel tin and lead alloy have been reviewed by Gowland (Engleheart 1905, 13-20), Tylecote (1962) and Smythe (1938), and in a succession of subsequent finds reports (Clark 1936; Wedlake 1958; Branigan 1977; Boon 1970, 57; Allen and Fulford 1992; Beagrie 1983; Fox 1995; Cole 1999). In the last twenty years, as with the analysis of tin and lead alloy vessels, there has been an increasing reliance on X-ray fluorescence to analyse non-vessel tin and tin and lead alloys. A number of methodologies for the XRF analysis of non-vessel tin and tin alloys have been published by Bayley (1986; 2004), Price (1983, 62) and in particular Hughes (1980). As with tin and tin and lead alloy dishes, there is a difference between these testing approaches in the analytical techniques used, aims of the study, most commonly in what elements to identify, methodology and data interpretation, which does generate a margin of error. However, the lack of tested samples force a reliance on data from all the available analyses of non-vessel tin and tin and lead alloys.

3.2 Non-Vessel Tin and Tin/Lead Alloy Artefacts The study of non-vessel tin and lead alloys has grown in importance in the last forty years. Although originally comprising little more than comparative data for the study of pewter vessels (Engleheart 1905, 13-20; Smythe 1938; Tylecote 1962, 67-70), the study of non-vessel tin and lead alloys has developed, establishing itself as a corpus of material worthy of study in its own right. A number of analyses of non-vessel tin and tin and lead alloys have focussed on the importance of ingots. Initial interest can be viewed in terms of attempting to identify the composition of tin and tin and lead alloy ingots. The majority of the early analyses of tin and lead ingots have been reviewed by Smythe (1938) and Tylecote (1962). However a number of more detailed analyses of subsequent finds of high tin ingots from the southwest should now also be noted (Fox 1995; Beagrie 1983; Bayley 2004). The most detailed analysis of any ingot group remains that for tin and lead alloy or pewter ingots. Although conventionally it is assumed that the ‘Battersea group’ are the only pewter ingots to have been analysed (Hughes 1980), a number of additional tin and lead alloy

105

136

Defined as tin/alloy offcuts, splashes and runoff and sprues.

The tin alloy materials analysed comprise high or pure tin, tin and lead alloys and tin contaminated lead non-vessel objects and production material, specifically scrap and ingots. Conventionally, fluctuation of the tin content of this group has seen the adoption of a range of presumed Romano-British tin standards, discussed in general terms [including vessel analysis] by Gowland (Engleheart 1905, 13-20), Smythe (1938, 263-265), Pollard (1985) and Beagrie (1989). The only attempts to build a compositional range for scrap and non-vessel pewter only, Hughes’ (1980) analysis of the Battersea ingots and Pollard’s (1985) analysis of the Bath curse tablets, have both produced different results. For Hughes (1980, 42-44), four tin values, pure tin, 95%, 67% and 52% tin are all evident in the Battersea ingots, and certainly ‘pure’ tin (Cole 1999, 202203; Bayley 2004; Fox 1995; Beagrie 1983) and Argentarium (Branigan 1977, 125-127) have become widely accepted as tin and lead alloy standards for scrap and non-vessel pewter. For Pollard, the tin and tin and lead alloys used to produce the Bath tablets have a wider compositional range of 0-100% tin (Pollard 1985, 28-30). Certainly, this compositional range (Pollard 1985, 28-30) is known for much scrap and many vessel and non-vessel objects. However, the presence of low tin, tin and lead alloys (Pollard 1985, 29) which predominate at a near pure [c.5% Sn.] lead composition, itself increasingly inferred as a possibly intentional alloy standard (Bayley 1986, 386; Boon 1970, 57), remain unusual outside of the non-vessel tin and lead alloys used for manufactured goods.

the solder is in fact waste, perhaps from the manufacture of tin and lead alloy vessels or a decorative object, which explains the high tin content of the material. Decorative items do not occur outside of the alloy range of 100-66% tin, a group in which most of the tin and tin and lead alloy vessels also occur. The remaining groups, c.34-41% Sn, and c.18-0% Sn occur essentially outside of the tin content limits within which tin and lead alloy vessels are found. The alloy group with c.34-41% Sn consists largely of objects that can be inferred as utilitarian, and so unlikely to have a high tin content which would be comparatively expensive and/or unnecessary. This could account for the presence of sealings (nos. M6-M7 table 16) and spindle whorls (nos. M12-M13 table 16) in this group. The presence of two coffins (nos. M10, M21 table 16) and a ?mould (no. M20) with a similar tin content, although perhaps unexpected, is not anomalous and both items can be viewed in terms of important enough not to use lead, perhaps for cost, aesthetics or durability, but not important enough to use a high tin content. For the lowest tin group, c.18-0% Sn, aesthetics appeared unimportant, but cost, availability and ease of use probably were. In this group, aside from a further lead coffin (no. M11 table 16), all the items are used in cheap processes, such as rivets (nos. M4M5 table 16), castings (nos. M14-M15 table 16), pipes (nos. M17-M18 table 16), bars (no. M16 table 16) and industrial vats (no. M19 table 16).

The detailed contexts and dates of the finds are given in Chapter 2, tables 2-4, and summarised in tables 16-19. Collectively, the vessels analysed comprise a range of tin and tin and lead alloy ingots, scrap and production debris, non-vessel manufactured goods and curse tablets.

The analyses of twenty-two tin and tin and lead ingots from fourteen sites (table 17) have now been published. The contexts, results and analytical techniques have been reviewed by Hughes (1980), Tylecote (1962), Smythe (1938), Beagrie (1983), Bayley (2004), Price (1983), Fox (1995), Bayley (1986) and Boon (1970).

The Ingot Evidence

Non-Vessel Tin and Tin/Lead Alloy Artefacts Of the twenty-two tin and tin and lead alloy ingots that have been analysed, the majority comprise Plano Convex high tin ingots. A number of larger lead pigs with tin contamination have also been analysed.

The analyses of twenty-one non-vessel manufactured tin or tin and lead alloy objects (ingots will be discussed below) from eleven sites (table 16) have been published, the results, contexts and analytical techniques for which have been reviewed by Smythe (1938), Tylecote (1962), Gowland (Engleheart 1905) and Matthews and Warren (1992).

The overall tin content range for the analysed objects is c.99-0%, within which four different groups of alloys can be suggested. Those with c.94-100%, c.67-80%, c.54-50%, and c.3-0% tin content. The highest tin group, c.94-100%, can perhaps be seen as essentially pure tin ingots. The finds from sites in the southwest all appear to cluster around c.99% or pure tin (nos. N11-N16, N20-N22 table 17). The remainder of the high tin ingots (nos. N1, N9, N18 table 17) are all c.96-94% tin, and all occur outside of Cornwall. None of these ingots is pure tin, and it is possible to suggest that the evident lead contamination was an unforeseen product of 3rd-4th century recycling or processing in non-tin producing regions.

Of the twenty-one tin and tin and lead alloy non-vessel artefacts analysed, each form (of no more than two examples each) is functionally different and can be summarised as buttons, tin strips, ring chape, whorl, sealing, solder, ?mould, coffin, rivet, casting, bar, pump, pipe and vat. The overall tin content range for the analysed objects is c.99-0%, within which four different groups of alloys can be suggested, c.94-100% Sn, c.66-73% Sn, c.34-41% Sn, and c.18-0% Sn. The analysed objects having the highest tin content (c.94-100% Sn) are decorative, a button, strip and chape (nos. M1-M2, M9 table 16). The only other decorative item, a ring (no. M3), occurs in the same alloy range as a lump of solder (no. M8 table 16) that have a c.66% and 73% Sn value respectively. It is probable that

Five tin and lead alloy ingots (nos. N2-N4, N7-N8 table 17) have a tin content of c.67-80%. It is possible that these ingots comprised a low tin alloy standard for use in the manufacture of specific vessel or object groups (e.g. spoons). Equally these ingots are of a grade used for counterfeit stagnum noted by Pliny (N.H XXXIV, 160-1) 137

138

139

either using equal measures of tertiarium to tin that generates alloys of c.65% tin or two parts tin to one part bronze or brass (Beagrie 1989, 170-171) that generates an alloy of c.70% tin. Conversely, these might represent ingots for an industrial process other than the manufacture of tin and lead alloy objects, although the number of tin and lead alloy vessels known to have this composition suggests this is unlikely. The presence of tin and lead ingots of c.54-50% tin is to be expected and has been widely acknowledged (Hughes 1980) as argentarium or silver mixture (Pliny N.H XXXIV, 160-1), made from equal parts of tin and lead (Beagrie 1989, 170-171).

a range of vessels (73.7% tin), but falls slightly outside the recipe given by Pliny (N.H XXXIV, 160-1) for fake stagnums. The larger group, c.33-45% tin, biased largely by the significant amount of alloy retrieved from Gatcombe,107 although comparable to very low tin, tin and lead alloy vessels, is perhaps more widely seen in terms of other utilitarian material (discussed above), or even other industrial processes. The lowest grade, with a tin content of c.2-0%, can be suggested as for industrial consumption, the majority of this group being formed of offcuts of sheet. It is interesting that the coffin, pipe and vat (nos. M11, M18M19 table 16) all with a c.1% tin content, fall within approximately the same range as the offcuts and spills discussed here.

Exactly why there is a c.3-0% tin content in what are essentially lead ingots remains a mystery. This is not a natural occurrence and must have been either deliberate or accidental. It remains hard to see what advantage such a small percentage of tin could confer. However, it remains unclear how such ingots could become accidentally contaminated. One option is that the ingots were the product of imperfect recycling, for example the unintentional recycling of lead objects with tin contaminated lead.

Curse Tablets An analysis of seventy-six curse tablets from Bath (table 19) has been published, and the contexts, results and analytical techniques used have been reviewed by Pollard (1985). In total, one hundred fragments of curse tablets were analysed by Pollard (1985), of which seventy-six of tin and tin and lead alloy are presented and discussed here. The characteristics of the group have been discussed in depth elsewhere (Tomlin 1988).

‘Lumps’ and Offcuts The analyses of twenty-nine items of tin and tin and lead scrap alloy waste (table 18) have been published, the contexts, results and analytical techniques having been reviewed by Branigan (1977), Bayley (1986), Allen and Fulford (1992), Rippon (2000), Cole (1999), Tylecote (1962), Wedlake (1958) and Smythe (1938).

The overall tin content range for all of the analysed tablets is 0-100%, viewed as unique for curse tablets, with comparable curse tablets from outside of Bath appearing to be made of pure lead (Pollard 1985, 28-30). Pollard notes the peaks of distribution are 0-5%, 30-35%, 45-50%, 6065%, 75-80% and 95-100% tin. Tomlin (1988) identifies three large alloy groups of 42-50%, 53-70% and 72-86% tin. Of the results discussed here, it can be suggested that the best represented of all the alloy groups is 85%-43% Sn, within which the highest densities of compositional values occur around 80-73%, 67-63%, 61-52% and 47-45% tin, with notable occurrences of alloys at 94-95% and 4-1% Sn. The question remains how meaningful are these groups. For Pollard these values are reflective of pure lead, pure tin and 33% tin, 50% tin and 66% tin and 80% tin, and certainly these can be articulated in terms of tertiarium, argentarium, and various fake stagnums (Pliny N.H XXXIV, 160-1). However whether all of these values were recognised by the original producer remains in doubt.

The twenty-nine items of tin and tin and lead scrap alloy waste comprise six separate groups of material, much of which are probable by-products of tin alloy vessel or decorative object manufacture. The largest group consists of ‘lumps’ of tin and lead alloy. A casting sprue, offcuts, spills and miscellaneous debris or dross should also be noted. The overall tin content range for the analysed objects is c.100-0%, within which four different groups of alloys can be suggested, those with c.95-100%, c.74%, c.33-45%, and c.2-0% tin content. The highest tin group, c.95-100% consists of alloy and spills,106 and can be taken as an attempt to produce a near pure tin product, whether vessel, object, or ingots. However, the exact use of pure tin remains unclear and the only find of pure worked tin, from Killigrew in Cornwall, remains undated. It is probable that the use of high tin alloys occurred in the 2nd-4th century contexts, outside of the southwest, and may perhaps reflect the use of recycled metal contaminated with lead, although the deliberate addition of lead for a technical advantage cannot be totally discounted.

There appears to be little variation by tablet type, thickness (Pollard 1985, 28-30), or date (Tomlin 1988). It is probable that these tablets were the by-product of unknown industrial processes suggested by the fact that Pollard’s (1985, 29) Group 3 tablets are nothing but irregular ‘blobs’ of metal. Many of the tablets appear to be little more than offcuts, though whether offcuts from sheets intended solely for tablet production (Tomlin 1988), or perhaps sheets with

The larger part of the analysed tin alloy lumps fall into two further groups. One example (no. X21 table 18) falls within the typical range of alloys used in the production of 106

107

And one miscellanous item [X27].

140

Averaged as 55% on the graph.

141

142

143

Fig. 56: The relative tin/lead compositions of the published analysis of the Bath curse tablets from the Sacred Spring at the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath (Cunliffe 1988b; Pollard 1985).

144

a more universal role, remains unclear. If the latter case is true then the value of the Bath tablets perhaps lies in the range of alloys they represent, which occur consistently [+/-5%], though in different volumes, from 0-100% tin. I would argue that these alloys are the offcuts from two industries, one engaging with functional low grade lead alloys and another producing higher grade pewter of the type found in vessels. It is plausible that the Bath vessels are indeed products of this second industrial facet, and certainly the Bath paterae (nos. T1-T2) could fall within this group.

Conclusion As with the evidence for tin and tin and lead alloy vessels, the composition of scrap, ingots and ‘objects’ remains meaningful, notably in economic terms by demonstrating what tin and lead alloys were available (and in relation to the scrap evidence, what alloys were actually used) for manufacture. Conversely, I have suggested that the tin value of tin and lead alloy ‘objects’, as with vessels, was also socially active. In particular, I have suggested that specific alloys were selected for specific tasks, with high tin alloys adopted for high status manufacture such as vessels, and high lead alloys for low status ‘consumables’ such as leaden seals. In the remainder of this chapter the identification of these different manufacturing grades in both classical and analytical terms, and what they represent, will be discussed.

Distribution in Space and Time – A Review In general terms, analysed ingots, scrap and non-vessel objects, as with vessels, can be dated to the 1st-4th century AD (discussed in detail in Chapter 2). In this survey, there is little chronological difference between tin and tin and lead ingots, scrap and non-vessel tin ‘objects’ or ‘artefacts’. Of the samples studied, most date to the 3rd-4th centuries. A number of tin and lead ingots with a high lead content can be satisfactorily dated to the 3rd-4th centuries at which time they appear to have been used quite widely on rural, military and particularly urban sites. The problems of dating tin ingots have already been discussed (Chapter 1:2.2) and reviewed by Tylecote (1986, 43-53), however, the few known dates for this group are also all 3rd-4th century and probably reflect a period of contemporary tin extraction in the southwest (Wedlake 1958, 85). Certainly all the high tin (c.99-100%) ingots occur on rural sites on the southwestern peninsula (e.g. Bayley 2004; Fox 1995), a region from which no tin and lead alloy ingots are known.

4.0 Summary of Grades of Manufacture Programmes of analysis for Romano-British tin alloys have conventionally sought to identify and codify specific groups of tin values. That such groups existed is well attested in Pliny’s (N.H XXXIV, 160-1) description of stagnum (pure/high tin), tertiarium (one part tin to two parts lead), argentarium (50% or 66% Sn), also used as a fake stagnum, and an alloy of one part of possibly bronze/brass108 to two parts tin (Beagrie 1989, 170-171). In this summary, I will suggest that these values are partly represented in the analysed samples. I will argue that the composition of tin and tin and lead vessels, non-vessel objects and ingots mostly reflect the use or rejection of four different alloy groups. Group 1 or ‘pure’ or high tin [100-89% Sn109], group 2 with a composition of c.60-80% Sn, group 3 with a composition of 58-38% Sn and group 4 or high or ‘pure’ lead [18-0% Sn]. Moreover, I will suggest that the rejection or acceptance of these four alloy values is dependent on how the tin and lead alloy was being consumed, most compellingly whether it was consumed by high (e.g. vessel manufacture) or low grade industry.

A similar chrono-spatial distribution can also be suggested for scrap and production debris analysed. High tin alloys again proliferated on rural sites in the southwest (Cleary 1998, 421). Outside the southwest lower tin, tin and lead alloy lumps (c.30-60% tin) are again evident in 3rd-4th century contexts across the rural settlement hierarchy, except in the limited production debris from military and urban sites which are near pure tin and lead respectively (for a detailed discussion refer to Chapter 2).

High Grade Manufacture for Vessels

Less is known about the production of non-vessel, tin and lead alloy objects. The only known date (no. M11 table 16) for a tin and lead alloy ‘object’ reviewed in this survey is 1st-2nd century, and so falls outside the known date range for analysed tin alloy scrap and ingots. In contrast there remains a strong spatial correlation between the distribution of non-vessel tin and lead alloy objects and scrap, in which high tin objects predominate on military sites, and high lead on urban. However, it seems probable that the range of high and low tin ‘objects’ was not wholly a reflection of access to certain tin and lead alloys, but rather reflected the selection of specific tin compositions from a range of alloys present in a settlement (perhaps evident in the Bath tablets) for a specific task. A detailed overview of the contexts and dates for all the material discussed is provided in Chapter 2.

The compositional value of nearly all the analysed tableware (excluding lamp bases/fillers) falls within a c.40100% tin range. Within this compositional range, three alloy standards appear to have been used, pure tin (Group 1) of c.89-100% Sn, c.61%-80% (Group 2) and c.58-38% Sn (Group 3). Curiously many forms, notably cups, plates, dishes and bowls, occur across the three alloy groups, but can be partially differentiated in terms of size: high tin (Group 1) was used mostly for small vessels [under 30 cms in diameter] and group 2 alloys used for plates with a diameter of over 30cm. The occurrence of other tableware [and vessels] is slightly less widespread. Spoons, canisters and platters are confined to alloy groups 2 and 1

145

108

Bronze being an alloy of copper and up to one third tin, and brass generally an alloy of copper and zinc.

109

Perhaps falling to c.85%, the relationship of jugs to this group remaining unclear.

respectively, and can be suggested as adhering to a specific alloy standard or range. Jugs and paterae are less restricted, occurring in groups 2 and 3110 and 1 and 3 respectively, although why this is so remains unclear.

that was perhaps produced for a specific purpose such as solder. A final group of manufacturing ingots with c.3-0% tin content in essentially lead ingots should also be noted. It is known that this quality of tin alloy was in use, most notably as lamp fillers/bases, and scrap of this composition has been found. However, whether the addition of tin in this group was recognised at the time, or whether it was treated solely as lead remains unclear.

