'Tribal Territories' from the Humber to the Tyne: An analysis of artefactual and settlement patterning in the Late Iron Age and Early Roman Periods 9781407308272, 9781407322131

Citation preview

BAR 540 2011 ROSS ‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

B A R

‘Tribal Territories’ from the Humber to the Tyne An analysis of artefactual and settlement patterning in the Late Iron Age and Early Roman Periods

Catherine Rosemary Ross

BAR British Series 540 2011

‘Tribal Territories’ from the Humber to the Tyne An analysis of artefactual and settlement patterning in the Late Iron Age and Early Roman Periods

Catherine Rosemary Ross

BAR British Series 540 2011

ISBN 9781407308272 paperback ISBN 9781407322131 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407308272 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the nature of indigenous settlement in northern England. The main focus is on artefactual and settlement patterning evidence. Chapter 1 covers the geological background, modern literature on the Brigantes and the history of archaeological work in the area. Chapter 2 considers the relevant literature and epigraphy: these are Roman in origin, and mostly post-date the period in question. It also considers Roman place-name evidence, discussing possible evidence for lack of linguistic change and the significance of the name Carlisle in relation to native society on the Solway Plain. This chapter reveals the weaknesses of the literature as evidence for the presence of tribes and regional identities in northern Britain. Chapter 3 discusses the artefactual and material evidence covering pottery, metalwork, taphonomy, querns, glass and coinage. Regional patterns based on use, decorative styles and the use of imported Roman goods and styles, are identified which may indicate the presence of indigenous societies. Chapter 4 also identifies evidence for regionalisms by observing patterning in settlement sites themselves. In both cases factors affecting the archaeological record are highlighted. These two diverse approaches produce broadly similar results. In chapter 5 conclusions are drawn regarding indigenous society and possible regional identities. There are no grounds for asserting the existence of one large regional group in northern England. The combined evidence reveals a number of different regions of which six are thought to display sufficient variation to indicate the presence of regional identities. Where possible names drawn from Chapter 2 are notionally attributed to these areas. The thesis concludes that the Tees Valley is the region most likely to have been inhabited by a regional group who may have recognised the name ‘Brigantes’; there is no evidence that their control extended further.

i

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract Table of contents List of figures and maps Acknowledgements

   

i iii vii viii

Introduction, methodology and key topics Introduction Reasons for research Questions to be addressed Temporal scope Geographical scope Methodology Key topics Tribe Identity Romanisation

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4

Chapter 1: Review Geology Geological background The last Ice Age, developing vegetation and the arrival of Man Summary of geological variation in the region of study North Yorkshire including the Pennines, Yorkshire Dales, Vales of Mowbray and York and North Yorks Moors Geology and topography Soils The North East: County Durham, Tyne and Wear and the Tees Valley Geology and topography Soils Cumbria: The Lake District and the Cumbrian Lowlands The Lakes and surrounding hills – geology and topography The Lakes and surrounding hills – soils The Cumbrian Lowlands Lancashire Modern literature on the Brigantes Wheeler Braund Hanson and Campbell Higham Hartley and Fitts Fairless Cunliffe Archaeology in Northern England since the 1960’s History Stanwick Current factors affecting archaeological investigations Review of recent work on the Iron Age in Northern England Settlement Hillforts

8 8 8 8

iii

10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 19 20 20 21

Smaller scale Enclosures Unenclosed settlements North-East England North-West England Environment and agriculture Social organisation Chapter 2: Ancient literature, epigraphic and place-name evidence relating to Northern England Part 1: The literary, epigraphic and place-name evidence Introduction Ancient literature Tacitus (P. Cornelius Tacitus) Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) Juvenal (Decimus Junius Juvenalis) Cassius Dio (Cassius Dio Cocceianus) Seneca (L. Annaeus Seneca) Pausanias The Ravenna Cosmography and Antonine Itinerary Epigraphic evidence Advantages and disadvantages of the source material Place-names of Roman sites Latin names Romanised Celtic names Part 2: The evidence for possible tribes of northern England Brigantes Tribal territory Carvetii Tribal territory Gabrantovices Tectoverdi Lopocares Corionototae Setantii Anavionenses Maetae Conclusion Chapter 3: Materials and artefacts from Northern England Variation in the quality and quantity of the archaeological record Field archaeology Aerial photography and archaeology Variation in survey intensity Soils, landuse and visibility Methodology The Iron Age and Roman pottery assemblages North-east Iron Age ceramic forms Jars: Barrel jars Other jar forms Bowls and dishes Pre-Roman pottery imports into the north-east Post-conquest: the Roman impact on pottery assemblages in the north-east Iron Age and Roman ceramic usage in the north-west Iron Age Roman Cumbria Lancashire and Cheshire

   

iv

21 22 22 23 24 25 27 27 27 27 27 29 30 31 31 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 35 36 41 43 44 45 46 46 47 47 47 48 49 51 51 51 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 59 60 60 60 60 62

Discussion North-east England Iron-Age pottery forms Pre-conquest imports Post-conquest pottery North-west England Summary Metalwork from northern England General Ironwork Discussion Decorative metalwork Iron Age and Roman decorative metalwork Discussion Metalwork hoards Known Iron Age hoards Roman hoards Discussion Summary Animal bone assemblages from northern England Cattle bones Iron Age North-east North-west Roman period North-east North-west Other vertebrate remains Fish Pig Horse New species: Chicken and goat Wild animals Discussion Summary Querns, glass and coinage Querns Summary Glass Objects Distribution Summary Numismatic evidence Coin use in the Iron Age Coinage in the Roman period Summary Overall conclusion to artefacts and materials chapter Chapter 4: Settlement distribution and patterning in northern England Problems with the settlement record Archaeology Recording and access Methodology Settlement patterning in northern England Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10

   

v

63 63 63 63 64 65 67 67 68 69 69 70 73 75 75 76 78 78 79 80 80 80 80 80 81 81 82 82 83 83 83 83 83 84 84 84 87 88 89 91 91 91 92 93 94 97 97 97 97 98 99 99 99 100 101 101 102 102 102 103 103

Region 11 Region 12 Region 13 Region 14 Region 15 Region 16 Summary Conclusions

103 103 104 104 104 105 105 106

Chapter 5: Results and conclusions Results and discussion Table of artefact, material and settlement patterning combined Overall conclusion

109 109 112 117

Bibliography

122

Appendices: Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C

   

132 174 181

vi

LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS

   