Non-Vessel High, and Low Grade, Manufacture A number of non-vessel high-grade (manufactured as opposed to pre-manufacture – see below) tin alloys have been analysed. Within this group two alloy standards appear to have been used, pure tin and alloys of less than 40% tin. A number of objects (nos. M1-M2, M9 table 16) of near pure tin (Group 1) can be identified. It is probable that as for tin and tin and lead alloy vessels, these objects which include rings, chapes, buttons and decorative strips were sufficiently important to use a high tin alloy, perhaps for technical advantage, or more probably for aesthetics. The only other decorative item, a ring (no. M3 table 16), occurs within the alloy range for group 2 (c.66-73% Sn), alongside a lump of solder or production debris (no. M8), still within the alloy range for tin and lead alloy vessels.

4.1 The Chronological-Spatial Distribution of Tin and Tin/Lead Alloys The context, chronology and spatial distribution of tin and tin and lead alloy vessels and production debris have already been discussed in Chapters 2-4. In the remainder of this chapter, these chronological and spatial conclusions will be evaluated in relation to the compositional data for Romano-British tin and tin and lead alloys. Chronological Analysis

Of greater interest are the objects manufactured in alloys that have a tin content of below c.40% tin. It remains highly probable that these objects reflect an expedient industrial use. It is no coincidence that in such an expedient group are sealings (nos. M6-M7 table 16) and spindle whorls (nos. M4-M5 table 16) the latter in particular frequently made from cheap materials. The lowest tin group, group 4 (c.18-0% Sn), fulfil the roles of low-grade production, aside from a lead coffin (no. M11), most notably in the form of pipes (no. M18 table 16), bars (no. M16 table 16) and industrial vats (no. M19 table 16), but also as rivets (nos. M12-M13).

Chronological analysis has shown that there is a discrepancy between 1st-2nd and 3rd-4th century tin and tin and lead alloys. At a simple level the purity of the tin used in the production of high-grade alloys appears to decrease over time. In particular an upsurge in a number of alloy types (100-40% Sn) can be noted after the 3rd century AD. That early vessels were made of high tin alloys (Group 1), although long suspected (Beagrie 1989), has been proven by the analysis of 1st-2nd century finds (nos. B1 table 8, P2P3 table 6, C1-C2, ?C3 table 14) from the Walbrook (Jones 1983) and Killigrew (no. P19 table 6). However, it is a mistake to think only in terms of high tin vessels in the 1st and specifically the 2nd centuries, as at least two further contemporary alloy groups from London, essentially pure lead (Group 4) for lamp bases/fillers (nos. B1-B3 table 8) that fall within the range of the only known contemporary low grade non-vessel object (no. M11 table 16), and 6988% Sn (Groups 1 and 2) for spoons (nos. S1-S8, table 11 excluding S9 – the ligula), should be noted. It is not known how reflective these alloys were of available ingot compositions as it is not possible to accurately date tin ingots (Tylecote 1986, 43-53), and no tin and lead alloy ingots are known from 1st-2nd century contexts.

Pre-Manufacture/Manufacturing Ingots are perhaps the most accurate compositional indicator of the alloys that were being used to produce manufactured goods. Four different groups of alloys used in ingots can be suggested. The highest tin group, c.94100% (Group 1) was probably viewed as unadulterated tin, and in the case of the Cornish ingots this is essentially true (c.99%). Many vessels, non-vessel tin objects and much production debris occur around this range. A second grade of ingots can be noted at c.67-80%, equitable with counterfeit stagnum (Pliny N.H XXXIV, 160-1) (c.65%70% tin), and matches much of the group 2 alloys in which vessels predominate and from which production debris is known.

In contrast, the popular perception of tin and lead alloys is that they predominated in the 3rd century (Wedlake 1958, 85), as indeed they do. Conventionally this is taken to mean high lead, tin alloys. Certainly the most prolific tin and lead alloy for 3rd-4th century production remains group 2, but this corpus of material is distorted by the disproportionately large number of analysed vessels from the Appleshaw, and in particular, the Appleford hoards. A significant number of group 3 alloys (58-38%) should also be noted, but again the large numbers of Appleford finds must be considered. Perhaps surprisingly, a number of group 1 alloys, those that are pure or high tin, also occur in both the 3rd and 4th centuries, although it remains a possibility that these were ‘unique’ or ‘presentation’

The upper end of the group 3 objects (c.58-38%) is matched by a series of ingots of c.54-50% tin, and falls within Pliny’s (N.H XXXIV, 160-1) description of argentarium of equal parts of black and white (tin) lead. The lower end is perhaps unique as a possible reflection of a tertiarium, a lead/tin alloy with a composition of 33% tin,

110

And anomalously just below Group 1 at c.85% tin, but the tin value of this vessel may be misleading.

146

pieces, deposited centuries after manufacture (e.g. no. P21 table 6). However, it is notable that the compositional range of all three tin alloy groups (1-3) appear to match those for known 4th century ingots, notably argentarium, high or near pure tin, 67.4-68.4% Sn and 79.50 and 71.74% Sn, and that these alloy groups might reflect the tin alloy standards utilised within most of Roman Britain by this date. Certainly, it is evident that these alloys were worked after the 3rd century, as scrap from all three alloy groups has been identified.

British tin and lead alloys. I hope to have demonstrated that the compositional evidence for all the analysed tin alloys occurs in meaningful groups. Moreover, that such compositional difference is primarily the result of how specific alloys were perceived and so consumed, specifically the use of high tin alloys for high quality manufactured goods and low tin for low-grade industrial material. However, the effect of a wide variety of additional factors should not be underestimated. Of the analysed alloys, it appears that there is a strong tendency for variation in the level of tin in alloys that are either [or both] spatially or chronologically diverse. In particular an emphasis on the production of ‘pure’ tin in the 1st-2nd centuries AD, and in the southwest should be noted. However, how far such variation is representative of other tin alloys can only be answered through further analysis.

Spatial Analysis The analysed sample is too small to contribute much to discussion of the spatial distribution of material, but in general terms it seems to fall within the contexts and distribution discussed in depth in Chapter 2.

In particular, it is necessary to analyse tin and lead alloys from securely dated contexts so that the resultant compositional data exists within a meaningful chronological and social-spatial framework. Moreover, the nature of this analysis needs to be re-thought and the traditional fixation on lead and tin values replaced by a more sophisticated understanding of the kinds of questions that can be addressed by the study of all of a sample’s elements. Lastly, more thought should be given to how an object is analysed, specifically the possibility of compositional variation within the different components of a multipart vessel, and how this relates to [component/vessel] function.

It is unsurprising that pure tin (99% Sn or above) ingots occur only in the southwest, a region of tin extraction and probable tin export. Elsewhere, only tin and lead alloy ingots are known, the general standards for which can be guessed at in the ingot ‘cargo’ from Battersea, of which high tin and argentarium seem to be comparatively common.111 It has already been established that high and pure tin vessels occur within early urban centres in the south of Britain, most notably London. Conversely, after the 3rd century a wide range of tin and lead alloys was widely adopted, a probable consequence of increased tin recycling and production (discussed in Chapter 2). Lower tin 3rd-4th century tin alloys can be seen across Roman Britain, most notably from villas at Appleford and Appleshaw but also in rural and urban sites across the south (e.g. Brislington, Bath, Silchester) and east (e.g Whittlesea Mere, Sutton, Mildenhall, Isleham Fen). Tin contaminated lead finds can also be identified from London, Silchester, Springhead and Holborough, and high lead vessels from Ilchester and Totternhoe. Moreover, many of these tin and lead alloys were not restricted to the south, but as with tin alloy in general, occurred throughout Roman Britain, including on Roman military sites in the north of England.112 However, such analysis probably shows only very limited samples from a far wider range of tin alloys consumed. In particular we must acknowledge that the focus on tin alloy vessels and high-grade alloys is probably largely artificial, the result of both a Roman selection of vessels for hoarding, and a modern selective policy for their analysis, rather than representative of the entire tin and lead alloy industry itself. 4.2 Conclusion This chapter has sought to present and discuss all the known compositional evidence for analysed Romano111

Excluding tin contaminated lead ingots.

112

The comparatively low tin spoons from Kirkby [S5-S6] are probably from a vicus and not the associated fort.

147

Chapter 6: Conclusion

One of the main achievements of this book has been to collate, in one work, all of the known finds of RomanoBritish tin and tin and lead alloy tableware, as well as all known pewter moulds for vessel production, debris from pewter manufacture and compositional data for pewter vessels. In total seventy-eight moulds, ninety pieces of production debris, one hundred and seventeen plates or dishes, ninety-two bowls, sixty-two jugs, thirty two cups and twenty eight spoons of known forms have been recorded. The inclusion of catalogues of production moulds, vessel form data and compositional data will provide a useful corpus of data against which new finds of Romano-British pewter tableware and vessel production materials, as well as continental data, might be compared.

distribution and the types of sites that were producing pewter. If moulds alone are considered, there was a marked bias in production towards the 3rd-4th century urban centres (coloniae, civitas capitals and small towns) and villas, especially in Mendip, but also in the north, south and west of Roman Britain. A similar bias is evident for other production debris, with the additional identification of ‘assumed’ production centres (based on high densities of pewter tableware) not evident in the distribution of moulds, primarily in the small towns of central Britain, East Anglia and Kent and, uniquely, a large-scale hub of pre-3rd century production in London. In comparison, few non-villa rural sites such as villages have evidence for any form of pewter production. It can be suggested pewter production was a by-product of only ‘Romanized’ settlements, and did not penetrate far into the ‘non-Romanized’ rural population.

Perhaps of greater significance has been the analysis of the evidence for pewter production and consumption in contextual terms within this book. Of particular importance has been the question of how pewter tableware was manufactured and consumed (Chapter 2). Although remaining first and foremost a material study, this book has begun to identify not only how pewter tableware was used to express a range of social identities, but also, by viewing pewter sequentially from production to deposition, how tin supply and pewter production had shaped this pattern of consumption. It is the key results of this primarily contextual study that are reviewed in the remainder of this chapter.

However, the predominance of high tin production in southwestern ‘native’ rural sites, such as rounds and farmsteads, should act to remind us that local access to tin could be sufficient to act as a catalyst for expedient pewter production in any settlement type (e.g. Duckpool, Ratcliffe 1993; Killigrew, Cole, 1999, 202-203 and Mount Batten, Brown and Hugo 1983). Indeed, it was possibly a position as an early trading hub that enabled access to Spanish tin that caused the atypically early development of a tin industry in London. At a far broader level we can point at the disparity in production between the southwest and the Mendip region and eastern Britain as based on ‘easy’ access to Cornish tin and recycled metal respectively which, as Wedlake (1958, 82-97) suggests, perhaps explains the atypically prolific nature of production in the former region. It can therefore be suggested that, although the evidence is qualitatively poor, much pewter production appears to have been primarily founded on an easy access to tin, often as part of more diverse industrial activity (e.g. tin extraction, bronze and copper working, recycling, smelting), each of which was unique to the respective producer.

Hitherto, there has been a remarkably poor understanding of the impact of pewter production on the consumption of pewter tableware. Qualitatively good data for RomanoBritish pewter production remains remarkably limited, but nonetheless a careful contextual and material study of production materials allows some understanding of the nature of the industry to be developed. Pewter production is most commonly inferred from the presence of limestone moulds (such as those at Nettleton, Gloucester, Brislington, Witcombe, Wick and Westbury) high densities of which in Mendip have contributed much to the idea of the region as the centre of production for pewter tableware. An additional group of ‘assumed’ production centres suggested by high densities of pewter vessels, in for example the Fens, are likewise being validated through finds of pewter ingots scrap and production debris. Indeed, future work should seek to reappraise the evidence from such sites, most especially the metallic production debris, to identify production sites with, and without, datable markers of tableware production such as casting sprues. Of particular importance are the ‘pewter workshops’ at Camerton, Nettleton and Lansdown that provide the only qualitatively good data for pewter production because they consist of both structural information, moulds and production debris often in datable sequences.

As with pewter production materials qualitatively good data for Romano-British vessels also remains restricted, not least because of the large number of vessels retrieved as antiquarian or chance finds for which little context data is known. Nonetheless, a careful study of the available material, and, especially, context data allows some understanding of the ways in which pewter vessels were consumed (Chapter 3). As with moulds, the general contextual pattern for all forms of Romano-British pewter tableware appears to be primarily limited to urban and ‘Romanized’ high status rural sites such as villas with very few finds known from military or ‘native’ rural sites. In general terms this context pattern does appear to reflect the relative success and failure of ‘Romanization’ in which it can be assumed that pewter was ascribed some ‘symbolic’ social or economic value that most native communities could not afford, access, or had no need of. However, it is improbable that this value was only, as was widely

A combined material and contextual study of pewter manufacture in Roman Britain has demonstrated for the first time how widespread production was in terms of both 148

remind us that some groups of material could also retain or acquire ‘additional’, for example ritual, values that saw them deposited in atypical ways, such as in ‘crisis’ deposits.

assumed, as a high status dining equipment representative only of a ‘Romanized’ ‘lifestyle’. Even a broad study of primary or site contexts has demonstrated not only that the scale and contexts of pewter consumption for each vessel form varied over time, but that such variation can be linked to not one, but a range of socially ascribed, economic and functional choices.

The hoarding of pewter tableware in particular, when a depositional context is considered, illustrates the range of ‘additional’ meanings that could be attributed to different forms of pewter tableware (Chapter 4). As widely supposed, extensive tableware hoards (e.g. at Islip, Mildenhall, Manton and Attleborough) have been identified largely on ‘other’ rather than urban or rural site types, seemingly validating the assumed link between crisis hoards and an ‘elite’ consumption of pewter, in particular inferring such hoards as collections of dining plate (although some tableware hoards were meant for recycling e.g. at Ickham, Durston and Kilverston, refer to Chapter 4:1.1 for a discussion).

One such factor that affected the consumption of pewter tableware was, as I have previously suggested, fluctuating tin supply. It was not an initial failure in ‘Romanization’, but the relative lack of British tin that retarded the ‘mass’ production of pewter tableware before the 3rd century. At another level, there remains a strong spatial and even typographical link between workshops producing regional forms of tableware and the local consumption of their products. Biconical and globular jugs for example were both produced and consumed in Mendip; spoons were produced and consumed in the southeast, although the difficulty of matching vessels to incomplete bipartite moulds has largely prevented the identification of these relationships in detail. Similarly both pre 3rd century production and consumption was largely restricted to London.

However, the hoarding of pewter also reflected a complex range of ritual activity not distinguishable at a primary context level. The consumption of pewter jugs and dishes in wells, pits and shafts appears to reflect complex, structured pagan and Christian ritual activity across both the urban and rural settlement hierarchy. The use of inscribed chi-rhos on vessels and perhaps fish dishes suggests pit assemblages can be suggested as Christian ritual dining equipment for an agape (Boon 1992, 45-46; see also peacock and fonts; liturgical cups as in the Ely cup). Conversely deital inscriptions (e.g. Mars at Bossens) and ritual iconography sacralised vessels for pagan votive deposits, or held a ‘talismanic’ power. Non-inscribed pewter tableware also held a ritual significance; jugs were deposited seemingly as votives in river channels in Cambridgeshire, and pewter can be noted amongst temple equipment (the same is probably true of most deposition in ponds). Although outside the definition of hoarding, the presence of pewter in cremations and inhumations in particular reflects how the meaningful choice of pewter could subtly reflect a number of disparate native, ‘Romanized’ (cremation, e.g. Joy Wood; inhumation e.g. Lankhills) and continental identities (e.g. the ‘military’ grave at Richborough, Bushe-Fox 1949).

However, the rapid adoption of non-lead tin alloys such as bronze in the 1st-4th centuries suggests the production of pewter tableware was not only constrained by a lack of access to tin. It is probable that the slow appropriation of pewter vessels by high status or ‘elite’ communities was also related to a complex array of other socio-economic factors, such as declining tin costs and competition from ceramic, bronze, copper and silver fine wares that made the mass production of pewter tableware after the 3rd century viable. However, to convincingly demonstrate such a link, it is important to compare the spatial, chronological and contextual data for pewter vessels with comparable information for bronze, copper, silver and ceramic vessels, but such a study falls outside the scope of this work. Another important factor is the form of pewter tableware. As I have suggested, the predominance and indeed quantities of different forms of Romano-British tableware change over time. Decorated spoons predominate in the 1st2nd century, whilst type 1 and 2 jugs occur in the 3rd and 4th century respectively. In contrast, bowls, dishes and plates although proliferating in exceptional numbers in 4th-5th century contexts, are also known from pre-3rd century contexts. The large scale, diversity and even topographical and spatial distribution of post 3rd century pewter tableware can again be linked to increased tin supply and the resultant growth in the quantity and diversity of vessels available. However, such different consumption patterns also represent a shift in ‘consumer choice’ in which some material groups such as spoons lost significance amongst a new post 3rd century diversity of material, whilst other objects such as dishes and bowls became increasingly popular and appeared to maintain, or accrue, a high-status meaning across the urban and rural settlement hierarchy. Of especial importance are the high levels of bowls and especially dishes from ‘other’ contexts that should act to

What these collective differences illustrate is that although supply and even the respective failure and success of ‘Romanization’ provide the broad parameters for pewter consumption, the distribution of pewter vessels could be profoundly influenced by more complex ‘atypical’ personal choices that often invalidate the notion of simple association between site type and the consumption of particular forms of pewter tableware. Although these conclusions are promising, this study remains hampered by poor context and finds data, and a small sample size. There is now clearly a requirement to publish pewter finds more fully, and in particular, to realise that pewter finds need to be more fully integrated with other topographical and finds data; a comparative study of bronze and silver vessels would be especially useful, before more complex questions about the consumption of pewter tableware can begin to be addressed.

149

Finally, this book has concentrated on the composition of Romano-British pewter tableware that, although constrained by an inherently selective dataset biased strongly towards hoards, has identified a range of compositional markers indicative of different economic choices related to patterns of production and perceived value (Chapter 5). It has long been assumed that vessel size, quality of casting, date, form and social role have informed the choice of any one tin alloy. This assumption has been validated and expanded within this research with the realisation that component function (e.g. ‘tin’ jug handle; lead footrings no. B12), and the respective failure (e.g. reduced tin in less ‘visible’ lower ‘cones’ of jug bodies) and success in achieving a tin ‘standard’ (e.g. no. P10) could also be meaningful.

In conclusion, this book has at one level created a wideranging material study of Romano-British pewter and its production. At another level this book has also presented the first combined contextual study of pewter production materials and the consumption of pewter vessels. Although it remains true that some forms of tableware were selectively consumed by different communities (for example spoons in pre-3rd century urban centres), the usefulness of continuing to view pewter only in terms of a site type has been challenged. Of especial importance has been the suggestion that the consumption of pewter often reflected not the actions of a group, but rather a range of atypical and highly personal activity often indistinguishable at a site context level and visible only in a detailed study of depositional contexts.

However, PXRF analysis conducted within this book has also suggested that other aspects, such as the source of tin and lead used in vessel manufacture can be identified when a wider range of elements other than just tin and lead is considered. PXRF analysis of nine vessels from Silchester and the River Thames has identified patterns in the presence of copper, zinc, arsenic and iron. Whilst iron may well represent contaminants from lead smelting, copper and zinc concentrations could help to differentiate between recycled pewter and fake stagnums, processed (e.g. desilvered) and ‘raw’ metal sources. Indeed future work should seek to accrue more zinc, iron and copper values for all forms of pewter, to identify, for the first time, both regions that used recycled metals in vessel production, and, more importantly, the level of recycling, as well as the source of metals that have a discernable ore signature.

However, this book has also demonstrated the limitations that qualitatively poor data place on such a contextual study. At a general level more publication of detailed data is needed not just on Romano-British pewter tableware and production debris, but also on the related assemblages and contexts. It is especially important that there is recognition of how slight evidence for pewter manufacture and consumption can be. Only with such qualitatively rich data can a better dating framework and social context for both pewter production and consumption start to be developed. It is also increasingly apparent that the existing context and form data on pewter consumption needs to be integrated with comparable studies of high status bronze, copper, silver and ceramic fine wares so that a more complete picture of the ways in which tableware were used, in both ritual and secular activity, can be achieved. A simple diagnostic approach might be to look for indicators of use, such as use marks or repairs. However, some attempt should also be made to categorise rim and roundel designs on pewter vessels, so that as Peal (1967, 28-29) suggests, it may allow new points of chronological and stylistic comparison with non-pewter tableware.

A second factor identifiable through compositional analysis is the adoption of specific tin and lead values for functionally different groups of pewter. Collectively, all pewter tableware occurs within the compositional range of 43-100% Sn. At one level this reflects the use of many of the alloy ‘standards’ seemingly adopted within Roman Britain for pewter supply (ingots at c.94-100%, c.67-80%, c.54-50%, and c.3-0% tin), and the approximate standards known to have been worked (scrap worked in alloys of c.95-100%, c.74%, c.33-45%, and c.2-0% tin). However, as the compositional range of both ingots and scrap demonstrates, one alloy (c.41-0% Sn) falls largely outside of the range employed in vessel manufacture. Tableware then appears only to have been manufactured using a high tin alloy, also used for other decorative high status manufacture. Alloys of c.34-41% Sn in contrast appear to be used for utilitarian objects such as sealings, and spindle whorls, and alloys of c.18-0% Sn were almost wholly consumed in low-grade manufacture, and one can suggest were more widely consumed. Although the limited identification of these functionally different tin and lead alloy groups is important, the compositional evidence remains disproportionately biased towards high status vessels. Clearly there is a need in future work to systematically accrue compositional data for all pewter alloys if we are to develop a more detailed understanding of the Romano-British pewter industry, and the role of high status pewter objects within it.

Other areas of future research can also be suggested. A systematic technologically standardised, whether this is PXRF or destructive, analysis of the lead, tin and at least copper, iron, arsenic, silver, zinc, strontium and rubidium in all the components of pewter vessels, and production materials including tin and lead ore sources, needs to be conducted. Only such analysis can address important questions about the source of the tin and lead used in pewter production, for example whether imported and/or recycled tin was used. Finally, it is apparent that a significant sample of pewter tableware in France, Belgium and Holland remains to be engaged with, and there remains a profound need to view the British evidence within this wider context. It is striking that the consumption of Romano-British pewter remains atypical, with little late Romano-British pewter having military associations or occuring in graves, both of which were common practices on the Continent. Moreover some Continental pewter appears to have been produced locally using technology unknown in Roman Britain such as étain argenté (gilding, Beagrie 1989, 180). How far these 150

differences represent separate patterns of pewter production and consumption, and how far materials and even tableware such as spoons were traded, remain an important question that is yet to be addressed. Summary In summary, even though the evidence remains poor, and a number of questions remain, if detailed material analyses of production and consumption materials within both site and depositional contextual frameworks are adopted as an analytical tool, we can for the first time begin to provide a single model for the production, consumption and deposition of pewter tableware. In particular a number of key findings that will affect subsequent work on pewter tableware should be reiterated. One important realisation has been that pewter production can be represented by either mould or scrap assemblages. Moreover, in either case, the nature of the industry was generally small-scale, based on access to imported or local raw, or recycled, tin, both of which were more widely available, and more widely used, after the 3rd century AD. Although consumption was also necessarily constrained by access to tin and vessel supply, a study of primary or site contexts has demonstrated that pewter tableware also appears to have been selectively consumed, predominantly by urban and elite rural communities. In particular, different forms of tableware were subject to different uses by different social groups. Dishes and bowls in particular came to predominate after the 3rd century suggesting they had accrued a particular contemporary social value, for example as elite dining equipment. Examination of the secondary context of pewter tableware appears to validate an assumed link with elite consumption, evident in the high levels of dishes retrieved from high status ‘crisis’ hoards or caches. However, a study of secondary contexts has also demonstrated that pewter hoards could maintain a range of atypical Christian and pagan ritual functions, even between typographically similar sites. Finally, it remains important to understand that pewter tableware was part of a far larger pewter industry and that it is better understanding this industry as a whole that will help to refine the factors that shaped the consumption of pewter vessels.

151

Appendix 1: Lansdown Moulds

1.0 The Assemblage a Catalogue

4. (Fig. 58, no. DD1). One fragment of an external mould for making a small dish with a rim, made from indeterminate limestone. The hollow of the mould has been finely worked to create a dish with a narrow flat base from which a curved side ran outwards culminating in a straight vertical band from which a horizontal rim extends. The furthest point of the rim forms a raised lip on which the upper [internal] mould was probably seated.

The following catalogue contains forty-three pewter moulds retrieved from Lansdown near Bath. Unpublished and field walking finds have been illustrated in this catalogue; excavated finds have not (Bush 1905-1912; Gardner 1966). The moulds are listed by catalogue, not accession, number. 1. (Fig. 57, nos. PM1A, PM1B). Two fragments of an external113 mould for making a fluted dish made from indeterminate limestone. The hollow114 of the mould has been finely worked to provide flutes in relief that create dish walls that curve inwards towards the base. There is a groove in cavo-relievo115 in its base to form a footring. The upper surface of the mould has been worked to provide a rim. These moulds were probably held in place by use of hollows and bosses, a hollow being visible immediately beyond the rim on PM1B.

5. (Fig. 58, no. DD2 see also Davenport 1991). A complete external mould for making a jug neck or cup, made from indeterminate limestone. The interior of the mould is well worked and is reminiscent of the design of mould no. 4. The roughly hewn exterior and upper surface suggest the outside was either unfinished or that a fine finish was not required. 6. (Fig. 58, no. DD3). A complete external mould for making a dish made from indeterminate limestone. 210mm in diameter, of which its internal diameter is 170mm. Similar design to mould no. 4 as the mould produced a vessel with a flat base, curved side and horizontal lip. This mould has a footring in cavo-relievo on the flat base, from which a curved side ran vertically. If the upper lip is taken not as making a rim but rather wholly as a rest for an internal mould, then this mould may have been intended to produce pan bowls although there is no obvious ingate for casting if this use is accepted. Alternately this mould was intended to produce a bowl with rim.

2. (Fig. 57, nos. PM2A, PM2B). Two fragments presumed to be from the same internal116 mould for making a fluted dish, made from indeterminate limestone. The mould has been finely worked to provide inward curving flutes for the dish’s interior, whose tops have been defined in cavorelievo by a continuous arched line that has been used around the mould, with an incised circle above each of the lowest points in this décor band. A further cavo-relievo band has been used to form a row of boxes in each of which is a casting hole for a pellet design. Although probably of the same mould there are slight differences in the execution of these designs between PM2A and PM2B. On both PM2A and PM2B the base is largely incomplete, although the two surviving portions suggest it was [internally] plain and flat. The outer edge of this mould [as with most of the moulds from Lansdown] has been carved into a rough cylinder possibly to allow it to sit within an external mould (discussed below).

7. (Fig. 59, nos. DD4A, DD4B). Two fragments of an external mould for making a small dish, made from indeterminate limestone. Although smaller, this mould is of a similar nature to mould no. 6 retaining both a footring in cavo-relievo, marked by the fracture point on DD4B, and a curved bowl ending in a vertical band. The major difference with mould no. 6 is in the rim that can be closely compared to mould no. 4, as it retains a raised lip presumably to hold the upper mould.

3. (Fig. 57, no. PM3). One fragment of an internal mould for making a fluted dish, made from indeterminate limestone. Similar to mould no. 2, but smaller and with a more poorly executed cavo-relievo pellet design without surrounding decoration. Although the flute tops are picked out in cavo-relievo, they lack the incised circles of mould no. 2. Much of the base survives, and indicates that it was [internally] plain and flat.

113

External meaning the mould is used to cast detail on the vessel’s external surface.

114

Casting surface on an internal mould.

115

Incised or sunken groove to create an extant feature on the surface of any vessel cast in the mould.

116

Internal meaning the mould is used to cast detail on the vessel’s internal surface.

8. (Fig. 59, no. DD5). One fragment of an external mould probably for making a small dish, made from indeterminate limestone. The mould is now much deteriorated. 9. (Fig. 60, no. DD6). A fragment of an external mould possibly for making a small dish or cup or for making another vessel part, made from indeterminate limestone. A finely worked flat based vessel with a roughly worked central circle of stone, with a straight vertical wall, possibly with a horizontal flat lip into which an ingate appears to run. A straight cut across the mould separating it into two parts appears deliberate although the reason remains unknown.

152

Fig. 57: Fluted moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 1-3. PM1A (upper side), PM1B (upper side), PM2A (inverted), PM2B (inverted) and PM3 (inverted).

153

Fig. 58: Deep dish, cup or in the case of DD2, jug neck, moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 4-6. DD1 (upper side), DD2 (upper side) and DD3 (upper side).

154

Fig. 59: Deep dish moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 7-8. DD4A (upper side), DD 4B (upper side) and DD5 (upper side).

155

Fig. 60: Deep dish moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 9-12. DD6 (upper side), DD7 (upper side), DD8 (upper side) and DD9 (inverted).

156

10. (Fig. 60, no. DD7). One fragment of an external mould for making a small dish, made from indeterminate limestone. A similar design to mould no. 7 although the hollow surface is notably smoother. The form comprises a spherical bowl with flat base although a wide concentric circle around a plain central roundel has been used as a footring as on no. 10. The curved bowl ends in a vertical band. The horizontal rim is of the type noted on moulds nos. 6 and 9 as it retains a raised lip presumably to hold the upper mould.

in which an alternating pellet line design is evident. The flat profile of the moulds circular exterior edge suggests a use inside the kind of mould represented by no. 6. 17. (Fig. 62, no. BO3). One fragment of an internal mould for making a small dish, made from indeterminate limestone. A finely carved fragment of the upper part (including a section of a rim) of an internal mould. The upper portion of the mould was used to create a straight sided vessel with a rim that extended back from the vessel as a body flange. On the inside of the vessel rim was a band of decoration in cavo-relievo, of which one incised line is present, the second inferred by comparison with mould no. 16, containing an alternating raised pellet and raised vertical line design. The complete original form is unknown, as the lower part of the mould, the base and a complete section of the rim are lost.

11. (Fig. 60, no. DD8). A fragment of an external mould possibly for making a small dish or cup or for making another type of small vessel, made from indeterminate limestone. Only a finely worked flat base [with possible raised roundel similar to mould no. 9] and partial straight wall of this mould survives which means no clear indication of the intended form can now be discerned.

18. (Fig. 63, no. PM01). One fragment of an internal mould for making a small dish, made from indeterminate limestone. A well made fragment of an internal mould designed for a straight sided flat bottomed dish with a poorly executed pellet design in cavo-relievo within two incised lines, intended to show on a vessel rim. Similar, though with differences, to mould no. 19.

12. (Fig. 60, no. DD9). One fragment of an internal mould for making a small dish, made from indeterminate limestone. The fragment’s most prominent detail is the raised roundel created by a concentric channel carved in cavo-relievo at the base of the mould. The sides of the mould are spherical and appear to end in a partially surviving rim, suggesting this was an inner mould of the type that would have been used in mould no. 10, but surface encrustation and degradation make such detail unclear.

19. (Fig. 63, no. PM02). One fragment of an internal mould for making a small dish, made from indeterminate limestone. A finely carved fragment of an internal mould designed for a straight sided flat bottomed dish similar in nature to mould no. 18 although the transition between side and base is more rounded on this example. The mould has two bands of decoration, a band in cavo-relievo with pellet design for the vessel rim similar in nature and execution to mould no. 18. A second band in cavo-relievo for the inner surface of a vessel base comprising a repeating line design within two bands. Of particular interest is the finished upper surface of this mould that appears to have been rectangular or square in form rather than cylindrical, perhaps to fulfil a specific casting requirement such as a large rim.

13. (Fig. 61, no. DD10). One fragment of an external mould, possibly for making a flagon base, made from indeterminate limestone. A well-defined mould with an unusually small base with significantly sloping sides that end in a thin rim or provide a step for an upper mould to rest on. A repair of indeterminate date is evident on the mould’s upper lip. 14. (Fig. 61, no. DD11). One fragment of an external mould, possibly for making a flagon, made from indeterminate limestone. A poorly defined much degraded mould probably intended to replicate the style of mould no. 13. No base has survived and the rim is much damaged.

20. (Fig. 63, nos. PM3A, PM3B). Two fragments of an internal mould for making a dish, made from indeterminate limestone. Two finely made fragments of an internal mould designed for a straight sided flat bottomed dish similar to mould no. 19. A vessel cast in this mould would have had two different forms of decoration on it, a band of design for the upper surface of the vessel rim which, although less well executed, appears to replicate the rim design of mould no. 16 although with some differences. This decoration consists of a row of ‘petals’, depicted with arched topped squares in cavo-relievo. This decoration is followed by a band in cavo-relievo marked by two lines in between which is a regularly placed design of irregularly spaced pellets, perhaps as demonstrated on PM3B intended to be spaced by short lines as evident on mould no. 16, although most of these are now lost to erosion. This vessel also has a rosette design (see also PM3A) intended to stand raised on the vessel base. This consists of a central roundel in the form of ‘flower’ defined by eight poorly drawn loops in cavo-relievo surrounded by two bands of pellets

15. (Fig. 62, no. BO1). One fragment of an internal mould for making a small dish, made from indeterminate limestone. A finely produced internal mould with a curved bowl and flat rim. Its dimensions suggest that it was probably used with mould no. 10 or a mould of similar style although damage to the base (lowest point of the mould when in casting position) of the internal mould complicates this identification. 16. (Fig. 62, no. BO2). One fragment of an internal mould for making a small dish, made from indeterminate limestone. A finely worked internal mould with a curved spherical base and thin decorated flat rim. A band of decoration intended to show on the upper surface of any cast vessel from the mould consists of a row of ‘petal’ designs. These are formed from triangular tipped boxes that sit against an inverted alternating dogtooth design that forms one side of a further band of cavo-relievo decoration 157

Fig. 61: Flagon moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 13-14. DD10 (upper side) and DD11 (upper side).

158

Fig. 62: Internal dish moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 15-17. BO1 (inverted), BO2 (inverted) and BO3 (inverted).

159

Fig. 63: Internal dish moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 18-20. PM01 (inverted), PM02 (inverted), PM3A (inverted) and PM3B (inverted).

160

interspersed with lines, as on mould no. 16, between which a triangular dog tooth design has been carved in cavorelievo, the narrowest end facing outwards.

probably a beaded rim. 27. (Fig. 68, no. FD2). Two fragments of an external mould for making a large plate, made from indeterminate limestone. The mould is a fragment of a finely worked flat cylinder of similar nature to mould no. 26. The surface has two concentric rings in cavo-relievo, the inner of which can be seen as a footring, the second being either/both a footring or/and beaded rim. The mould has been mended at an unknown date. Of particular interest is the casting channel that runs into the centre of the vessel, from the rim that seems to link up the footrings. This suggests the [complete] mould was cast on its side.

21. (Fig. 64, nos. PM4A, PM4B, PM4C, PM4D). Four fragments presumed to comprise the same internal mould for making a dish, made from indeterminate limestone. Four finely carved fragments (PM4A, PM4B, PM4C and PM4D) form an internal mould designed for a straight sided flat bottomed dish similar to mould no. 19. The exterior of the moulds are finely carved into a [partial] cylinder suggesting these were intended to fit inside the hollow of an external mould in a way that was similar to mould nos. 10 and 15.

28. (Fig. 69, no. FD3). Fragment of a probable lathe turned internal mould for making a large plate, made from indeterminate limestone. The remaining central part of this mould comprises a finely worked slightly stepped surface. The stepping starts in a central boss, the inner part of which was probably a filled chuck point, and runs across the flat dish surface apparently terminating in a decorated rim. The band decoration in cavo-relievo comprises a line (though a second line can be inferred nearer the inner edge of the rim) behind which there is a design of alternating pellets and vertical [as in facing outwards] lines similar to the decoration on internal mould no. 17. Damage to the remainder of the mould makes discussion of the intended vessel form problematic.

22. (Fig. 65, no. PR1). One fragment of an external mould possibly for making a small dish, made from indeterminate limestone. The poorly executed mould has a roughly finished surface for all but the mould rim suggesting the mould was unfinished. The rim has a poorly executed pellet design carved in cavo-relievo similar to moulds nos.18-19. The carved rounded edge and underside appears to have been roughly worked suggesting this was a mould that had another use or that had been intended for use in a casting stack. 23. (Fig. 65, no. PR2). One fragment of an internal mould for making a small dish, made from indeterminate limestone. This mould, although very worn was probably of similar design to moulds nos. 18-19. The rim has a similar pellet design in cavo-relievo to mould no. 18, but the detail of this decoration has now been eroded. The curved nature of the mould edge suggests it was intended to fit internally within a mould of the kind represented by mould no. 10.

29. (Fig. 69, no. FD4). Fragment of a probable external mould for making a large plate, made from indeterminate limestone. The remaining part of the mould comprises a finely worked mould, now with surface deterioration and encrustation. The mould has two concentric circles, a small central footring and a second concentric circle that probably functioned as a footring/bead on the underside of the dish, beyond which there is a smoothed area, probably to hold the upper mould though no ingate is present.

24. (Fig. 65, no. PR3). One fragment of an internal mould possibly for making a fluted dish, made from indeterminate limestone. Only the rim survives from this finely carved mould. The base, now lost, was probably of similar design to mould no. 2. The rim design in cavo-relievo has a plain pellet design of similar nature to that found on moulds nos. 21-22, but executed with a higher degree of skill. Inwards of this beaded band was a band of interlocking S shaped designs, unique on the Lansdown moulds. Further inward are the lines that mark the upper end of regular cast flutes also evident on moulds nos. 1-3.

30. (Fig. 70, no. FD5). Fragment of a probable internal mould for making a plate, made from indeterminate limestone. The remaining part of this mould has deteriorated and appears to have a surface accretion. A possible raised dish rim can be suggested though not proven. 31. (Fig. 70, nos. FD6A, FD6B). Two fragments of a probable external mould for making a plate or dish, made from indeterminate limestone. The remaining part of this mould has deteriorated and appears to have a surface accretion similar to mould no. 30, and must have comprised a similar mould and vessel form to that evident on mould no. 9, though of shorter height.