Fig. 1: Plan of Stanwick earthworks Fig. 2: Barrel jar Fig. 3: Handled jar Fig. 4: Barrel jar with slightly beaded rim Fig. 5: Finger tipped rim Fig. 6: Everted rims with tapering, triangular sectioned rims Fig. 7: Jars with everted square rims Fig. 8: Jars with everted, thickened square rims Fig. 9: Butt beaker from Stanwick Fig. 10: Example of Crambeck Ware Fig. 11: Example of Crambeck Ware Fig. 12: Example of Black Burnished Ware Fig. 13: Example of Black Burnished Ware Fig. 14: Sherds of Samian Ware form 29 Fig. 15: Bobbin like object from Victoria Cave Fig. 16: Comb from East Lothian Fig. 17: Bronze horse mask Fig. 18: Bronze detail of scabbard Fig. 19: Dragonesque brooch Fig. 20: Bridle bit from the Stanwick hoard Fig. 21: Mail from the Stanwick hoard Fig. 22: Iron Age glass bead Fig. 23: Type 2A bangle Fig. 24: Type 2B bangle Fig. 25: Type 2C bangle Fig. 26: Type 3A bangle Fig. 27: Type 3F-J bangle Fig. 28: Type 3I bangle

18 55 55 55 55 56 56 56 56 57 57 57 57 57 71 71 71 71 72 77 77 89 90 90 90 90 90 90

Map 1: Roman place-names in the region of study Map 2: Distribution of Iron Age and Roman native settlements in northern England Map 3: Overall regions observed in this study Map 4: Suggested areas with regional identities in northern England and possible associated names

34 99 100 119

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

‘On the shore where Time casts up its stray wreckage, we gather corks and broken planks, whence much indeed may be argued and more guessed; but what the great ship was that has gone down into the deep, that we shall never see’ G. M. Trevelyan (Inaugural Lecture Cambridge 1927) When I first started this research I had little idea what ‘stray wreckage’ of my period I might find and still less of how close I might come to divining the name of my chosen ‘ship’. Several years and a journey of discovery later I have argued and, indeed, guessed my way towards my own conclusions but I could not have done this without the help of many people just some of whom are mentioned here. Firstly I would like to thank the many experts both within and outside of academia who have kindly given advice, answered questions and even allowed me to use unpublished work. Their help has been invaluable. In addition many thanks are due to my college Vice-Principal and to some truly amazing friends. This work could not have been completed without the support of Dr Clemence Schultze and Mr Richard Brickstock. My thanks must go most especially to Richard who has given a vast amount of his time and support throughout my research. Last but most definitely not least I would like to thank my incredible parents Michael and Rosemary who have supported me throughout my whole life and to whom I owe an enormous debt of gratitude. They have encouraged me to reach for the stars and have helped me to follow my dreams. Thank you for believing in me. This book is dedicated to my parents and to the memory of my grandmother

viii

INTRODUCTION, METHODOLOGY AND KEY TOPICS

INTRODUCTION

Questions to be addressed

Reasons for research

In view of the factors raised here this research will, accordingly, set out to address the following questions which, it is hoped, may give some clarification of the situation in northern England in the late Iron Age and early Roman periods:

This work developed out of an increasing awareness of the lack of information on the native peoples of northern Britain at the time of the Roman conquest. The massive military presence and subsequent archaeological survival of literally thousands of tonnes of archaeological deposits on the sites of forts, milecastles and Hadrian’s Wall have, perhaps unsurprisingly, taken precedence in scholarly literature.

1: Is there any evidence in the literature for the presence of one or more than one social group in northern England? 2: Is there evidence for variation in the individual material culture elements of northern England and can any repeating patterns in the material evidence be identified which might suggest differing regions? 3: Is there any evidence for variations in settlement type and spatial patterning. If so can regions be identified? 4: If regions have been identified from questions 2 and 3 do these combine? 5: If strong enough patterning can be identified to suggest the presence of a regional identity in addition to any other identities, can any name be notionally associated to that regional identity from the results of question 1?

Previous studies of indigenous northern England as a whole are few and have usually focused on limited areas or analysis of texts without use of archaeological evidence. There has been limited recent consideration of social organisation outside of the Yorkshire Wolds and many authors appear to assume that one tribe, the Brigantes, controlled the entire area of study, either directly or through some form of confederation, but without providing any concrete evidence to prove this. An analysis of the small body of available literature, both ancient and modern, reveals a number of assumptions regarding the social and historical nature of native northern Britain, assumptions that need to be questioned by recourse to a more broadly based body of evidence, both literary and archaeological, than that on which current accounts are based.

Temporal Scope This work will study the late Iron Age and early Roman periods. The temporal scope is therefore roughly the period between 100BC and AD120 although dating in the contexts discussed here is imprecise and therefore these parameters, particularly the latter, cannot be taken as absolute.

My initial question was whether the Brigantes, the only well documented tribe in the entire study area, really did control an area thousands of kilometres square and reaching from the North to the Irish Seas across a major geological barrier, the Pennine ridge.1 To control such a large area divided by a land mass that remains a major barrier even into modern times would have been a massive achievement. This claim, made by Tacitus and seemingly accepted by the majority of later authors, appears upon first examination decidedly unlikely. Even in its weaker form – that control was exerted by ruling other tribes under some form of confederation – it is hardly convincing: the area is too large and the existence of a confederation practically impossible to prove. Were the claim to prove true however, the Brigantes would surely deserve elevation from a tribe relegated to the footnotes of history into one of the greatest British tribes of all time.

1

Geographical Scope This study will concentrate on the area of northern England which has, by assumption, been associated with a tribal entity named as the ‘Brigantes’. The boundaries of the area of study are thus; in the north, a line connecting the Tyne to the Solway Firth and, in the south, a line connecting the Humber and Ribble Estuaries (i.e. the area enclosed by OS grid lines SD and SE 20 to the south and NY and NZ 70 to the north) but largely excluding the Yorkshire Wolds and East Yorkshire; the modern East Riding of Yorkshire which is normally associated with a specific group, traditionally named the Parisi.2 Comparative reference will be made, where 2

The areas north and south of these parameters are excluded from this study because they are traditionally associated with other independent social groups these are: In the north the Votadini, (NE) and Selgovae (NW) and to the south the Coritanii/ Corieltauvi (SE) and the Cornovii (SW). For a map see: Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. An Atlas of Roman Britain. Oxbow, Oxford. 1990. p.45. For references on the nature of settlement in East Yorkshire and the debate over the identity of the Parisi see Chapter 4 below.

The terms ‘tribe’ and ‘identity’ are addressed below

1

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE relevant, to areas bordering the region under discussion, in particular East Yorkshire and Northumberland.

not others, and where they did exist they appear to have had varying levels of authority’.4 At the time of the Roman conquest Britain consisted of a number of social units but it does not follow that there was any similarity in the scale of communities or social makeup of the different regions. Indeed Haselgrove highlights the specific development of communities in south eastern England. Here torcs and coins developed as ‘media used to articulate social relations’ whilst in certain areas horse trappings appear to have been another part of this system.5 Haselgrove comments, ‘there were notable changes in the forms, imagery and distribution of coinage, as well as significant alterations in the nature of domestic architecture. These transformations are associated with the development of ‘kingdoms’ – large scale polities with clear signs of social hierarchy and elites – and are essentially confined to south-east England’.6 Outside of the south-east there is little evidence for similar processes or chronologies even in major kingdoms around the Thames basin and whilst there are often indicators of the development of hierarchies even this is not always the case.7 This immense variation illustrates the lack of similarity between regions and hence the difficulty in creating a definition of what makes up a tribal entity.