25. (Fig. 66 and Fig. 67, nos. UD1A, UD1B, UD1C, UD1D, UD1E, UD1F, UD1G, UD1H, UD1I). Nine fragments of a presumed external mould possibly for making a dish, made from indeterminate limestone. The mould is heavily fragmented with some deterioration and encrustation of the surface. A probable rim with underside bead can be suggested.

32. (Fig. 71, no. FD7). One fragment of a probable external mould for making a plate, made from indeterminate limestone. The remaining part of this mould has deteriorated but must have once formed a mould for creating a shallow dish or plate with a raised rim. The outermost incised concentric circle seems to have provided a bead on the underside of the vessel rim.

26. (Fig. 68, no. FD1). One fragment of an external mould for making a large plate, made from indeterminate limestone. The mould surface has three concentric rings in cavo-relievo, the inner two of which can be seen as footrings, the third being either/both a footring or more

161

Fig. 64: Internal dish mould from Lansdown. No. 21. PM4A (inverted), PM4B (inverted), PM4C (inverted) and PM4D (inverted).

162

Fig. 65: External and internal dish moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 22-24. PR1 (upper side), PR2 (inverted) and PR3 (inverted).

163

Fig. 66: Dish mould from Lansdown. No. 25. UD1A (upper side), UD1B (upper side) and UD1C (upper side).

164

Fig. 67: Dish mould from Lansdown. No. 25. UD1D (upper side), UD1E (upper side), UD1F (upper side), UD1G (upper side), UD1H (upper side) and UD1I (upper side).

165

Fig. 68: Plate moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 26-27. FD1 (upper side) and FD2 (upper side).

166

Fig. 69: Plate mould and dish mould from Lansdown. Nos. 28-29. FD3 (upper side) and FD4 (upper side).

167

Fig. 70: Plate and/or dish moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 30-31. FD5 (inverted), FD6A (upper side) and FD6B (upper side).

168

Fig. 71: Plate and/or dish moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 32-33. FD7 (upper side) and FD8 (upper side).

169

Fig. 72: Plate and/or dish moulds from Lansdown. Nos. 34-35. FD9 (?upper side) and FD10 (?upper side).

170

Fig. 73: Various misc. moulds. Nos. 36-37, 39-40. VA5, VA6, VA8 and VA9.

171

Fig. 74: Mould from Lansdown, various. No. 38. VA7.

172

33. (Fig. 71, no. FD8). One fragment of an internal or external mould for making a plate, made from indeterminate limestone. The remaining part of this mould has deteriorated but still has a single line in cavo-relievo, seemingly too large for a footring or for internal decoration, although either is suggested by the fact this circle appears to run as a concentric circle around the base.

finished single band of stone. The remainder of the mould is much damaged or roughly carved. Use unknown. 39. (Fig. 73, no. VA8). One fragment of a miscellaneous mould, made from indeterminate limestone with some surface deterioration and accretion. Probably an internal mould for a small dish. Probably shown inverted, as what can be suggested as a possible casting channel is evident (pictured).

34. (Fig. 72, no. FD9). One fragment of an internal or external mould for making a dish or plate, made from indeterminate limestone. The remaining part of this mould although deteriorated has a single line in cavo-relievo with a band of smoothed surface on [at least] one side partially reminiscent of mould no. 17. Damage to the rest of the mould make the intended form unclear, although a roughly cut curved external wall can be seen in part as suggesting one edge of the mould is present.

40. (Fig. 73, no. VA9 see also Davenport 1991). One fragment of an internal mould for a dish or cup, made from indeterminate limestone with some surface deterioration and accretion. Finely finished internal mould with a roundended cylinder at one end. It can be suggested this mould was used as an internal mould for two separate vessels in one casting stack.

35. (Fig. 72, no. FD10). One fragment of an internal or external mould for making a dish or plate, made from indeterminate limestone. The remaining part of this mould has deteriorated, but a single line in cavo-relievo reminiscent of mould no. 34 remains, suggesting this mould was for a large plate, the line being suggested as a bead on the underside of the vessel.

41. (Bush 1907) A complete external flat dish mould reassembled from seven fragments, made of an indeterminate limestone for casting a flat dish with footring similar to moulds 26-27 (FD1-2) (not illustrated). 42. (Bush 1907). One fragment of a possible open mould, of an indeterminate material, possibly for casting a handle and decorative pewter objects (not illustrated).

36. (Fig. 73, no. VA5). One fragment of a miscellaneous mould, made from indeterminate limestone. Slight trapezoidal shaped mould fragment with central channel. Use unknown.

43. (Bush 1907). One fragment of a possible open mould of an indeterminate material possibly for casting decorative pewter objects (not illustrated).

37. (Fig. 73, no. VA6). One fragment of a miscellaneous mould, made from an indeterminate stone. Finely finished flat rectilinear mould. Contains on its surface a carved concentric circle that might identify this as a plate mould. A second carved channel that extends through a carved circle was for an unknown use, possibly for producing pendants.

There are three other limestone items of note, NM1-3, none of which are illustrated. These comprise two carved limestone balls with a single indent on their surface, and a cylindrical block interpreted as a small altar. It is possible these were also used as limestone moulds in some unknown capacity, although these are not so cited by either Bush (1912) or in subsequent catalogues. An additional ring and lunate mould has also not been cited because these were not used during vessel manufacture (Bush 1907).

38. (Fig. 74, no. VA7). One fragment of a miscellaneous mould, made from an indeterminate limestone. Finely

173

Appendix 2: Vessel Typology

2 Typology

forms (types 3, 4 and 7), compound, ribbed, cauldron and flanged cup bowls. Although predominating in the 4th century, most of these bowl types are known for the duration of Roman Britain. Decorated bowls are discussed in detail in Appendices 3-4.

Attempts to develop a typology for Romano-British tin and tin and lead alloy tableware has been systematically attempted for over a hundred years. For much of this material, a few basic forms have been identified and classified and these classifications are still widely used (Gray 1929; Clarke 1931; Stead and Rigby 1986; Sunter and Brown 1988, Earwood, Northover and Cool 2001; Jones and Sherlock 1996; Jones 1983; Barker 1901; Ashby 1907; Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933; Johns and May 1996; Peal 1967). However, nearly all of these studies looked only at a sub group of a single form.117 Few studies that allowed the creation of larger more cohesive typologies of groups of forms118 have been attempted. It is then, not the purpose of this paper to create a new typology, but rather to give order to those typological groups that are known, and attempt to classify within these groups new finds of tin and tin and lead alloy tableware (also termed pewter in the remainder of this appendix).

Spherical Bowls Spherical Bowls, Basic Forms – Type 2-2 (i), 2e-2e (iv) and 6-6a Three forms of basic spherical bowl have so far been identified. The simplest form is a simple squat spherical bowl (types 2-2 (i)) with a cast footring (table 21 nos. BE01-BE03, fig. 75) or pedestal (table 21 nos. BE04, fig. 75), that were first identified by Collingwood (1931), and which appear to occur only in 4th century contexts. A second, squat spherical bowl (type 2e-2e (iv)) that has a slightly ovoid form and rim has also been identified by Rodwell and Rodwell (1993), that occurs widely in late 4th or early 5th century contexts (table 27 nos. BS01-BS05, fig. 76). Thirdly, sloping sided semi-spherical bowls (type 66a) that occur largely in 3rd-4th century contexts should also be noted (table 22 nos. BM01-BM02, fig. 77). When more complex semi-spherical forms are studied, it can be realised that they are mostly derivatives of these three basic forms, especially Rodwell’s squat bowl with rim (type 2e), which predominate as the basic form for most flanged spherical vessels.

In this appendix all known forms of pewter tableware have been divided into five functional groups; bowls, spoons, jugs, cups and plates and/or dishes. For each group there is a typological and chronological (where known) discussion, broken down by form. Each object discussed is also listed in a table that provides further context, date and specific form details. Some objects representative of a particular type of form are also illustrated. No comparison with Romano-British non-tin and tin and lead alloy metal and ceramic vessels has been conducted as this falls outside the remit of this study.

Spherical Bowls with Flanged Rim and Body Flange – Type 2a-2a (i), 2b-2b (iii) A direct variant of the simple ‘spherical bowls’ (type 2) can be suggested as spherical bowls that have a body flange (type 2a) (table 23 nos. BO01, fig. 78) identified by Rahtz and Greenfield (1977) on type 2 vessels, but which are also evident on vessels (type 2a (i)) whose basic shape is similar to type 6 bowls, but which have a more complex sloping side and pedestal (table 23 nos. BO02-BO04, fig. 78).

2.1 Bowls So far circa ninety-two tin and tin and lead alloy bowls are known from Britain, of which forty-seven examples from six major typological groups have been published with illustrations. There remains no satisfactory distinction between what comprises bowls and dishes nor how to describe a bowl itself. In this typology aesthetic description such as ‘tazza’ or ‘chalice’ are disregarded and renamed as bowl. Bowl, in this appendix, is assumed to be any vessel that is too deep [e.g. half as high as it is wide] and/or narrow to be considered a dish.119 Falling within this group are six basic forms of ‘bowl’; spherical (type 2 and 6) which includes two derivatives with round and octagonal flanges respectively. Conical (type 1), and four miscellaneous 117

For instance a study of decorated biconical jugs not all biconical jugs per se.

118

For instance all jugs as opposed to just biconical jugs.

119

Although arbitrary, this division helps to emphasise the notion of a bowl as deep and narrow compared to the generally wider and shallower dish.

An alternative form of spherical flanged vessel where the flange sits not on the body per-se, but either as a rim, or slightly beneath the rim giving a lip (2b-2b (iii)) has been identified and discussed by Stead and Rigby (1986) (table 24 nos. BP01-BP05, fig. 79), the former form or ‘hemispherical’ bowls being discussed by Brown (1973) and Sunter and Brown (1988). Although a 4th century context can generally be attributed to this group, it is worth noting the latter form may be an exception by being as early as the 2nd century.

174

Fig. 75: Two basic forms of hemispherical bowls. A type 2 hemispherical bowl without a pedestal from Silchester and a type 2 (i) hemispherical bowl with a pedestal from Bath (after Sunter and Brown in Cunliffe 1988b, fig. 25, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford).

175

Fig. 76: Five basic forms of squat spherical bowls with lip/bead. A type 2e bowl from the Walbrook (after Jones 1983, fig. 5, reproduced by permission of Nick Griffiths and the Museum of London), a type 2e (i) bowl from Rivenhall (after Rodwell and Rodwell 1993, fig. 24, reproduced by permission of W & K Rodwell and the Council for British Archaeology), a type 2e (ii) bowl from Chichester (after Down 1989, fig. 27.7, reproduced by permission of Chichester District Council), a type 2e (iii) bowl from Dinorben (after Savory 1971, fig. 11, reproduced by permission of the National Museum of Wales) and a type 2e (iv) bowl from Bath (after Sunter and Brown in Cunliffe 1988b, fig. 25, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford).

176

Fig. 77: Two basic forms of squat semi-spherical bowls. A type 6 bowl from Bath (after Sunter and Brown in Cunliffe 1988b, fig. 25, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) and a type 6a bowl from Shapwick (after Gray 1939, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society).

177

Fig. 78: Two basic forms of squat spherical bowls with ovoid body flanges. A type 2a bowl [not to scale] from Chew Stoke (after Rahtz and Greenfield 1977, fig. 110) and a type 2a (i) bowl from Caerwent (after Boon 1992, fig. 5).

178

Fig. 79: 4 types of squat spherical bowl with high flange/rim, cast foot or pedestal. A type 2b bowl from Baldock (after Stead and Rigby 1986, fig. 63), and type 2b (i), 2b (ii) and 2b (iii) bowls from Appleford (after Brown 1973, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of D. Brown).

179

Spherical Bowls with Octagonal Rim and Body Flange – Type 2c-2c (iii), 2d-2d (iv)

Miscellaneous Bowl Forms ‘Compound’ Bowls – Type 1c

Sunter and Brown (1988) have also identified a second and more widely known 4th century form (2c-2c (iii)), identical to the squat spherical bowl with a body flange (2a-2b (iii)), except in this form the flanges are octagonal (table 25 nos. BT01-BT05 fig. 80). Two derivative versions of this form can be suggested. Firstly, as Sunter and Brown (1988) have observed, most octagonal dishes occur with a pedestal, a fact that has been known since the group was first identified (Gray 1929; Clarke 1931). Although seldom distinguished, there are in fact two variants of the pedestal form; a thin flanged (type 2c (ii)) bowl with either a low or high pedestal (Brown 1973, no. 7; see also bowl 15 from Bath), and a thick-flanged (type 2c (iii)) high pedestal bowl.

A number of dishes with a flat base, long straight sloping sides ending in a sharp rim are noted in this appendix (discussed below). However, there is also one deep bowl that has the same central features, consisting of a distended bowl with conical base and high flanged rim (table 28 no. BD01, fig. 83). Ribbed Bowls – Type 3-3a Two unique deep sloping sided spherical bowls, one with a pedestal, with near vertical bulbous (for example wider than the ring below) rims forming the top edge have been identified. In the more complex form, three rings can be suggested as forming the upper rim of the vessel, whilst on the pedestal form, only two rings are evident (table 29 nos. BH01-BH02, fig. 84). Only one form (BH02) has come from a known context that can be dated to the 4th century. There are marked similarities with the deep dish moulds from Lansdown (DD3 -DD9).

Secondly [as with group 2a-2b (iii)] a group of vessels with sloping octagonal ‘rims’ (table 26 nos. BR01-BR06, fig. 81) should also be noted. In perhaps its most literal form, this was intended or became an octagonal rim (types 2d-2d (iv)), the typology for which has been reviewed by Blagg, Plouviez and Tester (2004). A deviant or interim form, where there is a marked lip above the rim (see also bowl no. 7 from Appleford), has also been identified and discussed by Wickenden (1998). A number of variations on this basic form can be observed, most notably in the fluted octagonal bowl from Welney (Lethbridge 1951), and in the high pedestal bowl from Wey (BR06). It is interesting to wonder how or if the very elaborate octagonal rim and flange for this group denotes a special function.

Cauldron Bowls – Type 4-4a A group of so-called ‘cauldron’ (Sunter and Brown 1988) bowls (table 30 nos. BV01-BV02, BV04, fig. 83) have been noted from Bath (types 4-4a). In its purest form (type 4) this is a bowl with a squat oval form with a pedestal that has [compared to the body] a small mouth121 formed of the rim folded back to make a flange. It remains probable that although much squarer in general form, an example from Little Oakley was a poor copy of this form.

Conical Bowls Flanged Cup Bowls – Type 7 Everted Conical Bowls – Type 1, 1a-1a (ii) Two examples of a group of small spherical cup/bowls with wide flanges are known (type 7). If the 2nd century context date for the Lakenheath example is representative then this form is amongst the earliest for tin and pewter bowls (table 31 nos. BF01-BF02, fig. 84). However, exactly what these were and how they were used still remain unclear (see also the octagonal ‘cup’).

A number of flat bottomed conical bowls with a slight cast footring, straight everted sides and a deep bowl (table 20 nos. BC01-BC05, fig. 82), were first identified and discussed by Earwood, Northover and Cool (2001). It appears that although the context of the deep Abercynafon bowl is 3rd-4th century this might be deceptive, and an exact parallel from the Walbrook raises the possibility of a 1st-2nd century date for the form, and conversely the ‘Saxon’ bowl from Richborough, a far later date (Bushe-Fox 1949). Curiously shallower forms of this same bowl [excluding the second Abercynafon bowl that has everted sides] are seemingly 5th century (discussed below). A derivative version of the deep bowl without a footring but with a flanged rim, and occasionally a double wall (Matthews and Warren 1992), have been identified and discussed by Greep (1988), but no contextual dates are available for the group120 (table 20 nos. BC06-BC09, fig. 82).

120

2.2 Spoons Twenty eight tin and tin and lead alloy spoons are known from Britain, of which twenty three examples from three major groups have been published with illustrations. The typology for decorated spoons has been largely developed by Jones and Sherlock (1996), and Jones (1983) for undecorated spoons. Decorated spoons remain based on a small sample, the probable output of one workshop from which two of the three basic groups of spoons are now known; cochlearia (type 1) and pear shaped (type 2) spoons, and to which fiddle shaped spoons can probably be added. Unpublished forms would probably comprise at

Except for the Great Dunmow bowl that has a wide 3rd-5th date range.

121

180

An example from Radwell may also belong to this, or a similar, group.

Fig. 80: 4 types of squat spherical bowl with octagonal flange. A type 2c bowl from Bath (after Sunter and Brown 1988, fig. 25, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford), a type 2c (i) bowl from Meare (after Gray 1929, plate XII, reproduced by permission of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society), a type 2c (ii) bowl from Appleford (after Brown 1973, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of D. Brown) and a type 2c (iii) bowl [not to scale] from Hallivick (after Michaelis 1969).

181

Fig. 81: 5 types of squat spherical bowl with cast foot or pedestal, and an octagonal rim. A type 2d bowl from Hacheston (after Blagg, Plouviez and Tester 2004, fig. 83, reproduced by permission of Suffolk County Council), a type 2d (i) bowl from Great Dunmow (after Wickenden 1998, fig. 30, reproduced by permission of Essex County Council), a type 2d (ii) bowl from Welney (after Lethbridge 1951, fig. 2, reproduced by permission of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society), a type 2d (iii) bowl [not to scale] from Manton (after Peal 1967, plate. VI, reproduced by permission of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society) and a type 2d (iv) from Wey is not illustrated.

182

Fig. 82: 4 types of conical bowl. A type 1 bowl from Abercynafon (after Earwood, Northover and Cool 2001, fig. 3, reproduced by permission of the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust), a type 1a bowl [not to scale] from Ribchester (after Buxton and Howard Davies 2000, fig. 75), a type 1a (i) bowl from Totternhoe (after Matthews and Warren 1992, fig. 20) and a type 1a (ii) bowl from Great Dunmow (after Wilson, Wright and Hassall 1972, fig. 34).

183

Fig. 83: One basic form of deep conical based bowl with a high rim and flange. A type 1c bowl from London (after Mawer 1995, no. C3.Pe.3+).

184

Fig. 84: Two basic forms of squat spherical bowls with multiple rims. A type 3 bowl from Wilderspool (after Mat 1898, no. 25) and a type 3a bowl from Coldham (after Potter, Johns, Hall, Hassall and Shotter 1981, fig. 7).

185

Fig. 85: Two basic forms of bowls with ovoid section and pedestal. A type 4 bowl from Bath (after Sunter and Brown 1988, fig. 25, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford), and a type 4a bowl from Little Oakley (after Barford 2002, fig. 70, reproduced by permission of Essex County Council).

186

Fig. 86: One basic form of dished bowl with a wide flange. A type 7 bowl from London (after Parnell 1985, fig. 33).

187

188

189

190

191

192

least one additional form (Wedlake 1958; Bushe-Fox 1928). All the decorated spoons belong to the 1st-2nd century AD, with fiddle spoons perhaps lasting into the 3rd century. Decorated spoons and their importance are discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendices 3-4.

lidded flagon (Bishop and Dore 1988). Three basic forms of jug can be noted; biconical, narrow mouthed and globular. The dates for jugs generally fall within the 3rd4th centuries with biconical and the narrow mouth and globular forms forming both ends of the date range respectively. Decoration on jugs is discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix 4.