METHODOLOGY This work will study artefactual material and settlement patterning relating to the native population of northern England in the late Iron Age and early Roman periods. It will attempt to address questions relating to the social organisation of the region of study i.e. Whether there is any evidence to indicate the presence of one or more than one tribal group in northern England and whether there is any evidence for the nature of the group or groups discovered. Initially it will consider the ancient literary sources relating to the area of study in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the works and of any evidence for the presence of named tribal groupings. It will then go on to investigate the archaeological and settlement evidence from the region in an attempt to identify any regional variations in the material cultural assemblages and in the distribution of settlements. Recognising that regional identities need not be fixed nor need they exclude membership of other group identities on a range of scales, the combined evidence, if strong enough, can then be used to indicate variations in northern England which may indicate the presence of groups with differing regional identities. Although there is not necessarily a direct relationship between cultural assemblages and individual social groups strong enough results may either vindicate Tacitus and prove the ascendancy of the Brigantes; or, by revealing the presence of further independent groups; call into question a long held and little questioned belief.

James discusses the lack of similarity between preconquest tribal units in Britain; commenting that there does not appear to have been much, ‘overarching “Britishness”, as shown by the piecemeal pattern of polity-by-polity partial Roman annexation’.8 James describes Britain as, ‘home to a multiplicity of social formations, highly diverse in lifestyle, economy, material culture and social organization’.9 Hodder demonstrated theoretically that differing styles of material culture can be used to define the social identities of individual groups.10 His theoretical work was followed in practice by Millett in his study of the Romanisation of Britain.11 This assumes that material cultures, if well enough defined by archaeological and settlement evidence, can be used to suggest the presence of different native groups; ‘the principal material-culture zones point to a series of major social groupings which we refer to as tribes’.12 Millett notes that, ‘the material culture is…remarkably heterogeneous; some areas exhibit a rich and varied cultural assemblage whilst others have only a

KEY TOPICS This section will address the key topics in this study and the history and development of work in these areas. Tribe The original model for the occupation of prehistoric Britain assumed multiple large-scale invasions must have taken place. The invasionist theory remained popular until the 1960’s when there was a growing realisation that mass migration theory did not fit with the available evidence.3 Certainly Britain was in close contact with the continent but its communities developed independently. Indeed even had there been greater contact with northern Europe it would have been with a wide range of social structures. Creighton has illustrated the wide variety of social structures in northern Europe as described in the writings of Caesar. ‘In general the evidence paints a patchwork picture of the situation; no two neighbouring communities were necessarily organised in the same way. Kings (regnes) are mentioned in some communities but

4 Creighton, J. Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain. CUP, Cambridge. 2000. p.12-13 5 Haselgrove, C. et al. Understanding the British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action. Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury. 2001. p.30 6 Haselgrove, C. (2001) p.30 Creighton also discusses the particular nature of community and individual development in the south-east Creighton, J. (2000) p.15-21 7 Haselgrove, C. (2001) p.30 8 James, S. ‘ “Romanization” and the peoples of Britain’ in Keay, S. And Terrenato, N.(eds.) Italy and the West: comparative issues in Romanization. CBA, York. 2001a. p.189 9 James, S. (2001a). p.190 10 Hodder, I. Symbols in Action: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. CUP, Cambridge. 1982 11 Millett, M. The Romanization of Britain. CUP, Cambridge. 1990 12 Millett, M. (1990) p.20

3 For further detail see Cunliffe, B. English Heritage Book of Iron Age Britain. Batsford, London. 1995. p.20-22

2

INTRODUCTION, METHODOLOGY AND KEY TOPICS limited quantity of goods within a narrow range.’13 He further comments that unless Britain is accepted as one complete cultural unit, a scenario which does not fit well with the variations in material culture, then it is necessary to place the evidence within its geographical setting.14 Cunliffe also believes that differing styles within artefacts of material culture, in particular styles of pottery, are a sensible way to assess variation between regions.15

the different ways in which they may have interacted. Diaz-Andreu states that identity is understood as ‘individuals’ identifications with broader groups on the basis of differences socially sanctioned as significant’.... ‘Through identity we perceive ourselves, and others see us, as belonging to certain groups and not others’.19 As such individuals could hold a number of identities at the same time and these identities could change according to personal choice. This research attempts to identify possible limits of geographical identities but recognises that the communities living within these areas shared a range of other identities tying them into both smaller and larger units and that the identification of geographical units is not the full picture.20 In particular the social relationships of individuals both within and between these regions can relate to an entirely different set of identities which need not recognise any form of hard geographic boundary.

Cunliffe has attempted to identify the main tribes of Iron Age Britain. These are the Trinovantes/ Catuvellanui, Cantii, Icenii and Atrebates of the south-eastern core. The Durotriges, Dobunni and Dumnonii of the periphery and south west. The Silures, Demetae, Ordovices, Gangani, Decangli and Cornovii of Wales. The Brigantes ‘and their neighbours’ and the Parisii of northern England, and the Votadini, Novantae, Selgovae and Damnonii of southern Scotland.16 Of these tribal regions it is northern England which appears least clearly understood. Native identity in northern England could have taken a range of possible forms. However identifying the nature of these societies is not without difficulties, the most important of which are the absence of epigraphic evidence giving the names of tribes or rulers and the lack of complete artefactual data sets for some of the main cultural identifiers such as coinage and pottery. In particular the lack of any coinage and the paucity of ceramic evidence available from northern England mean that the artefactual assemblages from the region cannot easily be used to identify material cultures according to theoretical practice.