Cochlearia Spoons – Type 1-1a (i) A number of cochlearia or spoons with a flat circular bowl and [generally] iron handles are known (table 32 nos. SC1SC6, fig. 87). Most cochlearia are decorated and as a group have been comprehensively reviewed by Jones and Sherlock (1996). It is perhaps useful to differentiate between those decorated cochlearia whose handle has a ‘rat tail’ ending and those that don’t, but perhaps the more diagnostic feature of the group remains the choice of motif (discussed in Chapter 4). A non-decorated and dished version of cochlearia can also be noted from Chalk, as can a slightly cruder version identified by Draper (1985), but these remain rare in comparison with the decorated examples. Although the non-decorated examples are undated, the 1st-2nd century context of the decorated cochlearia is perhaps representative.

Biconical Jugs – Type 1-1b In the 19th century, Barker (1901, 285), in describing seven Romano-British pewter jugs from Brislington, first identified the most common and perhaps earliest (with most dated finds seeming to occur in mid 3rd-4th century contexts) form of Romano-British jugs, the biconical form. In their simplest form, biconical jugs have an ovoid body that consists of two cones soldered together onto which a handle [and sometimes neck] and footring/pedestal was attached (table 35 nos. JB1-JB20, fig. 90). Although Barker’s (1901) typology was refined shortly afterwards by Ashby (1907) who noted that biconical jugs tend to have either a plain (types 1-1a) neck or a decorated neck (type 1b) or a mouth123 moulding (1b (iii)) that often acts as a handle attachment; this typology still remains current.124

Pear Shaped Spoons – Type 2-2a (iii) Narrow Mouthed Jugs – Type 2-2d The most common form for tin and lead alloy spoons, are those with a flat pear shaped bowl (table 33 nos. SP1SP15, fig. 88) and separate [usually iron] handle, which as a group have been reviewed by Jones and Sherlock (1996). Again it is useful to differentiate between those spoons that end in a ‘rat tail’ on either the upper or under side of the spoon bowl, and those that have a handle that either extends into the bowl or to a plain soldered joint. As with the cochlearia it can be argued that the choice of motif is equally diagnostic. A dished variant of pear shaped spoons can also be noted from Lydney (SP1). Although the nondecorated examples are undated, the decorated pear shaped spoons where dated appear to come from early 2nd century contexts.

A second, generally 4th century group of Romano-British pewter jugs, the ‘narrow mouthed jug’ or a jug with a pear shaped body and dumbbell shaped flaring neck with a ring moulding, and either an inverted L (type 2c) or S (types 22a and 2d) shaped handle (table 35 nos. JN01-JN12, fig. 91), were identified by Lethbridge and O’Reilly (1933, 165). Only recently has this typology been amended (Johns and May 1996) with the recognition of an early form of this jug with a high pedestal (JN7).125 I would argue that the damaged flagon from Orton Hall (Mackreth 1996) might also be a poor undecorated (without a neck ring) copy of this group (type 2d). Globular Jugs – Type 3-3a (i)

‘Fiddle’ Spoons – Type 3 Sunter and Brown’s (1988) analysis of the pewter jugs from the Sacred Spring at Bath has identified a group of 4th century ‘Globular’ jugs (table 37 nos. JG1-JG3, fig. 92). Globular jugs are similar to the ‘Narrow Mouthed Jug’ except for a more spherical body, pronounced footring, and long straight undecorated (no neck ring) neck and lip, although these distinctions are lost in some of the poorer copies within the group (e.g. Sunter and Brown 1988, 21).

A third group of non-decorated pewter ‘fiddle’ (table 34 nos. SF1-SF2, fig. 89) spoons that have a dished tear [or fiddle] shaped body and iron handle have been identified by Jones (1983). These comprise the latest of the known spoons coming from 2nd-3rd century contexts. 2.3 Jugs To date, three major groups of Romano-British tin and tin and lead alloy jugs have been identified, from sixty-two known vessels of which thirty-six have published illustrations. Jugs have been variously described by their form, as flagon, jug, flask and ewer, but in this appendix all such terms are replaced by the term jug,122 except for a possible 122

Jug defined as a vessel with a two part body, neck, handle and foot/pedestal, taller than it is wide.

193

123

As on a scalloped mouthed jug from Moorfields (Wilmott 1984).

124

Accepting that a further variation of the biconical form is widely accepted as the two jugs from Appleshaw (Read 1905; Barker 1901; Gray 1937b), including an octagonal form.

125

Although seemingly wider than most of the examples from this group, it is possible that the Thatcham jug may also be a derivative of this group (Collingwood 1931).

194

Fig. 87: Two basic forms of cochlear spoons. A type 1 dished cochlear from Gestingthorpe (after Draper 1985, fig. 13, reproduced by permission of Essex County Council) and types 1a and 1a (i) spoons from Bury St Edmunds and London respectively (after Jones and Sherlock 1996, fig. 20.1, reproduced by permission of Nick Griffiths and the Museum of London).

195

Fig. 88: Four basic forms of pear shaped spoons. A type 2 pear shaped spoon and a 2a variant with a soldered handle, a 2a (i) variant on which the spoon extends into the handle from London and a type 2a (iii) with a rats tail underside from Carlisle (after Jones and Sherlock 1996, fig. 20.3, reproduced by permission of Nick Griffiths and the Museum of London).

196

Fig. 89: One basic form of type 3 fiddle shaped spoons from London (after Jones 1983, fig. 7, reproduced by permission of Nick Griffiths and the Museum of London).

197

taken as representative then this probably comprises the earliest of the drinking vessels with a context date of the mid 4th century.127

Miscellaneous Jug Forms Lidded Jugs? A lid presumed to come from a flagon has been discussed by Bishop and Dore (1988), and if correctly identified greatly increases the forms of jugs that are known.

2.5 Plates and Dishes So far three hundred and thirteen tin and tin and pewter plates and dishes are known from Britain, of which one hundred and fifty examples from six major groups have been published with illustrations.

2.4 Cups Currently thirty four tin and tin and lead alloy cups are known from Britain, of which maybe nine examples have been published with illustrations. There remains no satisfactory distinction between what comprises a small bowl and what constitutes a cup. In this paper, it is assumed that any vessel too small to have functioned as a bowl, and generally without a flange, is a cup.126 No basic typological groups are known for cups as the sample is too small to support such analysis. However, three basic cup forms can be suggested; eared (type 1), conical (type 2) and stemmed (type 3). The date range for cups appears restricted to the mid 4th-5th century. Decorated cups are discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendices 3-4.

There remains little distinction between what comprises a dish, and what a plate, the terms having seemingly becoming interchangeable. Terms such as ‘platter’ and ‘saucer’ are likewise used freely, but have little diagnostic power.128 In this paper, plate is a term used only to describe a flat vessel that cannot fulfil the same function[s] as the deeper ‘dish’. If this distinction is adopted then Peal (1967) only identifies one type of ‘plate’ [type 1]. The remainder are all forms of ‘dish’ [a vessel over twice as wide as it is high], within which there are five basic forms: curved, flanged, bent, flat and fish. Although retaining much of Peal’s typology,129 these forms represent a refined typology. Although predominating in the 4th century, plates and dishes are known for the duration of Roman Britain. Decorated plates and dishes are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 and Appendices 3-4.

Eared Cups – Type 1 Perhaps the definitive form of cup is evident in an early 5th century example from Shapwick, where a vessel comparable with contemporary cups in design, with a handle (a second opposing handle now lost) and small pedestal was found (table 38 no. CP01, fig. 93). It is interesting to note a further cup with hemispherical bowl and pedestal, but which has a lip ending in an octagonal flange similar to bowl BF02. Whether this once had handles is now unknown.

Plates Plates – Type 1 If the distinction outlined above between dish and plate is adopted then Peal (1967) only identifies one type of ‘plate’, type 1, flat with a bead, and on some plates a bead and on the underside a cast footring, the remainder all being all forms of ‘dish’ (table 42 nos. DC01-DC02 and DC08, fig. 97). One possible reason for the comparative rarity of this form is its early date, which if the context of the Camerton example is correct, is not later than the 3rd century (Wedlake 1958).

Conical Cups – Type 2-2a The largest group of cups are those that are conical, and with a cast footring or pedestal (table 39 no. CC01-CC05, fig. 94). Two examples of this group may be the early 5th century Manton cups whose splayed foot is reminiscent of type 1 cups, and indeed this group may represent an attempt to copy this form, although there is no evidence for handles on any type 2-2a cups. Two probable variants with a pedestal are also in evidence at Silchester. It is interesting to note two further variations of this type of conical vessel. 2 (i), a small bowl with a wide flanged lip (CC03). A conical vessel with raised double rimmed lip (type 2 (ii)). Stemmed Cups – Type 3 A third and unique form of cup is that of the stemmed cup, a vessel with a bowl on a long stem ending in a wide splayed foot (table 40 nos. CS01-CS03, fig. 95). Only one example of this type is known, from Appleshaw. However, it is probable that various cylinders may represent the lost stems of other such vessels. If the Appleshaw examples are 126

Although arbitrary, this division helps to emphasise the notion of a cup as a very small generally upright narrow vessel.

198

127

A 4th century type, flat cup [type 4] or a 2nd century flat paterae style cup with wide handle can be suggested, but is here classified as a bowl.

128

Although sometimes used to differentiate size equated probably erroneously with function.

129

The most widely adopted typology for Romano-British pewter dishes is Peal’s (1967), developed for c.234 plates/dishes using differences in the bead, rim, bouge and footring[s]. A further aim to develop a chronology failed, but the five basic groups of rim type established by Peal are still used.

Fig. 90: Six basic forms of biconical jugs. A type 1 plain form from Silchester, a type 1a form with high loop handle from Bath (after Sunter and Brown 1988, fig. 10, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford), type 1b and 1b (i) forms with neck ring from Brislington (after Barker 1901, plate. 1, reproduced by permission of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society), a type 1b (ii) with double neck ring from Winchester (after Butcher 1955, plate III) and a type 1b (iii) scalloped necked jug from London (after Wilmott 1984, fig. 4, reproduced by permission of the Museum of London). Form 1c from Appleshaw (after Engleheart 1905), an octagonal biconical jug is not illustrated.

199

Fig. 91: Five basic forms of narrow mouthed ring necked jugs. A type 2 plain form from the Old Slade river and a type 2c L shaped handled form of unknown origin (after Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933, plates. VI and V, reproduced by permission of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society). A type 2a S handled jug from Dragonby (after Johns and May 1996, fig. 11.44), a type 2b wide form from Thatcham (after Collingwood 1931, fig. 6, reproduced by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London) and a type 2d [not to scale] plain form from Orton Hall Farm (after Mackreth 1996, fig. 66).

200

Fig. 92: Three basic forms of globular jugs. A type 3 globular and type 3a poor copy of a globular form from Bath (after Sunter and Brown 1988, fig. 25, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford) and a wide mouthed form, 3a (i) from Appleford (after Brown 1973, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of D. Brown).

201

202

203

Fig. 93 [Top]: One basic form of handled cup. A type 1 cup from Shapwick (after Gray 1937a, plate. VI, reproduced by permission of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society). Fig. 94 [Bottom]: Two basic forms of conical cups. A type 2 cup from Manton (After Peal 1967, plate. VI, reproduced by permission of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society) and a type 2a cup from Silchester. A third example, a type 2 (i) cup is not pictured.

204

Fig. 95: One basic form of stemmed spherical cup. A type 3 cup from Appleshaw (Engleheart 1905, fig. 6, reproduced by permission of the Society of Antiquaries of London).

205

206

rim. One form of dish that does not sit with either group A or B is form 4a, which probably comprises a third group of dishes from group 4. The group identified and discussed by Earwood, Northover and Cool (2001) are shallow conical bowls with either slightly or heavily curved sides that arch outwards, a cast footring, and that sometimes end in a bead. Many parallels for this group exist, and it is possible that 4a forms are a variant of the shallow ‘deep bowls’ rather than a true ‘dish’, and certainly it shares a 3rd-4th century date range with the group. Three further forms, 4a (i) a circular or oval dish with either a slight everted edge ending in a rim, or non-everted (4a (ii)) forms with footrings were perhaps 2nd-3rd century variants of 4a. Type 4a (iii) may also be a very elaborate form from the group or from a separate group.

Dishes Curved Base Dish – Type 1a-1a (i), 1b-1b (i) Types 1a and 1b provide a comparatively unique form of dish, exceptional because they have both a curved profile either from the footring (type 1a) or from further along the body (type 1b), on the underside of the rim of which there is a bead, and no flange (table 42 nos. DC03-DC07 and DS09-DS10, fig. 96). Although Peal identifies the group with plate one through rim association, it is perhaps more likely that type 1a (i), the nearest form of this type to a flat plate, is a variant of type 1a, where the final angled side is far longer and shallower than on form 1a itself. The few context dates that are known for this group all place it within the 4th century (Brown 1973).

‘Bent’ Flat Dish – Type 2a (i) and 2a (iii) Flanged Dishes – Type A-Aa, B-Ba (ii), Bb-Bb (i), 4, 4 (i), 4a-4c (i), 4d-4d(ii), 4e

Peal (1967) suggests a further group of ‘dished’ or curved vessels in the dished 4th century form 2a, that has a flat base ending in a cast footring after which there is a long sloping ascent to a triangular rim, often with the extension of a untrimmed flange, though more often without (table 43 nos. DF10, DF12-DF13, fig. 99). A further variation of this type can now also be noted in the 3rd-4th century Camerton dish that has a flat base and ascending side, but the bead is distended and acts as an extension of the vessel’s base (type 2a (ii)). For Peal, the rim places this form within the flat dish group (types 2, 2a, 2b-2b (i), 2c), but it appears to fulfil a role that is more akin to both types 1a-1b and group 4 forms. A more compelling derivative can also be noted in the form of dish form 2a (iii), which is different to 2a (ii), primarily by the inclusion of a pedestal.

There are perhaps two archetypal early [1st-2nd] groups of flanged dishes termed by Peal (1967) as A and B. Although at one level the same form, a shallow dish with a wide beaded rim, there is an essential difference between the two forms (tables nos. 41 nos. DD01-DD12, fig. 98). Type A in section can be seen as flat but with a curved wall leading into a flange with a bead on the underside, although 4th century variants without flanges which I term Aa are also known. Conversely, type B is the same but with a straight everted wall and flange with the bead on the upper surface although again 4th century variants with type 2-2b (iii) rims and rims without a bead are known and termed Ba (i), Ba (ii) and Bb respectively, in this appendix. It is these two basic forms (A and B) that appear to form the two largest classes of dish, both contained within group 4. The first group, a derivative of form A is perhaps most evident on type 4c and in particular the 5th century type 4c (i), a flat bottomed vessel with a footring and a curved wall leading to a flat rim with a bead. Although the rim is considerably more complex than that on type 4c (i) by the addition of a small instep, form 4 (i) is also probably a derivative of this group. The second largest group of dishes have the straight everted side of form B, ending in a long flange with a bead. Where form 4 differs from group B is the flat flange and upper and lower bead, and certainly it is this group that predominates amongst Romano-British tin alloy vessels in the 4th and early 5th centuries (Brown 1973). Peal (1967) has noted a number of variations on form 4. The most prolific variant remains Peals (1967) 4th century type 4d. Essentially the same as form 4b (see below), this is shallower and with a bead only on the upper surface of the rim. The smaller type 4e and 4d (i) and 4d (ii) that are the same form as 4d except for a groove on the lee on the bouge (dish wall, Peal 1967, 24) are also evident but in negligible numbers. A more distinct variant group are the 4th century form 4b that are essentially the same as form 4, except the join to the rim and base are more rounded, and there is a bead on the upper surface of the

Flat Dish – Type 2, 2a, 2b-2b (i), 2c, 3, 3a, 3b Two significant groups of comparatively flat shallow dish can be noted. The larger group has been termed type 2 (types 2-2c) by Peal (1967). In all but type 2a (i), these forms are flat dishes with a substantial bead and a cast footring (table 43 nos. DF01-DF09, DF11, DF14-DF22, fig. 99). The only diagnostic difference is the raised bead that is a solid diagonal (type 2a) that appears to be the archetype for the group, variants of which have either (types 2b-2b (i)) a sloping rim of the same angle above the rim, or in the case of form 2c above and below the rim. Although contextual data is limited, it can be suggested that both groups have a 4th century date (Brown 1973). Although not a connection made by Peal (1967), it is probable that group 3 is a derivative of group 2. In particular it can be suggested types 3, and 3a, flat dishes with a cast footring and a triangular bead that goes above and below the plates surface are deviant versions of form 2c. Whether form 3b is also a deviant of this group is difficult to assess, as a raised rim ending in a bead on the vessels underside is perhaps more akin to type 1b, although if the rim alone is assessed, it is part of group 3 (Peal 1967).

207

Fig. 96: Four basic forms of dish. A type 1a curved dish [not to scale] and type 1b [not to scale] curved wall dish (after Peal 1967, fig. 4, reproduced by permission of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society), and type 1b (i) [not to scale] a raised foot version from Canterbury (after Frere 1987, fig. 103, © Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd) and a sloping walled type 1a (i) from Appleford (after Brown 1973, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of D. Brown).

208

Fig. 97: One basic form of plate. A type 1 plate from Camerton (after Wedlake 1958, fig. 57, reproduced by permission of the Bath and Camerton Archaeological Society (BACAS)).

209

Fig. 98: Twenty basic forms of shallow dish. Various types, A, B and 4-4e (after Peal 1967, fig. 4, reproduced by permission of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society) excluding dish type 4a (ii) which is from Baldock (Stead and Rigby 1986, fig. 63) and type 4a (i) which is from Fosse Lane (Leach and Evans 2001, fig. 48, reproduced by permission of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies). A type Aa and Ba (ii) (after Brown 1973, fig. 1, reproduced by permission of D. Brown), Ba (after Brown 1973, fig. 3, reproduced by permission of D. Brown) and Ba (i) dish from Appleford (after Brown 1973, fig. 2, reproduced by permission of D. Brown). A type Bb dish from Appleshaw (after Mawer 1995, no. C3.Pe.1). Bb (i) is not illustrated.

210

Fig. 99: Seven basic forms of flat everted bowls and one angular dish. Type 2, 2a, 2b, 2b (i), 2c are from various sources (after Peal 1967, fig. 4, reproduced by permission of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society). Type 2a (i) angular dish from Bath (after Sunter and Brown 1988, fig. 25, reproduced by permission of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford), a type 2a (ii) dish from Camerton (after Wedlake 1958, fig. 57, reproduced by permission of the Bath and Camerton Archaeological Society (BACAS)) and a type of angular bowl 2a (iii) pedestal dish from Icklingham (after Liversidge 1962, plate. I, reproduced by permission of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society). No type 3 or 5 dish is illustrated here. Refer to Chapter 4.