A ‘tribe’ in the late Iron Age or Early Roman Period may not always have been a group attached to a specific area and the situation may have altered over time. Mattingly suggests that identities before the conquest, were fluid and, ‘late Iron-Age identity may have been fashioned...around the personality of individual rulers, with successive client kings controlling territories of varying size’.21 He also argues that the conquest may have altered the nature of ‘tribal’ societies to more defined geographical units. ‘The conquest may indeed have served to solidify tribal ethics and tribal entities in their emergency response to the invasion and in the new administrative arrangements’.22 Cunliffe also describes a variety of social structures suggesting that tribes in the south may have been socially cohesive whilst those in the north depended on ‘powerful lineages to whom the widely-spread population owed some degree of allegiance’.23 He suggests that the degree of social cohesion within tribes may have depended on the population size. Thus in central southern Britain dense populations formed into distinct tribes or confederations whilst in the north and west where settlement was more dispersed social networks created more localised social identities. ‘These groupings, in say the south-west peninsula.....may have recognized their difference from communities further east and may have even considered themselves to be men of Dumnonia, but this does not necessarily mean that they recognized a unifying authority – the constraints of geography in these remote regions may have been sufficient to give the appearance of unity’.24

Identity In this work the term ‘tribe’ is used sparingly and with caution because there is no clear definition of the notion. Braund argues that we know very little about the nature of rulers and their positions within particular tribes and notes that those rulers who struck their own coinage never included a tribal affiliation.17 Further, ‘it is probably enough that social and political traditions and structures varied significantly from one “tribe” (the term may not be helpful) to another’.18 Given the difficulty surrounding the term ‘tribe’ the notion of differences between communities and networks is instead expressed, for the most part, in terms of differing identities although in chapter 2 discussion retains the term tribe due to its use in the ancient sources. The term ‘identity’ is sufficiently flexible to cover the range of possible communities in northern England and 13

19

Millett, M. (1990) p.11 Millett, M. (1990) p.12 15 Cunliffe, B. Iron Age Communities in Britain. Routledge, London. 19913. p.60 16 Cunliffe has attempted to identify the main Iron Age tribes of Britain. For further, detailed information see Cunliffe, B. (1991) chapters 7-9 17 Braund, D. Ruling Roman Britain: Kings, queens, governors and Emperors from Julius Caesar to Augustus. Routledge, London. 1996. p.68 18 Braund, D. (1996) p.68

Diaz-Andreu, M. et al. The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion. Routledge, London. 2005. p.1 20 For discussions of different forms of collective identity see DiazAndreu, M. et al. 2005 21 Mattingly, D. ‘Being Roman: expressing identity in a provincial setting’ in Journal of Roman Archaeology 17. 2004. p.13 22 Mattingly, D. (2004) p.13 23 Cunliffe, B. (1995) p.57 see also James, S. (2001a) p.192 and 196 24 Cunliffe, B. (1995). p.58

14

3

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Following Mattingly and Cunliffe this study takes the line that there may still be some validity in the idea of communities which recognised, among others, a form of geographic identity although not necessarily recognising an overarching authority or ‘tribal’ name. Braund suggests that in northern England ‘Brigantes’ may have been a Roman term applied loosely to the Britons of the north and east and even the Midlands with ‘Britanni’ being the term for those dwelling to the south of this area.25 Within this area there are likely to have been a range of divisions based on many different forms of identity and it is possible that divisions based on geographic parameters can be identified. Such local and more regional differences may also be revealed in the evidence for interaction with occupying forces, officials and other incomers after the Roman invasion. Hingley notes that during the conquest, ‘anti-Roman views will have been common; these probably drew on concepts of local and tribal, even native, identity’.26 As such if particular areas stand out from those around in terms of differences in material and artefact assemblages and in settlement types and patterning then note will be made of these differences. However it is also very important to recognise that even if communities with different regional identities did exist these were far from being the only form of collective identity to which any individual might consider themselves to belong. Ties of family, marriage, gender and religion may all have had a part to play in creating further identities with which an individual might identify at any given time. In addition identities are subject to constant change. None of these need necessarily have been confined within a particular geographic area or temporal sphere and may have been locally restricted or have extended well beyond the limits of any possible geographic identity.

complete discussion of the issue, and particularly the theoretical basis behind the use and interpretation of archaeological evidence is beyond the scope of this study. However it is necessary to cover the recent history the ‘Romanisation’ debate and the ideas that lie behind this concept in some detail in order to clarify the use of the term within this study.27 Millett responded to the growing body of opinion questioning the extent to which native Britons simply did what they were told to do by the occupying forces. Instead he developed a non-interventionist model whereby elite members of native society independently adopted new materials and customs to express and develop their wish to become more Roman. Millett’s model was highly focused on the actions of the elite and gave little consideration to the majority of the native population. He believed that the masses of the population would then have wished to emulate their superiors and would have adopted those elements of new material culture which were most accessible to them. The great development emerging from Millett’s theory was the recognition that native populations could have chosen to adopt elements of the new ‘Roman’ culture of their own free will. Its weakness was in assuming that they would have automatically wished to do so and that any development must have been a top-down process in which the masses always emulated the elite rather than acting for themselves.28 Whilst there is much to be said for the use of material culture in the identification of peoples and the process of Romanisation the practice is not universally accepted. Freeman countered the theory by pointing out that there is no such thing as a coherent ‘Roman material culture’.29 Roman culture consisted of elements adopted from across a vast empire encompassing many individual cultures and a relatively limited range of material culture actually derived directly from Rome and Italy.30 Freeman also pointed out that the use of any so called Roman ‘material culture’ need not represent the adoption of the original use and significance behind the object and therefore the presence of an object need not represent the desire to adopt the identity originally associated with it.

Romanisation There is extensive discussion among archaeologists of the relationship between artefacts and culture, notions of Romanisation and the relationship between artefacts and culture and the extent to which artefactual evidence – the ‘cultural assemblage’ – can be used as a marker of cultural change or identity; in particular the extent to which a cultural assemblage can or should be used as an identifier of a particular people or tribal grouping. A grouping of artefacts does not, of necessity, equal a culture and neither, of necessity, indicate an ethnic grouping or even a tribe. This work recognises that there remains substantial debate about the use of material cultures and cultural assemblages to identify individual groups. In addition it recognises that ‘Romanisation’ as a process is a modern construct and that no such idea existed in the ancient world. It is therefore impossible to consider native societies in relation to their level of development on a designed, quantifiable measure. A

There was a general recognition that too simplistic an explanation had been proposed for the reasons behind changing material cultures. The next significant development in Romanisation studies came with the work of Greg Woolf who recognised that there was no single model ‘native experience’ of the Roman conquest. As a result he developed a qualitative approach arguing that Romanisation cannot be measured against a recognised scale because there is no such thing as a pure Roman

27 The early development of Romanisation theory under Mommsen and Haverfield is well summarized in Hingley, R. Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire. Routledge, London. 2005 28 Hingley, R. (2005) p.46 29 Freeman, P. ‘Romanisation’ and Roman Material Culture’ in Journal of Roman Archaeology 6. 1993. pp.448-445 30 Freeman, P. (1993) p.43

25

Braund, D. (1996) p.125 Hingley, R. ‘Resistance and domination: social change in Roman Britain’ in Mattingly, D. (ed.) Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power discourse and discrepant experiences in the Roman Empire. JRA Supplementary Series 23. 1997. p.96 26