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

Fish Dish – Type 5

distinct group in the typology and so have been classified type 5, but no further sub division is useful, although it is worth noting that the fish dish from Appleshaw has an extended flange at the ends, not evident on the other forms (Chapter 4, fig. 32).

A group that Peal (1967) appears to have shown little regard for are the deep ovoid ‘fish’ dishes in the base of which a fish is usually inscribed. These should comprise a

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

Site Index

Site

County

NGR

Reference

Abercynafon Abington Pigotts Angel Court

Powys Cambs. London

SO075173 TL3044 TQ3281

Appleford Appleshaw Attleborough Baldock Bank of England Bardwell Barnwell Bath Battersea Beachamwell Benwell Bigbury Billingsgate Blackwardine Bosence Bossens Bottisham Lode Box Boxmoor Brislington

Berks. Hamp. Norfolk Herts. London Suffolk ?Northnts. Avon London Norfolk Tyne Devon London Here and Worcs. Cornwall Cornwall Cambs. Wilts. Herts. Avon

SU522935 SU302477 TM049937 TL2433 TQ3281 TL935745 ?TL0484 ST7564 TQ2876 TF7505 NZ2164 SX607465 TQ3281 SO5356 SW0051 SW0051 TL4965 ST8268 TL0406 ST6170

Brough Brougham Bucklersbury

Cumbria Cumbria London

NY7914 NY5429 TQ3281

Bury St Edmunds Caerhays Caerleon Caerwent

Suffolk Cornwall Gwent Gwent

TL8564 SW9642 ST3390 ST469905

Caister by Sea Cam Camerton Canterbury Carlisle Carnanton Carrawburgh Carvossa Catterick Chalk Chesterholm Chew Stoke Chew Valley Chichester Church Stretton Cirencester Cliveden Cogenhoe

Norfolk Cambs. Avon Kent Cumbria Cornwall Nthumb. Cornwall N. York. Kent Nthumb. Somerset Somerset W. Sussex Shrop. Glos. Berks. Northnts.

TG5212 -----ST6856 TR1457 NY3956 SW8764 NY8571 SW919483 SE2299 TQ677730 NY7766 ST5760 ST5760 SU861047 SO4593 SP0201 SU9184 SP8260

Earwood, Northover, and Cool 2001. Pigott 1891, 111-112. Jones 1983. Jones and Sherlock 1996, 165. Brown 1973. Engleheart 1905. Wilson and Wright 1964. Bayley 1986, 144. Jones 1983. Owles 1970. ----------------------------------Cunliffe 1988b. Mawer 1995, 96-98. Davies and Gregory 1991, 97. Smythe 1938, 260. Fox 1995. Jones and Sherlock 1996. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 73. Stanley 1870. Stanley 1870. Peal 1967. Brekspear 1904, 31-32. Tylecote 1962. Branigan 1972. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 82-83. Smythe 1938, 261. Cool 2004. Jones and Sherlock 1996. Jones 1983. Jones and Sherlock 1996, 172. Stanley 1870. Boon 1970, 57. Ashby 1907, 12-13. Boon 1992, 45-46. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 81. Wright 1962, 196. Wright 1953, 122-123. Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933, 166. Wedlake 1958. Frere 1987a, 274-276. Jones and Sherlock 1996, 172. Warner 1967. Richmond and Gillam 1951, 88. Carlyon 1987. Wilson 2002, 300-303. Johnston et al. 1972. See Vindolanda. Rahtz and Greenfield 1977. Rahtz and Greenfield 1977. Down 1989, 202. Tylecote 1962. Michaelis 1969. Wedlake 1958. Hollowell 1971, 1.

243

Colchester

Essex

TL995252

Coldham

Cambs.

TF4302

Copthall Court

London

TQ3281

Corbridge

Nthumb.

NY9864

Croughton Custom House Dinorben Dragonby Duckpool Durston Edlington

Northnts. London Denbig. Lincs. Cornwall Northnts. Yorks

SP5433 TQ3281 SH9675 SE9014 SS1911 SP7260 SK5397

Elderberry Farm Fosse Lane Frocester Gatcombe Gestingthorpe Glastonbury Gloucester Glynde Godmanchester Great Dunmow Green St. Hacheston Halangy Hallivick Harlow Hengistbury High Rochester

Cambs. Somerset Glos. Avon Essex Somerset Glos. Sussex Hunting. Essex Sussex Suffolk Isle of Scilly Cornwall Essex Dorset Nthumb.

TL6474 ST615435 SO7802 ST5269 TL8238 ST5039 SO8318 TQ460088 TL258712 TL6221 TV6099 TM3157 SV9112 SW7533 TL4612 SZ1691 NY8398

Hockwold Holborough Housesteads Hunts House Ickham Icklingham

Norfolk Kent Nthumb. London Kent Suffolk

TL753870 TQ7062 NY7868 TQ3281 TR2258 TL7872

Icklingham [Berners Heath] Ilchester Irchester Ireby Isleham Fen Isleworth Islip Joy Wood Kenn Moor Killigrew Kilverstone Kirkby Lakenheath

Suffolk Somerset Northnts. ?Cumbria Cambs. London Northnts. Kent Somerset Cornwall Norfolk Cumbria Suffolk

TL799754 ST5222 SP9166 ? NY2338 TL6474 TQ3281 SP991785 TQ7752 ST423677 SW846513 TL883840 NY6325 TL7182

?Landwade Langton Lankhills Little Oakley

Cambs. N. Yorks. Hampshire Essex

TL6268 SE8167 SU481306 TM2229 244

Peal 1967. Wedlake 1958. Potter, Johns, Hall, Hassall, and Shotter 1981, 95-96. Mawer 1995, 21. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 82. Allason Jones and Bishop 1988, 202. Smythe 1938, 260. RCHME 1982, 38. Jones and Sherlock 1996, 169. Savory 1971, 50. Johns and May 1996. Ratcliffe 1993. Wedlake 1958. Clark 1936. Smythe 1938, 261. Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933. Leach and Evans 2001, 177. Price 1983, 62. Branigan 1977. Draper 1985. Gray 1937b. Garrod and Heighway 1980. Marsden 1979. Frere and Tomlin 1991, 303. Wickenden 1998, 36-38. Whitley 1892. Blagg, Plouviez and Tester 2004, 123. Ashbee 1970. Gray 1929, 106. Wilson, Wright and Hassall 1971, 272-73. Bushe-Fox 1915. Smythe 1938, 260. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 79. Wilson and Wright 1968, 194. Tylecote 1962. Smythe 1938, 260. Taylor-Wilson 2002. Beagrie 1989. Liversidge 1962. West and Plouviez 1976. Liversidge 1959. Smythe 1938, 260. Wedlake 1958. Tylecote 1962. Wedlake 1958. Jones 1983. Dix 1987, 154-155. Smythe 1883. Rippon et al. 2000. Cole 1999, 202-203. Gurney 1991, 168. Jones and Sherlock 1996. Martin, Plouviez, and Ross 1984. Michaelis 1969. Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933. Goodall 1972. Brown 1979. Barford 2002, 91.

Londinium London - Unknown London Bridge Lydney Manchester Manea Manton

London London London Glos. Manch. Cambs. Wilts.

TQ3281 TQ3281 TQ3281 SO6102 SJ8398 TL4889 SU1768

Mawgan Meare Meare Heath

Cornwall Somerset Somerset

SW7025 ST4541 ST4440

Melandra Castle Mildenhall [West Row] Moorfields Neatham Nettleton New Bottle North Kite North Oxon

Derby. Suffolk London Hamp. Wilts. Northnts. Wilts. N. Oxon.

SK009950 TL7175 TQ3281 SU742412 ST8276 SP5236 SU112404 ------

Northwold

Norfolk

TL7597

Old Slade Oldbury Flats Orton Hall Ospringe Pakenham Par Beach Plymouth Pout Hall Princes Street Quaveney Radwell Reading Ribchester Richborough

Cambs. Glos. Northnts. Kent Suffolk Isles of Scilly Cornwall Cambs. London Cambs. Beds. Berkshire Lancs. Kent

TL6474 ST6092 TL1696 TQ9961 TL9270 SV9215 SX4753 TL5469 TQ3281 -------TL010574 SU7173 SD649351 TR325602

Rivenhall Royal Exchange Rushall Down Sandy

Essex London Wilts. Beds.

TL8217 TQ3281 SU 1660 TL1848

Scunthorpe Selsey Shapwick/Shapwick Heath

Lincs. Suffolk Somerset

SE8910 SZ8593 ST4340

Shepperton

Surrey

TQ070662

Shingham Silchester

Norfolk Hamp.

TF7605 SU640625

Southwark Springhead St Albans

London Kent Herts.

TQ3279 TQ6172 TL1307 245

Barber, Bowsher and Whittaker, 1990, 9. Mawer 1995, 96-97. Mawer 1995, 21. Wheeler and Wheeler 1932. Watkin 1879, 22. Wright 1956, 138. Peal 1967. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 77. Beagrie 1983. Gray 1929, 105-106. Gray 1929. Peal 1967. Smythe 1938, 258. Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933, 166. Wilmott 1984, 9. Millett and Graham 1986. Wedlake 1982, 236. RCHME 1982, 38. Crawford and Keiler 1928, 254. Mawer 1995, 23. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 81. Davies and Gregory 1991, 98. Wright 1960, 228. Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933. Allen and Fulford 1992. Mackreth 1996. Whiting, Hauley and May 1920. Martin, Plouviez and Feldman 1986, 143. Wright 1950, 110. Smythe 1938, 255-256. Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933, 166. Jones and Sherlock 1996, 169. Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933. Hall 1973. Stevens 1895, 101-104. Buxton and Howard Davies 2000. Bushe-Fox 1928. Bushe-Fox 1932, 84. Bushe-Fox 1949, 80. Rodwell and Rodwell 1993, 50. Jones 1983. Peal 1967. Greep 1988. Johnston 1974. Peal 1967. Michaelis 1969. Gray 1937a. Gray 1937b. Gray 1939. Bird, Crocker and McCracken 1989, 182-183. Mottram 1970. Blagg and Read 1977. Clarke and Fulford 2002. Fulford 2001. Fulford and Timby 2000. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 80. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 77-88. Penn 1968, 172. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 81.

St Austell St Ives St Just St Mawes Stamford

Cornwall Huntingdon. Cornwall Cornwall Lincs.

SX0252 TL3072 SW3631 SW8433 TF0207

Stanwick Stokesley Stretham Mere Suffolk Sutton

Northnts. N. Yorks. Cambs. Suffolk Cambs.

SP972716 NZ5208 TL515745 -----TL4479

Tallington Thatcham Thistleton Totternhoe Towcester Tower of London Trereife Trethurgy Uley Up. Thames Verulamium/River Ver Vindolanda Vintry Walbrook Wandsworth Weeting Welney

Lincs. Berks. Leics. Beds. Northnts. London Cornwall Cornwall Glos. London Herts. Nthumb. London London London Norfolk Cambs.

TF0908 SU5067 SK9017 SP9820 SP690487 TQ3281 SW4529 SX0355 ST7899 TQ3281 TL134072 NY7766 TQ3281 TQ3281 TQ2575 TL778878 TL5294

Westbury Wey Whiston Whittlesea/Whittlesey Wick Wickford

Wilts. Hants. Northnts. Cambs. Avon Essex

ST 8650 SU4829 SP8460 TL2797 ST7071 TQ762937

Wilbraham Wilderspool Winchester Winston Wisbech Witcombe

Cambs. Cheshire Hamp. Suffolk Cambs. Glos.

TL5457 SJ6186 SU4829 TM1861 TL450077 SO9114

Witham Woodbury Wookey Hole Wroxeter York

Essex Devon Somerset Shrop. York.

TL8114 SY298973 ST532479 SJ565088 SE603521

246

Smythe 1938, 257-258. Peal 1967. Brown 1970. Beagrie 1983. Mawer 1995, 24. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 82. Neal 1989, 165. Greene 1955, 118-119. Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 76. Clarke 1931. Lethbridge and O’Reilly 1933, 166. Mawer 1995, 20. Peal 1967. Collingwood 1931. Wright 1959, 113. Matthews and Warren 1992, 85. Brown 1975, 163. Parnell 1985, 65. Smythe 1938, 257. Bayley 2004. Leach and Woodward 1993, 209. Jones 1983. Wright 1957, 232. Jones and Sherlock 1996. Jones and Sherlock 1996, 168. Jones 1983. Mawer 1995, 96-98. Grew, Hassall, and Tomlin 1980, 375-376. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 82. Lethbridge 1951. Fowler 1950. Beagrie 1989. Peal 1967. Steane 1976. Hall 1992. Scarth 1884. Tomlin and Frere 1991, 72. Wilson and Wright 1970, 291. Taylor 1990. May 1898. Butcher 1955. Maynard 1952, 216. Denham, Evans, Malim and Reynolds 1996. Blagg and Read 1977. Holbrook 2003. Turner 1999, 265. Bidwell and Silvester 1984. Wright 1953, 123. Beagrie 1989. Tweddle 1986.

Bibliography

Ainsworth, C. & Ratcliffe-Densham, H. 1974. Spectroscopy and a Roman cremation from Sompting, Sussex. Britannia, 5, 310-316.

Barker, W. 1901. Remains of a Roman Villa discovered at Bristlington, Bristol, 1899. Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society Transactions, 24, 183-93.

Alexander, J. 1987. Sociological Theory since 1945. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bayley, J. 1986. Pewter and lead objects, in I. Stead & V. Rigby (eds.), Baldock Excavation 1968-72. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

Alexander, J. 1988. Action and the Environment. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bayley, J. 2004. Tin ingot, in H. Quinnell (ed.), TrethurgyExcavations at Trethurgy Round, St Austell: Community and Status in Roman and Post Roman Cornwall. Cornwall County Council.

Allason Jones, L. & Bishop, M. 1988. Excavations at Roman Corbridge: the Hoard. London: Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.

Bayley, J., Mackreth, D. & Wallis, H. 2001. Evidence for Romano British Brooch Production at Old Buckenham, Norfolk. Britannia, 32, 93-118.

Allen, J. & Fulford, M. 1992. Romano-British and later geoarchaeology at Oldbury Flats: Reclamation and settlement on the changeable coast of the Severn Estuary. The Archaeological Journal, 149, 82-123.

Beagrie, N. 1983. The St Mawes ingot. Cornish Archaeology, 22, 106-111.

Appadurai, A (ed.) 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beagrie, N. 1989. The Romano-British pewter industry. Britannia, 20, 213-244.

Appadurai, A. 1988a. Introduction: Place and voice in anthropological theory. Cultural Anthropology, 3(1), 1620.

Beagrie, N. 1991. Corroded tin from West Park Roman Villa, Rockbourne, Hampshire. The Archaeological Journal, 146, 554-584.

Appadurai, A. 1988b. Putting hierarchy in its place. Cultural Anthropology. 3(1), 36-49.

Beik, L. 1994. Tin Ingots found at Praa Sands, Breage, in 1974. Cornish Archaeology, 33, 57-70.

Appleby, C. 1975. Parochial check lists of antiquities – Hundred of Penwith E. Division 6: Parish of St Erth. Cornish Archaeology, 14, 112-116.

Bennett, J. 1980. A Romano-British Settlement at Cattybrook Almondsbury, Avon. Bristol: CRAAGS. Bidwell, P. & Silvester, R. 1984. A Roman site at Woodbury, Axminster. Devon Archaeological Society Proceedings, 42, 33-57.

Ashbee, P. 1970. Excavations at Halangy Down St Mary’s, Isle of Scilly, 1969-70. Cornish Archaeology, 9, 69-195. Ashby, T. 1907. Excavations at Monmouthshire. London: Nichols and Sons.

Caerwent,

Binford, L. 1961. A new method of calculating dates from kaolin pipestems, Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter, 9.1.

Aston, M. 1987. The Archaeology of Avon. A Review from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages. Bristol: Avon City Council.

Bircher, J. & Bird, S. 1991. A catalogue of recent and casual finds and observations from Bath and around, in P. Davenport (ed.), Archaeology in Bath 1976-1985. Exeter: OUCA.

Barber, A. & Walker, G. 1998. Home Farm, Bishops Cleeve: Excavation of a Romano-British occupation site 1933-34. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 116, 117-139.

Bird, D., Crocker, G. & McCracken, J. 1989. Archaeology in Surrey 1987. Surrey Archaeological Collections, 79, 179-190.

Barber, B., Bowsher, D. & Whittaker, K. 1990. Recent excavations of a cemetery of Londinium. Britannia, 21, 112.

Bird, J., Hassall, M. & Sheldon, H. (eds.). 1996. Interpreting Roman London. Oxford: Oxbow Monographs.

Barford, P. 2002. Excavations at Little Oakley, Essex, 1951-1978: Roman Villa and Saxon Settlement. Chelmsford: Essex County Council.

Bishop, M. & Dore, N. 1988. Excavations at the Roman Fort and Town 1947-1950. London: Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England.

247

Blagg, T., Plouviez, J. & Tester, A. 2004. Excavation of a Large Romano British Settlement at Hacheston, Suffolk, 1973-1974. Ipswich: Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service.

Brown, D. 1982. Archaeology in Northamptonshire 1981. Northamptonshire Archaeology. 17, 99-103. Brown, D. 1985. The making of pewter tableware in Roman times, in G. Miles & A. Pollard (eds.), Lead and Tin Studies in Conservation and Technology, Occasional Papers 3. London: The United Kingdom Institute for Conservation.

Blagg, T. & Read, S. 1977. Roman pewter moulds from Silchester. Antiquaries Journal, 57, 270-76 Blair, R. 1880. Roman leaden seals. Archaeologia Aeliana, 8, 57-59.

Brown, D. & Strong, D. (eds.) 1976. Roman Crafts. London: Duckworth.

Boon, G. 1970. Excavations on the Site of the Basilica Principiorum at Caerleon 1968-69. Archaeologia Cambrensis, 119, 10-63.

Brown, P. 1970. A Roman pewter mould from St Just in Penwith, Cornwall. Cornish Archaeology, 9, 107-10.

Boon, G. 1991. Plumbum Britannicum and other remarks. Britannia, 22, 317-22.

Brown, P. 1973. A Roman pewter hoard from Appleford, Berks. Oxoniensia, 38, 184-206.

Boon, G. 1992. Traces of Romano-British Christianity in the West Country. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 110, 37-52.

Brownsword, R. & Pitt. E. 1984. X-ray fluorescence analysis of English 13th-16th century pewter flatware. Archaeometry, 26(2), 237-244.

Booth, P. 1998. Defining small towns in Roman Britain. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 11, 613-23.

Burnham, B. 1995. Small towns: The British perspective, in A. Brown (ed.), Roman Small Towns in Eastern England and Beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Boulakia, J. 1972. Lead in the Roman world. American Journal of Archaeology, 76(2), 139-44.

Burnham, B. 2001. Themes for urban research c100 BC to AD 200, in S. James (ed.), Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Bradley, R. 1990. The Passage of Arms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Branigan, K. 1972. The Romano-British villa at Brislington. The Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 116, 78-85.