4

INTRODUCTION, METHODOLOGY AND KEY TOPICS culture.31 As a result, ‘the idea of Roman identity is useful as a concept of cultural unity that allows the exploration of power relations but we need to accept that it is only a partial picture of the connections through which the empire was brought into being and maintained....as a result we need to think further than the useful but simplistic image of ‘Roman’ identity.’32 Woolf thus argued that the term cannot be used as anything more than a general descriptor of a number of cultural changes.33 Instead of a single model every province and indeed individual areas of each province had a different experience both pre- and post-conquest which impacted on the way in which the native population reacted to Roman imperial control. ‘The combination of a number of competing approaches enables us to keep our focus on the power-relations that were used to create the empire, while considering its character as a variety of overlapping networks of power and identity’.34 Woolf therefore allowed for endless variation in the reaction to and adoption of Roman culture among native societies. By allowing for such variation, Woolf avoided the problems created in looking for a quantifiable process of Romanisation since no single model could exist. However whilst he recognised that relations between members of individual societies were far more complex than the emulation models previously developed, his work, like that of Millett, had a strong bias towards the actions of the elite and did not consider in detail the significance of the vast majority of the population.

choice’.37 Thus material culture can be used to assess the ways in which individuals and societies reacted to the Roman presence. Further attempts to clarify and re-interpret the Romanisation debate led Webster to the development of a new process, creolization, whereby elements of cultures are blended creating a very ambiguous mixture that can be interpreted in a variety of ways.38 The weakness of creolization is that it focuses on lower orders in society and cannot give explanations relating to all levels of society. Far greater recognition has also been given the wide range of local variation within the province in terms of native society and the impact of the Roman presence. James has stressed the highly individual nature of native British societies before the conquest where, ‘for most [populations] life was small-scale and very local’39 and has suggested five different types of post-conquest ‘zones’ each of which will have created different relations between the native population and those tasked with their control.40 James also highlights the importance of the non-elite in creating different cultures within Roman Britain stating, ‘people of the ‘lower orders’ are rarely, if ever, docile automata but are significant, at least partially autonomous agents, with their own views of the world’.41 In an attempt to account for all those present in Roman Britain he identifies four possible ‘cultures’ which could have resulted from the individual experiences of the occupation: ‘state culture’, ‘public culture’, ‘elite culture’ and ‘mass culture’.42 Of these it is ‘mass culture’ which allows for the increasingly recognised localised variation in the native experience and in the ways in which different artefacts and elements of material culture were viewed and used, although such a concept is difficult to apply on anything more than a very general level.

Moving away from the idea of processes or models of Romanisation and focusing on the uses of material culture as a measure of impact, resistance and change, Hingley attempted to analyse the impact of the Roman conquest on material culture and what this could reveal about non-elite members of native society.35 Hingley argued persuasively that material culture could be used as an active expression of identity. Thus material culture was not ‘merely an adjunct to the achievement of a ‘Roman’ identity; natives would have utilized those aspects which fitted their aspirations, and aspirations will have varied from individual to individual across the province and throughout its history’.36 In this way aspects of material culture could be used to reveal signs of an attempt by an individual to change their identity; to ‘Romanise’ or indeed to consolidate and display their non-Roman identity through a resistance to change in their material culture. Hingley argued that value judgements on artefacts and buildings have led to an assumption that ‘Roman’ was automatically taken to be ‘better’ than native but the clear evidence for the retention of old ideas and materials into the fourth century AD and beyond could represent, ‘statements of alternative values and identity’. As a result ‘the retention of native material symbols was to some extent a matter of

Mattingly has built on previous work and, in particular, the value of variation in material culture as an indicator of identity.43 He believes that there is a need to ‘interrogate closely the archaeological record for examples of differences in the use of cultural material and then assess whether such occurrences can be attributed to distinct expressions of identity within society’.44 Mattingly agrees with both Hingley and James that there were a number of different communities with differing reactions to the Roman occupation of Britain and believes that it may be possible to identify such communities though variations in the use of material culture. He also highlights the small number of individuals present in Britain who might have welcomed all aspects of Roman 37

Hingley, R. (1997b) p.95 Webster, J. ‘Creolizing the Roman Provinces’ in American Journal of Archaeology 105. 2001. pp.209-225 39 James, S. (2001a) p.190 40 James, S. (2001a) p.195 41 James, S. (2001a) p.201 42 James, S. (2001a) p.206 43 See Mattingly, D. ‘Being Roman: expressing identity in a provincial setting’ in Journal of Roman Archaeology 17. 2004. pp.5-25; Mattingly, D. An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, 54BC-AD409. Allen Lane, London. 2006 esp. Chapters 15 and 16. 44 Mattingly, D. (2004) p.9 38

31

Woolf, G. Becoming Roman. CUP, Cambridge. 1998. p.7 Woolf, G. (1998) p.93 33 Woolf, G. (1998) p.7 34 Woolf, G. p.93 35 Hingley, R. (1997b) pp.81-100 36 Hingley, R. (1997b) p.87 32

5

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE power,45 and the likelihood of resistance stating that, ‘many groups seem to have used culture...as a measure of expressing their own distinctiveness and segregation from other groups in society’.46 However, he assigns a far more localised significance to the role of the army than James who considers the extent to which soldiers are likely to have affected communities over a far broader area through such activities as tax collection, policing and surveillance alongside or instead of civilian government.47

In this study the term ‘Roman culture’ is not used due to the difficulty surrounding the definition of such a phrase. Instead, objects which may represent ‘Romanisation’ are considered to be non-native artefacts that did not originate in the region of study and must therefore have been imported either as artefacts or as ideas in the immediate pre-conquest and post-conquest periods. This compares well with Mc Carthy’s definition of the term, ‘as the process by which local peoples accepted Roman imperialism and adopted otherwise alien cultural traits’.54 The term ‘Romanisation’ is used as here a qualitative measure of change in the material cultural assemblages of northern England and can thus be used to describe variation between material cultures. The degree to which material culture highlights a positive, neutral or indeed negative response to the conquest and the post-conquest period is expressed in terms of the extent to which the native population may or may not have been Romanised. It is recognised that non-native artefacts need not have been adopted complete with their original significance, use and status and thus changes in material culture should not be assumed to represent changes in identity. However, sufficient examples of change or resistance within and between material cultures may be considered strong evidence for the presence of individual communities with differing responses to the Roman conquest.

Many elements have a bearing on individual and group identity including, status, gender, age, religion and whether living under civil or martial law (the latter being particularly relevant in northern England), and stresses the number of different social groups present in Britain during the conquest period.48 Like James, Mattingly identifies different relations with Roman power which could have led to varied experiences of Empire, but his categories are more specific and highlight the differences between those living in the military zone under large and small garrisons and between ex-clients and ex-rebels.49 He goes on to state that as a result of these specific and different experiences, ‘we might expect that different archaeologies will be left by different geographical and social groupings, reflecting their divergent Roman histories and regional identities’.50

This study follows the line taken by James and in particular Mattingly; that the study of material cultures and their variation as indicators of identity across all levels of society is a valid and sensible approach to the study of the different societies in northern England and their response to the Roman occupation. It sets out to use the archaeological record to reveal local variation within the region of study during the late Iron Age and early Roman periods and to consider the significance of the varied native reactions to Roman control.

Most recently Hunter has also supported the idea that material cultures can be used to ‘create and express identity’51 and that, ‘geography alone does not define the personality of north Britain...Alternative, complementary or contrasting social identities and practices lie behind these different finds and their different distributions’.52 Hunter also highlights the potential for analysing variation on all scales from site-specific to national; ‘broad regional trends defining some form of shared regional...identity, with localised, even site specific variations at a more everyday level of interaction’.53

This research recognises that the full facts can never be ascertained from cultural assemblages alone. However, it takes the line that it is reasonable to suppose a distinction between two populations whose cultural assemblage exhibits marked differences in areas such as form, style, decorative features, technological expertise and extent of use. Based on an analysis of the settlement patterning and cultural assemblages from northern England, this study will follow the theory that material culture can be used as an indicator of possible cultural difference and, indeed, of the process of cultural change. Cultural assemblages and differences in settlement patterning along with evidence for differing reactions to the Roman presence will thus be used to identify possible regional variation. Whilst recognising the significance to an individual of a range of different identities this work sets out to identify any evidence for geographical identities which may have existed alongside these other identities.

Mattingly, Hunter and James argue persuasively for the value of studying material culture in order to identify different social groups, not least because material culture was used by all levels in society and is therefore a universal indicator of the ways in which individuals and groups chose to identify themselves. This work will follow their approach and will look at material culture and additionally settlement distributions with the aim of observing evidence for identities and in particular regional identities. 45

Mattingly, D. (2004) p.12 Mattingly, D. (2006) p.520 47 James, S. ‘Soldiers and civilians: identity and interaction in Roman Britain’ in James, S. and Millett, M.(eds.) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. CBA, York. 2001b. pp.82 48 Mattingly, D. (2004) p.10-11 49 Mattingly, D. (2004) p.13 50 Mattingly, D. (2004) p.14 51 Hunter, F. ‘Artefacts, regions and identities in the Northern British Iron Age’ in Haselgrove, C. And Moore, T. (eds.) The later Iron Age in Britain and beyond. Oxbow, Oxford. 2007. p.286 52 Hunter, F. (2007) p.288 53 Hunter, F. (2007) p.287 46

54 Mc Carthy, M. ‘Luguvalium (Carlisle); a civitas capital on the northern frontier’ in Wilson, P. (ed.) The Archaeology of Roman Towns. Oxbow, Oxford. 2003. p.151

6

INTRODUCTION, METHODOLOGY AND KEY TOPICS In the last analysis it is not possible fully to resolve the theoretical debate but the present study will proceed on the assumption that where there is sufficient evidence from material culture this may be used to indicate that an area was inhabited by a population independent from those surrounding it.

7

CHAPTER 1: REVIEW: GEOLOGY, MODERN LITERATURE AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

District. North of the Tyne the Carboniferous rock types are mostly sandstone and shale but uplift and erosion formed these into a series of scarps around the Cheviots and Bewcastle Fells.57

GEOLOGY The Iron Age in Britain finds its origins in the late second millennium BC but in order to understand the factors that created this culture some consideration must be given to the importance of the millions of years preceding this date in shaping the land and the people with whom this work will be primarily concerned. In order to create a more complete picture of Iron Age and early Roman northern Britain it is therefore necessary to start 500 million years ago at the time when the oldest rock types in Britain were first laid down. After a general consideration the major regional variations will be discussed. The climate and underlying geology of these areas has directly affected their use for human habitation and farming and this in turn may impact upon the nature of the societies which developed in these areas.

Away from the high ground lie the lowlands of south east Durham, the Solway coastal plain and the south Cumbrian coast. All of these areas are made up of sandstones which remained free of the processes of uplift, folding and erosion affecting the areas previously described. The eastern coastal plain is by far the largest stretching up into Scotland and, discontinuously, into Yorkshire. West of the Pennines are two smaller coastal plains: the Solway area, the larger of the two, and the Furness and Lonsdale lowlands which are separated from the Solway plain by the Lake District and the Howgill Fells.58 The relationship of these upland and lowland zones played a major part in deciding their climate and their use as a habitat for both fauna and man. In the Lake District the mountain block creates soils which are liable to degradation by leaching.59 There are therefore severe limitations on the vegetation especially compared with the eastern slopes of the Pennines. The geological structure of the landscape has also produced major climatic variations. The high uplands have created rain shadow areas in the Eden Valley and, on a larger scale, the North Sea area the most noticeable effect of which is the difference in flora between the drier east and the markedly wetter climate to the west of the Pennines.60

Geological background The rock types of northern Britain determine the physical character of the region. These rocks were laid down between 500 and 280 million years ago and have since been subjected to a complex process of movement, uplift and erosion.55 The result of this is that the northern counties have a larger proportion of high and mountainous terrain than anywhere else in England. The oldest rocks run in a discontinuous band from the Isle of Man and the Irish Sea north-east into the Lake District and the Cheviots. It is volcanic activity that has created and caused the uplift and formation of much of the high ground in northern England and southern Scotland. A Devonian period batholith underlies almost the whole of the northern counties and is now exposed at high points such as Weardale, Shap, Skiddaw and Eskdale. The Whin Sill is another large batholith which now outcrops along the Tyne Gap, Eden Fault and on the coast at Bamburgh and the Farne Islands, often creating steep cliffs or promontories.56

The last ice age, developing vegetation and the arrival of man Radio carbon dating tells us that the last ice age ended in about 10000BP.61 Prior to this ice sheets covered all of northern Britain and even if the very highest ground was not covered in ice it would still have been under a deep

The younger rock types of the northern counties were laid down in the Carboniferous period between 345 and 280 million years ago after a series of geological events that led to severe folding and erosion of the older rocks. It is this folding that created the mountains of the Lake

57

See Taylor, B. J. et al. (1971) pp.37-67 See Taylor, B. J. et al. (1971) pp.70-80 59 Leaching is a process whereby the mineral and nutrient qualities are literally washed out by the flow of water through the soil. 60 Higham, N. (1986) p.7-8 61 Carbon dating measures the decay of the element carbon 14 from palaeobotanical cores and archaeological contexts. The dates are therefore given as BP meaning Before Present (1950) when carbon dating was first invented. Dates in this chapter will be given either BC or BP depending on the available information. For further explanation see Parker Pearson, M. English Heritage Book of Bronze Age Britain. Batsford, London. 1993. p.18 58

55 Woodcock, N. and Strachan, R. Geological History of Britain and Ireland. Blackwell, Oxford. 2002 56 For full details of the geological development of northern England and Britain as a whole see Woodcock, N. and Strachan, R. (2002). See also Taylor, B. J. et al. British Regional Geology: Northern England. HMSO, London. 19714

8

CHAPTER 1: REVIEW layer of permanent snow.62 It is very unlikely that any human activity took place in the glacial areas of the north and none has yet been detected.