Burnham, B. & Wacher, J. (eds.) 1990. The 'Small Towns' of Roman Britain. London: Batsford. Bush, T. 1905a. Preliminary exploration in the second field east of the Grenville Monument Lansdown, June 1905. Proceedings of the Somersetshire Arcaheological and Natural History Society, 50, 57-68.

Branigan, K. 1977. The Excavation and Study of a Romano-British Villa Estate 1967-1976. Oxford: British Archaeological Report. Branigan, K. & Fowler, P. 1976. The Roman West Country. London: David and Charles.

Bush, T. 1905b. Exploration on Little Down Field, Lansdown, September 1905. Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 50, 69-80.

Brekspear, H. 1904. The Roman villa at Box Wiltshire. The Archaeological Journal, 61, 1-32.

Bush, T. 1906. Explorations on Lansdown, May 1906. Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 51, 110-30.

Brill, R. 1967. Isotope studies of ancient lead. American Journal of Archaeology, 71, 63-77. Brill, R. & Wampler, J. 1967. Isotope studies of ancient lead. American Journal of Archaeology, 71(1), 63-77.

Bush, T. 1907. Explorations on Lansdown, May 1907. Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 52, 152-74.

Brown, A. 1975. Archaeology in Northamptonshire 1974. Northamptonshire Archaeology, 10, 153-163.

Bush, T. 1909. Langridge, Lansdown. Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 54, 32-3.

Brown, C. & Hugo, T. 1983. Prehistoric and RomanoBritish finds from Mount Batten, Devon: 1979-1983. Devon Archaeological Society Proceedings, 41.

Bush, T. 1910. Stoneham Down Field, Langridge. Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 55, 72-4.

Brown, D. 1979. Pewter vessels in G. Clarke (ed.), The Roman Cemetery at Lankhills, 206-208. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

248

Clarke, G. 1979. The Roman Cemetery at Lankhills. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bush, T. 1911. Site of Roman occupation. Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 56, 126-8.

Clarke, L. 1931. Roman pewter bowl from the Isle of Ely. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 31, 6675.

Bush, T. 1912. Twelve Acres Field, Upper Langridge Farm. Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 57, 184-90.

Clark, M. 1936. Roman Yorkshire: Edlington Wood. Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 32, 461-463.

Bush, T. 1913a. Summary of the Lansdown explorations 1905-1912. Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 58, 246-52.

Clark, M. 1940. Roman Yorkshire, 1940. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 33, 222-37.

Bush, T. 1913b. Twelve Acres Field 1913. Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 58, 246-58.

Clarke, S. 1993. The pre industrial city in Roman Britain, in E. Scott (ed.), TRAC 1st Conference Proceedings, 4966. Hong Kong: Avebury.

Bushe-Fox, J. 1915. Excavations at Hengistbury Head. Oxford: The Society of Antiquaries.

Clarke, S. 1998. Social change and architectural diversity in Roman Period Britain, in C. Forcey (ed.), TRAC 97, 2841. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Bushe-Fox, J. 1928. Excavation at Richborough No. VII. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clarke, S. 1999. Architectural and social change during the Roman Period, in A. Leslie (ed.), 3rd Theoretical Roman Archaeology and Architecture Conference, 111-121. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.

Bushe-Fox, J. 1932. Third Report on the Excavation at Richborough, Kent. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bushe-Fox, J. 1949. 4th Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough at Kent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cleary, E. 1998. Roman Britain in 1997. Britannia, 29, 365-445.

Butcher, S. 1955. Interim report on excavations in St Georges Street, Winchester, 1954. Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, 19(1), 1-11.

Cole, R. 1999. Recent work by the Cornwall Archaeological Unit, 1997. Cornish Archaeology, 38, 190203.

Buxton, K. & Howard Davies, C. 2000. Bremetenacum at Roman Ribchester 1980, 1989-1990. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Coles, J. & Simpson, D. (eds.) 1968. Studies in Ancient Europe. Bristol: Leicester University Press. Collingwood, R. 1931. Roman objects from the Stanwix and Thatcham. Antiquaries Journal, 11, 37-45.

Byrd, F. 1994. Public and private, domestic and corporate: The emergence of the southwest Asian village. American Antiquity 59(4), 639-66.

Collingwood, R. & Myers, J. 1937. Roman Britain and the English Settlements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Caley, E. 1964. Analysis of Ancient Metals. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Collingwood, R. & Wright, R. 1990. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, Vol. 2 – Instrumentum Domesticum, Fasicule I. Gloucester: Alan Sutton

Carlson, J. 1977. Analysis of British and American pewter by X-ray fluorescence Spectroscopy. Winterthur Portfolio, 12, 65-85.

Colls, D. 1977. ‘L’Épave Port Vendres II et le Commerce de la Bètique à L’Époque de Claude. Archaeonautica, I.

Carlyon, P. 1987. Finds from the earthwork at Carvossa, Probus. Cornish Archaeology, 26, 103-144.

Cookson, N. 1987. The Christian Church in Roman Britain: A synthesis of archaeology. World Archaeology, 18, 426-433.

Carter, G. 1966. Analysis of copper and brass coins of the early Roman Empire. Science, 151, 196-197.

Cool, H. 2004. The Roman Cemetery at Brougham, Cumbria, Excavations 1966-67. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

Clarke, A. & Fulford, M. 2002. The Excavation of Insula IX, Silchester: The 1st 5 Years of the Town Life Project. Britannia, 33, 129-166.

Cool, H., Lloyd Morgan, G. & Hooley, A. 1995. Finds from the Fortress. The Archaeology of York. The Small Finds. York: CBA for York Archaeological Trust.

Clarke, D. 1952. Archaeology in Leicestershire 1939-51. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological Society, 28, 17-48.

249

Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B. 1980. The World of Goods – Towards an Anthropology of Consumption. New York: Penguin.

Crawford, O. & Keiler, A. 1928. Wessex from the Air. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Creighton, J. 1995. Visions of power: Imagery and symbols in Late Iron Age Britain. Britannia, 28, 297-324.

Down, A. 1989. Chichester Excavations. 6. Woking: Unwin Brothers.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Rochberg-Halton, E. 1981. The Meaning of Things – Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Draper, J. 1985. Excavations by Mr H. P. Cooper on the Roman Site at Hill Farm, Gestingthorpe, Essex. Chelmsford: Archaeology Section Essex County Council.

Cunliffe, B. 1988a. The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. Vol. 1. The Site. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph.

Earwood, C., Northover, P. & Cool, H. 2001. Two pewter bowls from a mire in South Wales. Britannia, 32, 279-85.

Cunliffe, B. 1988b. The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. Vol. 2. The Finds. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph.

Eaton, E. & McKerrell, H. 1976. Near Eastern alloying and some textual evidence for the early use of arsenical copper. World Archaeology, 8(2), 169-191.

Cunliffe, B. 1988c. The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph.

Eckardt, H. 2002. Illuminating Roman Britain. Montagnac: Editions Monique Mergoil. Eckardt, H. & Crummy, N. 2006. ‘Roman’ or ‘native’ bodies in Britain: The evidence of late Roman nail-cleaner strap-ends. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 25(1), 83-103.

Cunliffe, B. 2005. Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and Wales from the Seventh Century BC until the Roman Conquest (4th edn.). London: Routledge.

Edmondson, J. 1989. Mining in the later Roman Empire and beyond: Continuity or disruption. Journal of Roman Studies, 79, 84-102.

Curle, A. 1923. The Treasure of Traprain: A Scottish Hoard of Roman Silver Plate. Glasgow: Maclehose, Jackson and Co.

Eisenstadt, S. 1990. Functional analysis in anthropology and sociology: An interpretative essay. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 243-260.

Davenport, P. 1991. Archaeology in Bath 1976-1985. Exeter: OUCA.

Elkington, D. & Vinver, D. 1985. A Roman pig of lead found at Syde Gloucester. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 103, 209-11.

Davies, E. 1950. Miscellanea: Discovery of a Roman lead pig in Flintshire. Archaeological Cambrensis, 101, 83-86. Davies, J. & Gregory, T. 1991. Coinage from a ‘Civitas’: A survey of the Roman coins found in Norfolk and their contribution to the archaeology of the ‘Civitas Icenorum’. Britannia, 22, 65-101.

Elkington, H. 1976. The Mendip lead industry, in K. Branigan and P. Fowler (eds.), The Roman West Country, 183-197. London: David and Charles. Ellison, A. 1980. Excavations at West Hill, Uley, 1977-9: A Native Roman and Christian Ritual Complex of the 1st Millennium A.D.; 2nd Interim Report. Bristol: CRAAGS.

Day, D. 1997. Change and evolution in Roman Britain. British Archaeology, 30.

Engleheart, G. 1905. On some buildings of the Romano British period discovered at Clanville near Andover, and on a deposit of pewter vessels of the same period found at Appleshaw, Hampshire. Archaeologia, 56, 1-20.

Dayton, J. 1971. The problem of tin in the ancient world. World Archaeology, 3(1), 49-70. Deetz, J. 1996. In Small Things Forgotten. New York: Anchor Books.

Engleheart, G. 1925. On Roman buildings and other antiquities. Hampshire Field Club Papers and Proceedings, 9(2), 214-218.

Denham, T., Evans, C., Malim, T. & Reynolds, T. 1996. Fieldwork in Cambridgeshire: September 1994 – May 1995. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 94, 167-86.

Evans, E. 1994. Military architects and building design in Roman Britain. Britannia, 25, 143-64.

Dillehay, T. 1990. Mapuche Ceremonial Landscape, social recruitment and resource rights. World Archaeology, 22(2), 223-241.

Evans, J. 2001. Material Approaches to the identification of different Romano British site types’, in S. James & M. Millett (eds.), Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda, 26-35. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Dix, B. 1987. Archaeology in Northamptonshire 1985-6. Northamptonshire Archaeology, 21, 153-59. 250

Goodburn, R., Wright, R., Hassall, M. & Tomlin, R. 1976. Roman Britain in 1975. Britannia, 7, 290-392.

Farnsworth, M. & Simmons, I. 1963. Coloring agents for Greek glazes. American Journal of Archaeology, 67(4), 389-396.

Gosden, C. & Marshall, Y. 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology 31(2), 169-178.

Fowler, G. 1950. A Romano-British village near Littleport, Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 43, 7-20.

Gray, G. 1929. Notes. Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 75, 98-109.

Fox, A. 1995. Tin ingots from Bigbury Bay, South Devon. Devon Archaeological Society Proceedings, 53, 11-23.

Gray, G. 1937a. A hoard of Late Roman coins from Shapwick Heath, Somerset. Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Proceedings, 82, 163-170.

Frend, W. & Hadman, J. 1994. A deposit of Roman lead from North Lodge Farm Barnwell, Northants. Britannia, 25, 213-244.

Gray, G. 1937b. A second hoard of late Roman coins from Shapwick Heath, Somerset. Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Proceedings, 83, 147-52.

Frere, S. 1974. Britannia: A History of Roman Britain. London: Cardinal. Frere, S. 1987a. Canterbury Excavations: Intra and Extra Mural Sites. Maidstone: Canterbury Archaeological Trust.

Gray, G. 1939. Metal vessels found on Shapwick Heath, Somerset. Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 85, 191-202.

Frere, S. 1987b. Britannia; a History of Roman Britain (3rd edn.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Greene, D. 1955. Roman Archaeological Journal, 38.

Frere, S. and Tomlin, R. 1991. Roman Britain in 1990. Britannia, 19, 221-311.

Greene, P. 1970. The Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 114, 104-5

Frere, S., Hassall, M. and Tomlin, R. 1985. Roman Britain in 1984. Britannia, 16, 251-332.

Greep, S. 1988. A late Roman pewter vessel from Sandy. Bedfordshire Archaeology, 18, 112.

Frere, S., Hassall, M. and Tomlin, R. 1988. Roman Britain in 1987. Britannia, 19, 415-508.

Grew, F., Hassall, M. & Tomlin, R. 1980. Roman Britain in 1979. Britannia, 11, 345-417.

Frere, S., Hassall, M. & Tomlin, R. 1989. Roman Britain in 1988. Britannia, 20, 257-345.

Gurney, D. 1991. Archaeological finds in Norfolk 1990. Norfolk Archaeology, 41(2), 230-239.

Fulford, M. 2001. Links with the past: Pervasive ‘ritual’ behaviour in Roman Britain. Britannia, 32, 199-218.

Hall, D. 1973. Rescue excavations at Radwell Gravel Pits. Bedfordshire Archaeological Journal, 8, 67-92.

Fulford, M. & Timby, J. 2000. Late Iron Age and Roman Silchester. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

Hall, D. 1992. The Southwest Cambridgeshire Fenlands: Cambridge: Cambridge Archaeological Committee.

Yorkshire.

Yorkshire

Fulford, M. & Timby, J. 2001. Timing devices, fermentation vessels, ‘ritual’ piercings? A consideration of deliberately ‘holed’ pots from Silchester and elsewhere. Britannia, 32, 293-297.

Hanlan, J., Stolow, N., Grant, J. & Tolmie, R. 1970. Application of non-dispersive X-ray fluorescence analysis to the study of works of art. Bulletin of the American Group. International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, 10(2), 25-40.

Gardner J. 1966. Excavations on Lansdown. North Somerset Miscelleny, 1 pamphlet.

Harker, S. 1982. Latest from Springhead, in S. Harker (ed.), Kent Archaeological Review, 195.

Garrod, P. & Heighway, C. 1980. Excavations at Nos. 1 and 30 Westgate St Gloucester. Britannia, 11, 73-115.

Harrold, F. 1980. Early man: Some precise moments in the remote past. World Archaeology, 12(2), 195-211.

Gillings, M. & Pollard, J. 1999. Non-portable stone artefacts and contexts of meaning: The tale of grey weather. World Archaeology, 31(2), 179-193.

Haselgrove, C. 2001. Understanding the British Iron Age an Agenda for Action. Salisbury: Trust for Wessex Archaeology.

Goodall, I. 1972. Industrial evidence from the villa at Langton, East Yorkshire. The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 44, 32-37.

Hatcher, J. & Barker, T. 1974. A History of British Pewter. Haverfield, J. 1923. The Romanization of Roman Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 251

Johns, C. & May, J. 1996. A pewter flagon from Dragonby Well F45, in J. May (ed.), Dragonby Report on Excavations at an IA and RB Settlement in N. Lincolnshire, Vol 1, 310-313. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Hayter, A. 1921. Excavations at Segontium: Interim Report. Archaeologia Cambrensis, 76, 19-52. Hendon, J. 1991. Status and power in classic Maya Society: An archaeological study. American Anthropologist, 93(4), 894-918.

Johns, C. & Pickin, J. 1993. Late Roman silver spoons from Spennymoor, County Durham. Britannia, 24, 258261.

Henig, M. & Munby, J. (eds.) 1977. Life and Art in Britain. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Johnson, A. 1983. Roman Forts. London: A and C Black. Hill, J. (2001) Gender and class: Recent approaches to identity in Britain and their possible consequences, in S. James (ed.), Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda, 12-18. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Johnston, D. 1974. The Roman settlement at Sandy, Bedfordshire. Bedfordshire Archaeological Journal, 9, 3554. Johnston, D., Arthur, J., Metcalfe, C., Eastham, A., Morgan, G., Woodhead, A., Reece, R. & Lowther, A. 1972. A Roman building at Chalk near Gravesend. Britannia, 3, 112-148.

Hodder, I. 1991. Reading the Past – Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodges, R. & Smith, K. 1991 Developments in the Archaeology of the Peak District. Sheffield: Collis Publications.

Jones, C. 1983. A review of the Roman lead-alloy material recovered from the Walbrook valley in the city of London. Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 34, 49-59.

Holbrook, N. 2003. Great Witcombe Roman Villa, Gloucestershire. Field surveys of its fabric and environs 1999-2000. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society, 121, 179-201.

Jones, C. 1989. A Roman sieve spoon from London. Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 40, 27-34.

Hollowell, R. 1971. Aerial photography and fieldwork in the Upper Nene Valley. Bulletin of the Northamptonshire Federation of Archaeological Societies, 6, 1-21.

Jones, C. & Sherlock, D. 1996 Early decorated spoons from London, in J. Bird, M. Hassall & H. Sheldon (eds.), Interpreting Roman London. Oxford: Oxbow Monographs.

Hughes, M. 1980 The analysis of Roman tin and pewter ingots in W. Oddy (ed.), Aspects of Early Metallurgy. British Museum Occasional Paper No. 17.

Kopytoff, I. 1986. The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process, in A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hurst, H. (ed.) 1999a The Coloniae of Roman Britain, New Studies and a Review. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Lang, J. & Holmes, R. 1983. Studies on the technology of beaded rims on late Roman silver vessels. Britannia, 14, 197-205.

Hurst, H. 1999b Topography and identity in Glevum Colonia, in H. Hurst (ed.), The Coloniae of Roman Britain, New Studies and a Review, 152-160. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Lang, J. & Hughes, J. 1984. Soldering Roman silver plate. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 3(3), 77-107.

James, S. 2001. Soldiers and civilians: Identity and interaction in Roman Britain, in S. James & M. Millett (eds.), Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda, 77-89. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Laurence, R. 2001. Roman narratives – The writing of archaeological discourse – A view from Britain. Archaeological Dialogues, 8(2), 90-121. Leach, P. & Evans, C. 2001. Fosse Lane Shepton Mallet 1990. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

James, S. & Millett, M. (eds.). 2001. Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda, York: Council for British Archaeology.

Leach, P. and Woodward, A. 1993. The Uley Shrines. London: English Heritage.

Jarret, M. 1964. Legio II Augusta in Britain. Archaeologia Cambrensis, 113, 47-63. Johns, C. 1996. The classification and interpretation of Romano-British treasures. Britannia, 27, 1-16.

Leech, R. 1976. Larger agricultural settlements in the West Country, in K. Branigan & P. Fowler (eds.), The Roman West Country, 142-161. London: David and Charles.

Johns, C. & Bland, R. 1994. The Hoxne late Roman treasure. Britannia, 25, 165-173.

Leonard, M., Preusser, F., Rothe, A. & Scilling, M. 1988. Dieric Bouts’s ‘Annunciation’. Materials and techniques: 252

Mattingly, D. 1997b. Beyond belief? Drawing a line beneath the consumer city, in H. Parkins (ed.), Roman Urbanism. London: Routledge.

A Summary. The Burlington Magazine, 130.1024, 517522. Lesure, R. 1999. Platform architecture and activity patterns in an early Mesoamerican village in Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology, 26(4), 391-406.

Mawer, F. 1995. Evidence for Christianity in Roman Britain. BAR Publishing.

Lethbridge, T. 1951. Roman pewter from the ‘Old Croft’ river at Welney. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 44, 18-21.

May, J. 1996. Dragonby Report on Excavations at an IA and RB Settlement in N. Lincolnshire, Vol 1. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Lethbridge, T. and O’Reilly, M. 1933. Archaeological notes. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 33, 65-66.

Maynard, G. 1952. Recent archaeological fieldwork in Sussex. Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History, 25, 205-216.

Liversidge, J. 1959. A new hoard of Romano-British pewter from Icklingham. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 62, 6-10.