400.69 Palaeolithic evidence is, naturally, slight but Northern England is now reasonably well served for evidence of Mesolithic human occupation, most of which is in the form of pollen and bone evidence.70

The last ice sheets had withdrawn into Scotland from the Lake District by around 8000BC, the end of the Devensian.63 Pioneer vegetation began to establish itself in the late glacial period and northern England would have looked like a typical tundra or alpine zone with lichens, grasses and dwarf shrubs gaining a hold in periglacial conditions of permafrost and long-lying snow. 64 Indeed Upper Teesdale is thought to be a rare surviving example of this type of vegetation. The tundra flora would have attracted associated fauna, especially reindeer, and the opportunity for hunting probably drew the first men to the most southerly area of northern Britain around this time. The landscape in the lowlands at this time was mainly open, ‘with grasses and shrubs such as crowberry...and in certain locations such as on the coastal plains, around the margins of late-glacial lakes and in sheltered valleys, birch woodlands were becoming extensive’.65 After this the region was colonised by a succession of forest trees starting with birch, willow and hazel and later pine, oak, elm and alder. By about 7000 years ago most of North Yorkshire was covered in forest and the only gaps in the canopy would have been natural clearings on areas of high ground where the tree cover thinned out.66

Palynological evidence shows that the earliest inhabitants of northern England began to have an impact on the environment. Trees were cleared for building projects, such as the early Mesolithic site at Star Carr in the Vale of Pickering, and fire was used for hunting which cleared the undergrowth and prevented recolonisation by trees.71 In terms of farming practice environmental evidence has indicated that fire was also used to encourage grass growth for grazing animals whilst evidence for cerealtype pollen grains suggests it is possible that some cereals were also used, although Huntley points out that aside from hazelnut shells there is no other evidence for the use of plants of any sort.72 Whilst there is a reasonable amount of Bronze Age settlement in northern England there is very little definable evidence of Neolithic activity, particularly on the uplands, although there is more in lowland regions. One important exception is found in the Neolithic axe factories in the Langdales of the Lake District. Quartermaine describes large scale, long-lasting production and long distance trade requiring massive organisation and infrastructure, ‘it has confirmed the complexity and sophistication of a Neolithic society that could manufacture on a massive scale and could market throughout Britain’.73 The Neolithic evidence from the Lake District reveals the degree and development of society in northern England. This may have been a unique case but it strongly indicates that even as early as the Neolithic period northern England was far from uninhabited and undeveloped. Despite the increasing evidence for human settlement and society in northern England humans continued to have only small scale impacts on their environment. It was not until the Iron Age and Roman periods that human settlement in northern England began to have a far more widespread and permanent impact.74

Sea level rose from 8000 BC flooding coastal parts of Ireland, the lowland between the southern Lakes and Wales and forming the English Channel. Britain was increasingly surrounded by water and was an island by 6000 BC.67 The temperature also rose from an average of 0 degrees centigrade to somewhere rather warmer than the current average. The northern counties of Britain were now within the range of settlement of post-glacial man and the first permanent occupation of northern Britain is likely to have taken place around this time. Peat-bogs formed on both uplands and lowlands, although to a greater extent in the west of the country, and these have revealed evidence for climatic and vegetation change.68 The Holocene peat bogs of North Yorkshire have revealed evidence for wetter periods in 3000-2500BC and 1000-400BC and warmer or drier periods around 1500-1000BC and AD 0-

69 Butlin explains the use of testate amoebae and vegetation to identify changes in the wetness of peat-bogs and thus of the climate. Butlin, R. A. (2004) p.23 70 See Young, R. ‘The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Periods in Northern England: An Overview’, Quartermaine, J. ‘Upland Survey: Neolithic and Bronze Age Sites’ and maps in Huntley, J. P. ‘Environmental Archaeology: Mesolithic to Roman Period’ in Brooks, C., Daniels, R. and Harding, A. (eds.). Past, Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England. Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5. Durham. 2002. p.80. The arrival and development of human settlement in northern England is well discussed in this volume and also in Bradley, R. (2007) 71 Butlin, R. A. (2004) p.26 also Mellars, P. And Dark, P. Star Carr in Context. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. 1998 72 Huntley, J. P. (2002) p.81 73 Quartermaine, J. (2002) p.34 74 Butlin, R. A. (2004) p. 27 The arrival and development of human settlement in northern England is well discussed in papers in Brooks, C., Daniels, R. and Harding, A. (eds.) (2002)

62 For a detailed explanation of the Ice Ages and their effect on the landscape of northern England see Taylor, B. J. et al. (1971) pp.83-90, also Evans, J. G. The Environment of Early Man in the British Isles. Elk, London. 1975. pp.55-70 63 Hodgson, J. and Brennand, M. (eds.) North West Region Archaeological Research Framework Prehistoric Resource Assessment Draft. 2004. p.1 64 Taylor, B. J. et al. (1971) p.90 mentions the development of peat followed by vegetation and the presence of early fauna between 7500 and 3000BC. See also Laing, J. and Laing. L. The Origins of Britain. Grafton Books, London. 1980. p.61 65 Aalen, F. H. A. (2006) p.31 66 Butlin, R. A. Historical Atlas of North Yorkshire. Westbury, West Yorkshire. 2004. p.26 67 Bradley, R. The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. CUP, Cambridge. 2007. p.8 and for maps of the process p.11 68 Butlin, R. A. (2004) p.22

9

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Ice from the Lake District entered North Yorkshire crossing the Stainmore Pass and Teesdale where it joined with ice from the Cheviots which was moving southwards through north-east England.80 The ice built up in the Tees lowlands to a depth of 800 metres and split into two streams one of which moved along the North Sea coast whilst the other travelled through the Vale of Mowbray and into the Vale of York. Ice also built up on the Pennines and glaciers flowed from there through the Dales valleys where most joined up with the ice accumulation in the Vale of York although the Ribblesdale glacier flowed into the Vale of Eden.81 The ice did not cover the whole of northern England and it is known that the Cleveland Hills, North Yorks Moors, Howardian Hills and Yorkshire Wolds formed nunataks. In the Pennines the maximum depth of ice is uncertain but it seems likely that some peaks were also exposed.