Merrifield, R. 1962. Coins from the bed of the Walbrook and their significance. Antiquaries Journal, 42, 38-52. Merrified, R. 1987. The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic. London: Book Club.

Liversidge, J. 1962. A bronze bowl and other vessels from Icklingham, Suffolk. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 55, 5-7.

Merton, R. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.

Mackreth, D. 1996. Orton Hall Farm: A Roman and Early Anglo-Saxon Farmsted. Manchester: Nene Valley Archaeological Trust.

Michaelis, R. 1969. British Pewter. London: Ward Lock and Co. Limited.

Malinowski, B. 1939. The group and the individual in functional analysis. The American Journal of Sociology, 44(6), 938-964.

Miles, G. & Pollard, A. (eds.) 1985. Lead and Tin Studies in Conservation and Technology, Occasional Papers 3. London: The United Kingdom Institute for Conservation.

Manning, W. 1972. Ironwork hoards in Iron Age and Roman Britain. Britannia, 3, 224-250.

Millett, M. 1990a. The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marsden, F. 1979. Roman pewter plate from Glynde. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 117, 229-30.

Millett, M. 1990b. Romanisation: Historical issues and archaeological interpretation, in T. Blagg & M. Millett (eds.), The Early Roman Empire in the West, 65-74. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Martin, E., Plouviez, J. & Ross, H. 1984. Archaeology in Suffolk 1983 – Archaeological finds. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History, 35(4), 321325.

Millett, M. 2001. Approaches to urban societies, in M. Millett & S. James (eds.), Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Martin, E., Plouviez, J. & Feldman, H. 1986. Archaeology in Suffolk 1985 – Archaeological finds. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and History, 36(2), 139144.

Millett, M. & James, S. (eds.) 2001. Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Mat, T. 1898. Roman fortifications recently discovered. Transactions of the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 50, 1-41.

Millett, M. & Graham, D. 1986. Excavations on the Romano British Small Town at Neatham, Hampshire, 1969-1979. Gloucester: Alan Sutton.

Matthews, C. & Warren, P. 1992. A Roman villa at Totternhoe. Bedfordshire Archaeology, 20, 41-95.

Mommsen, T. 1885. The Provinces of the Roman Empire: The European Provinces. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mattingly, D. 1997a. Dialogues of power and experience in the Roman Empire, in D. Mattingly (ed.), Dialogues in Roman Imperialism, Power, Discourse and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire, 7-26. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Moreland, J. 1999. The world(s) of the cross – The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology, 31(2), 194-213. Mottram, S. 1970. Roman pewter dishes from Shingham. Norfolk Archaeology, 25(1), 19-26. 253

Nash-Williams, V. 1953. The Roman villa at Llantwit Major, Glamorgan. Archaeologia Cambrensis, 102(2), 89163.

Philpott, R. 1991. Burial Practises in Roman Britain, a Survey of Grave Treatment and Furnishing AD 43-410. Oxford: British Archaeological Report.

Neal, D. 1989. The Stanwick villa, Northants: An interim report on the excavations of 1984-88. Britannia, 20, 149168.

Pigott, G. 1891. Proceedings 1886-87. Cambridge Antiquarian Communications, 6, 111-112. Pliny N.H XXX, 57 Translation by Rackman, H. 1968 Pliny, Natural History. London: Loeb Library.

Oddy, W. 1980. Aspects of Early Metallurgy. British Museum Occasional Paper No. 17.

Pliny N.H XXXIV, 160-1 Translation by Rackman, H. 1968 Pliny, Natural History. London: Loeb Library.

Odell, H. 1999. The organization of labor at a Protohistoric settlement in Oklahoma, Journal of Field Archaeology 26(4), 407-421.

Pollard, A. 1983. X-ray fluorescence analysis of the Appleford hoard of Romano-British pewter. Journal of the History of Metallurgy Society, 17(2), 83-90.

Orton, C., Tyers, P. & Vince, A. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pollard, A. 1985. Investigations of ‘lead’ objects using XRF, in G. Miles & A. Pollard (eds.), Lead and Tin Studies in Conservation and Technology, Occasional Papers 3. London: The United Kingdom Institute for Conservation.

Owles, E. 1970. Archaeology in Suffolk 1970. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology, 32(1), 92-107. Parnell, G. 1985. The Roman and Medieval defences and later developments of the innermost ward, Tower of London: Excavation 1955-77. London and Middlesex Archaeological Society Transactions, 36, 1985.

Potter, T. 1989. Recent work on the Roman Fens of Eastern England and the question of imperial estates. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 73, 267-274.

Parsons, T. 1938. The role of theory in social research. American Sociological Review, 3(1), 13-20.

Potter, T., Johns, C., Hall, D., Hassall, M. & Shotter, D. 1981. The Roman occupation of the Central Fenland. Britannia, 12, 79-133.

Parsons, T. 1951. The Social System, New York: Free Press.

Poulton, R. & Scott, E. 1993. The hoarding, deposition and use of pewter in Roman Britain, in E. Scott (ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, 1st Proceedings. Avebury: Aldershot.

Parsons, T. 1962. Towards a General Theory of Action. New York: Harper and Row.

Price, E. 1983. Frocester Court Roman villa, 3rd report, 1980: The well. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 101, 49-77.

Payne, G. 1897. The Roman villa at Darenth. Archaeologia Cantiana, 22, 49-84. Peacock, D. 1977. Pottery and Early Commerce, Characterization and Trade in Roman and Later Ceramics. London: Academic Press.

Quinnell, H. 2004. Trethurgy-Excavations at Trethurgy Round, St Austell: Community and Status in Roman and Post Roman Cornwall. Cornwall County Council.

Peacock, D. & Williams, D. 1991. Amphorae and the Roman Economy. London: Longman.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. 1940. On social structure. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 70(1), 1-12.

Peal, C. 1967. Romano-British pewter plates and dishes. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 60, 1937.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. 1949. Functionalism: A protest. American Anthropologist, 51(2), 320-323.

Penn, W. 1968. Springfield: Miscellaneous excavations. Archaeologia Cantiana, 83, 163-92.

Rahtz, P. and Greenfield, E. 1977. Excavations at Chew Valley Lake, Somerset. London: Department of the Environment Archaeological Reports.

Percival, J. 1976. The Roman Villa, an Historical Introduction. London: Batsford.

Rainbird, P. 1999. Entangled biographies: Western Pacific ceramics and the tombs of Pohnpei. World Archaeology 31(2), 214-224.

Petit, J. & Mangin, M. (eds.) 1994. Les Agglomérations Secondaires: La Gaule Belgique, Les Germanies et l’occident Romain. Paris: Errance.

Raistrick, A. 1934. Roman remains and roads in West Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 31, 214-23.

Petts, D. 2003. Christianity in Roman Britain. Stroud: Tempus. 254

Ratcliffe, J. 1993. Recent work Cornwall Archaeological Unit, excavation: Duckpool. Cornish Archaeology, 32, 167-77.

Scott, E. (ed.) 1993. Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, 1st Proceedings. Avebury: Aldershot.

RCHME. 1982. An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the County of Northamptonshire Vol. IV. Archaeological Sites in Northwest Northampton.

Scott, S. 1995. Symbols of power and nature: the Orpheus Mosaic of fourth century Britain and their architectural contexts, in P. Rush (ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology: Second Conference Proceedings, 105-123. Aldershot: Avebury.

Reece, R. 1981. Roman monetary impact on the Celtic World - Thoughts and problems, in B. Cunliffe (ed.), Coinage and Society in Britain and Gaul. London: CBA Research Report 38.

Smith, A. 1997. Provenance of coals from Roman sites in England and Wales. Britannia, 28, 297-324. Smythe, C. 1883. A walled Roman cemetery in Joy Wood, Lockham, near Maidstone, Archaeologia Cantiana, 15, 818.

Reece, R. 1988. Interpreting Roman hoards. World Archaeology, 20(2), 261-9.

Smythe, J. 1938. Notes and communications - Notes on ancient and Roman tin and its alloys with lead. Newcomen Society Transactions, 18, 255-65.

Reid, C. 1918. Bronze and tin in Cornwall. Man, 18, 9-11. Richmond, I. & Gillam, J. 1951. The Temple of Mithras at Carrawburgh. Archaeologia Aeliana, 29, 1-92.

Stanley, W. 1870. Proceedings Archaeological Journal, 27, 208-11.

Rippon, S., Aalbersberg G., Allen, J., Allen, S., Cameron, N., Gleed-Owen, C., Davies, P., Hamilton-Dyer, S., Haslett, S., Heathcote, J., Jones, J., Margetts, A., Richards, D., Shiel, N., Smith, D., Smith, J., Timby, J., Tinsley, H. & Williams, H. 2000. The Romano British exploitation of coastal wetlands: Survey and excavation on the North Somerset levels, 1993-7. Britannia, 31, 69-200.

at

meetings.

Stead, I. & Rigby, V. 1986. Baldock Excavation 1968-72. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Steane, J. 1976. Archaeology in Northamptonshire 1975. Roman Northamptonshire Archaeology, 11, 185-194. Stevens, R. 1895. The discovery of an ancient cemetery at Reading. The Berks, Bucks and Oxon Archaeological Journal, 1, 100-105.

Rodwell, W. & Rodwell, K. 1993. Rivenhall: Investigations of a Villa, Church and Village, 1950-1977 Vol. 2 – Specialist Studies. London: Council for British Archaeology.

Sullivan, A. 1988. Prehistoric Southwestern ceramic manufacture: The limitations of current evidence. American Antiquity, 53(1), 23-35.

Ross, A. 1968. Shafts, pits, wells – Sanctuaries of the Belgic Britons?, in J. Coles & D. Simpson (eds.), Studies in Ancient Europe. Bristol: Leicester University Press.

Sunter, N. & Brown, D. 1988. Metal vessels, in B. Cunliffe (ed.), The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. Vol. 2. The Finds. 9-21. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph.

Ross, A. 1992. Pagan Celtic Britain. London: Constable. Rush, P. (ed.) 1995. Theoretical Roman Archaeology: Second Conference Proceedings. Aldershot: Avebury.

Swift, E. 2000. Regionality in Dress Accessories in the Late Roman West. Montagnac: Editions Monique Mergoil.

Saunders, A. & Harris, D. 1982. Excavation at Castle Gotha, St Austell. Cornish Archaeology, 21, 109-53. Saunders, N. 1999. Biographies of brilliance: Pearl transformations of matter and being c.1492. World Archaeology, 31(2), 243-257.

Swift, E. (2007) Decorated vessels: the function of decoration in late antiquity, in L. Laven, E. Swift & T. Putzeys (eds.) Objects in Context. Objects in Use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity, 385-412. Leiden/Boston: Brill.

Savory, H. 1971. Excavations at Dinorben 1965-9. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales.

Swinscow, T. 1983. Statistics at Square One. London: British Medical Association.

Scarth, H. 1884. Remains of a Roman villa uncovered in Cold Harbour Farm, near Tracy Park, October, 1865. Proceedings of the Bath Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club, 1, 1-24.

Tacitus, Annales XIV, 33. Taylor, A. 1990. Excavations in Cambridgeshire 1989 and 1990. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 79, 93-96.

Scott, D. 1994. An examination of the patina and corrosion morphology of some Roman bronzes. Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 33(1), 1-23.

Taylor-Wilson, R. 2002. Excavations at Hunt’s House, Guys Hospital, London Borough of Southwark. London: Pre-Construct Arc. Ltd. 255

Thomas, C. 1972. Roman objects from the Gwithian area. Cornish Archaeology, 11, 53-55.

Turner, R. 1999. Excavations of an Iron Age Settlement and Roman Religious Complex at Ivy Chineys, Witham, Essex. 1978-83. Chelmsford: Essex County Council Heritage Conservation Planning Division.

Thomas, C. 1988. The context of Tintagel: A new model for the diffusion of post Roman Mediterranean imports. Cornish Archaeology, 27.

Tweddle, D. 1986. Finds from Parliament Street and Other Sites. London: CBA.

Thomas, N. 1991. Entangled Objects, Exchange, Material Culture and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Tyers, P. 1996. Roman Pottery in Britain. London: Routledge.

Todd, M. 1970. The small towns of Roman Britain. Britannia, 1, 114-130.

Tylecote, R. 1962. Metallurgy in Archaeology: A Prehistory of Metallurgy in the British Isles. London: Edward Arnold.

Todd, M. 1976. The vici of Western England, in K. Branigan & P. Fowler (eds.), The Roman West Country. London: David and Charles.

Tylecote, R. 1966. The history of the tin industry in Cornwall: Some suggested lines of research. Cornish Archaeology, 5, 30-33.

Tomlin, R. 1988. The curse tablets, in B. Cunliffe (ed.), The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. Vol. 2. The Finds. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph.

Tylecote, R. 1977. Metallurgic remains, in K. Branigan (ed.), The Excavation and Study of a Romano-British Villa Estate 1967-1976. Oxford: British Archaeological Report.

Tomlin, R. & Frere, S. 1990. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, Vol.:2, Fascicule 1. Stroud: Alan Sutton.

Tylecote, R. 1986. The Prehistory of Metallurgy in the British Isles. London: Institute of Metals.

Tomlin, R. & Frere, S. 1991. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, Vol.:2, Fascicule 3. Stroud: Alan Sutton.

Tylecote, R. & Earl, B. 1989. The Composition of tin slags from the South-West of England. World Archaeology, 20(3), 434-445.

Tomlin, R. & Frere, S. 1992. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, Vol.:2, Fascicule 4. Stroud: Alan Sutton.

Viner, L. 1998. Home Farm, Bishop’s Cleeve: Excavation of a Romano-British occupation site 1993-4. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 116, 117-39.

Tringham, R. 1994. Engendered places in prehistory. Gender, Place and Culture, 1(2), 169-203. Tringham, R., Bailey, D., Bass, J., Stevanovic, M., Hamilton, H., Neumann, H., Angelova, I. & Raduncheva, A. 1998. Expanding the dimensions of early agricultural tells: The Podgoritsa archaeological project, Bulgaria. Journal of Field Archaeology, 25(4), 373-396.

Vinogradoff, P. 1911. Social and economic conditions of the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century, in B. Bury (ed.), Cambridge Medieval History Vol. One, 542-567. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wacher, J. 1974. The Towns of Roman Britain. London: Book Club Associates.

Tringham, R., Brukner, B., Kaiser, T., Borojevic, K., Bukvic, L., Steli, P., Russell, N., Stevanovic, M. & Voytek, B. 1992. Excavations at Opovo, 1985-1987: Socio-economic change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 19(3), 351-386.

Wacher, J. 1995. The Towns of Roman Britain. London: Batsford. Warner, R. 1967. The Carnanton tin ingot. Cornish Archaeology, 6, 29-31.

Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B. & Whitman, A. 1974. Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology, 1(1/2), 171-196.

Watkin, T. 1879. Roman Manchester. Transactions of the Historical Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 12, 13-32.

Trow, S. 1990. By the northern shores of ocean: some observations on acculturation process at the edge of the Roman World, in T. Blagg (ed.), The Early Roman Empire in the West, 103-119. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Weatherill, L. 1988. Consumer Behaviour and Material Culture in Britain, 1660-1760. London: Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Wedlake, W. 1958. Excavations at Camerton, Somerset.

Turgoose, S. 1985. The corrosion of lead and tin: before and after excavation, in G. Miles & A. Pollard (eds.), Lead and Tin Studies in Conservation and Technology, Occasional Papers 3. London: The United Kingdom Institute for Conservation.

Wedlake, W. 1982. The Excavation of the Shrine of Apollo at Nettleton, Wiltshire, 1956-1971. London: The Society of Antiquaries of London.

256

Wertime, T. 1973. The beginnings of metallurgy: A new look. Science, 182, 875-887.

Wilson, D., Wright, R. & Hassall, M. 1973. Roman Britain in 1972. Britannia, 4, 270-337.

West, S. & Plouviez, J. 1976. The Romano British Site at Icklingham – East Anglian Archaeology Report No. 3 – Suffolk. Ipswich: Suffolk County Planning Department.

Wilson, D., Wright, R., Hassall, M. & Tomlin, R. 1975. Roman Britain in 1974. Britannia, 6, 220-294. Wilson, P. 2002. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its Hinterland. York: CBA.

Wheeler, R. & Wheeler, T. 1932. Report on the Excavation of the Prehistoric Roman and Post Roman Site in Lydney Park, Gloucestershire, No. 9. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wooler, E. 1926. Roman lead mining in Weardale. Discovery of bronze lead-pouring ladle. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 28, 93-100.

Whiting, W. 1923. A Roman cemetary discovered at Ospringe in 1920. Archaeologia Cantiana, 36, 65-80.

Woolf, G. 1997. Beyond Romans and Natives. World Archaeology, 28, 339-350.

Whiting, W., Hauley, W. & May, T. 1920. Report on the Excavations at the Roman Cemetary at Ospringe, Kent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Woolf, G. 1998. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whitley, M. 1892. Discovery of Romano-British remains near Green Street, Eastbourne. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 38, 159-162.

Wright, R. 1950. Roman Britain in 1949: I. Sites explored: II. Inscriptions. Journal of Roman Studies, 40(1/2) 92-118.

Whittick, C. 1982. The earliest Roman lead mining on Mendip and in north Wales: A reappraisal. Britannia, 13, 113-23.

Wright, R. 1953. Roman Britain in 1952: I. Sites explored: II. Inscriptions. Journal of Roman Studies, 43, 104-132. Wright, R. 1956. Roman Britain in 1955: I. Sites explored: II. Inscriptions. Journal of Roman Studies, 46(1/2), 119152.

Wickenden, N. 1998. Excavations at Great Dunmow, Essex: A Romano British Town in the Trinovantian Civitas. Chelmsford: Archaeological Section Essex County Council.

Wright, R. 1957. Roman Britain in 1956: I. Sites explored: II. Inscriptions. Journal of Roman Studies, 47(1/2), 198234.

Wilmott, T. 1984. Roman timber lined wells in the city of London: Further examples. Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 35, 5-10.

Wright, R. 1959. Roman Britain in 1958: I. Sites explored: II. Inscriptions. Journal of Roman Studies, 49(1/2). 102139.

Wilson, D. & Wright, R. 1964. Roman Britain in 1963: I. Sites explored: II. Inscriptions. Journal of Roman Studies, 54(1/2), 152-185.

Wright, R. 1960. Roman Britain in 1959: I. Sites explored: II. Inscriptions. Journal of Roman Studies, 50(1/2). 210242.

Wilson, D. & Wright, R. 1968. Roman Britain in 1967: I. Sites explored: II. Inscriptions. Journal of Roman Studies, 58(1/2), 176-214.

Wright, R. 1962. Roman Britain in 1961: I. Sites explored: II. Inscriptions. Journal of Roman Studies, 52(1/2). 160-99.

Wilson, D. & Wright, R. 1970. Roman Britain in 1969. Britannia, 1, 268-315.

Wrong, D. 1961. The oversocialized conception of man in modern sociology. American Sociological Review, 26(2), 183-193.

Wilson, D., Wright, R. & Hassall, M. 1971. Roman Britain in 1970. Britannia, 2, 242-304.

257