SUMMARY OF GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION IN THE REGION OF STUDY North Yorkshire including the Pennines, Yorkshire Dales, Vales of Mowbray and York and North Yorks Moors Geology and topography The majority of North Yorkshire is composed of sedimentary rocks the most ancient of which are the Ordovician and Silurian rocks in the west and the youngest are Cretaceous Chalk in the east.75 The bulk of the Pennine uplands were laid down in the Carboniferous period when limestones were covered by Millstone Grit and coal measures, although the igneous Whin Sill breaks through in the far northern Pennines.76 In the Yorkshire Dales, consisting of Swaledale, Wensleydale, Nidderdale, Wharfedale and Airedale, carboniferous limestone has produced impressive karst scenery. Swaledale and Wensleydale cut through Yoredale rocks (layers of limestones, shales and sandstones) creating terraces separated by the softer shales. Nidderdale is underlain by Millstone Grit, which also makes up the moorland between each dale, creating dark outcrops above light limestones of the Yoredale Rocks. Meanwhile Upper Wharfedale, Airedale and Ribblesdale include Great Scar Limestone at their bases, Yoredale Rocks and Millstone Grit at the top.77

When the ice retreated it left barriers of glacial moraine in the valleys of the Dales and in the Vale of York at York and Esckrick, also large numbers of drumlins in the Craven Lowlands and in the Vales of Mowbray, York and upper Wensleydale. Glacial till, boulder clay, covered most of the lowland in North Yorkshire and can reach depths of 60m and in late-glacial times westerly winds picked up silts from all these glacial remains and deposited them as loess on the hills to the west.82 Indeed glacial deposits have greatly affected the nature and fertility of soils in North Yorkshire and northern England as a whole. Beyond the limits of the ice lakes were formed where rivers were dammed by ice and glacial moraines these include Glacial Lake Humber which lasted until 11000BP and Lake Pickering which formed of water trapped between the ice of the Vale of York and the North Sea. Numerous other temporary rivers and drainage channels formed at this time and now bear little resemblance to the modern drainage pattern.83

Moving eastwards Millstone Grit is hidden beneath a low ridge of Permian Magnesian Limestone and in the east this in turn is hidden below soft Triassic sandstone, mudstone and siltstone in the Vales of Mowbray and York although much of it is hidden beneath glacial tills.78 Further east again the land rises into the Jurassic rocks of the North York Moors. At the base of these are mudstones with layers of sandstone, ironstone and jet shales above. The overlying rock type is mainly sandstone which has eroded in places to reveal the rock types underneath. On the northern edge of the North Yorks Moors the Cleveland Dyke creates a clear ridge of basaltic, igneous rock whilst in the south the Tabular Hills form another escarpment of Corallian Limestone and grit.79 Much of the solid geology of North Yorkshire is hidden beneath glacial deposits from the most recent ice age during the late Devensian period c26000-10000 years ago. This destroyed most of the evidence from previous ice ages but some inter-glacial evidence has survived, in particular cave deposits in Skipton at the southern end of the Yorkshire Dales.

Rivers have had a greater impact upon north Yorkshire than on many other parts of northern England. Eight major rivers flow through the area and of these perhaps the most important are the Swale, Ure, Nidd and Wharfe and Aire which all rise on the Carboniferous uplands of the Dales and flow through the valleys into the lowlands of the Vale of York to meet and form the Ouse which is then met by the Derwent before entering the Humber Estuary. Only the rivers Ribble and Esk do not form part of this drainage system with the Ribble draining westwards and the Esk running out of the northern North Yorks Moors.84 The fluvial geography, in particular the tendency to flooding, of North Yorkshire and especially the Vale of York is still a significant factor in the area and will have had a major impact on settlement and landuse in the area during the period of study.

75

80

Butlin, R. A. (2004) p.8 Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.9 77 Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.9 78 Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.9 79 Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.10. For good maps of the solid and drift geology of the area see Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.10-11

Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.11 Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.11 82 Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.12. For a map of glacial deposits and geography see Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.14 83 Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.13 84 Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.14

76

81

10

CHAPTER 1: REVIEW Triassic rocks tilt eastwards where, ‘erosion, cutting across the dipping strata, has exposed and eastward succession of progressively younger rocks, including Permian magnesian limestone, Triassic mudstone, Jurassic limestone and sandstone and, ultimately, Cretaceous chalk’.87 This structure created series of bands where the more resistant rocks formed west facing escarpments including east Durham, the North York Moors and the Yorkshire Wolds, while weaker rocks formed lowlands including the Vales of York and Pickering and the lower Tees Valley.88 In addition the Whin Sill, an igneous intrusion, creates a sharp escarpment in Northumberland and North Durham. This landform also produced the large waterfalls of upper Teesdale and the Farne Islands off the Northumberland coast.

Soils In such a large area with varied climates and geology it is no surprise that North Yorkshire is made up of a variety of soil types. On the Pennine slopes the glacial deposits have left slow draining, peaty soils which are waterlogged for much of the time. As a result they are high in acidity and have low levels of nutrients and a short growing season. These soils are primarily useful for rough grazing and are not suitable for agriculture. To the west Magnesian Limestone in the western Vale of York produces far better soils; calcareous brown earths up to a depth of 50cm. These soils are well drained and easy to work but lack some nutrients. The rest of the Vale of York and the Vale of Mowbray both have large glacial till deposits and depending on their location these vary from highly fertile loams to poorly drained reddish clays; however such heavy soils would have proved difficult to farm until the late Iron Age when ploughs were improved allowing access to what was then more marginal land.85 The clay based soils can be difficult to manage in order to retain their fertility and it is likely that these soils would fairly quickly have become exhausted in the later Iron Age and Roman periods. Finally the North Yorks Moors, which lack glacial deposits, depend largely on the geological deposits underneath. Mudstones, shales and clays produce peat, sandstones create poor gleys on high ground and good loamy brown earths on lower ground, soils with chalky deposits produce brown earths and alluvial soils are found in valley bottoms.86 These different soil types are greatly varied both in terms of their content and their ease of cultivation; those on the valley sides would have been easiest to cultivate whilst the valley bottoms became accessible with improvements in farming technology. In addition any deforestation would have greatly affected the fertility of both the high ground and the steeper slopes as the soil became subject to leaching. As a result the soils and the underlying geology and topography have had a direct impact upon cultivation and settlement positioning and continuity in North Yorkshire during the period of study.

Northumberland, Durham and the Tees Valley all lay within and thus beneath the limits of the Devensian icesheets. The ice sheet covered the Durham and Tees lowlands and deposited till across the Northumberland coastal plain, eastern Durham, and the Tees and Wear lowlands, lying up to 60m thick in places and completely burying the underlying geology.89 The till also covered the lower slopes and floors of more upland valleys in the Pennines, Durham Dales and Cheviots but not to the depth of the lower areas. Temporary pro-glacial Lakes like those discussed in North Yorkshire above also formed in the region in the valleys of the Tees, Wear and at Lake Milfield in Northumberland.90 Soils The high western uplands of the Pennines with their flat, poorly drained, plateaus are covered with blanket peatbog and thin, acidic moorland soils. This area, around 100 000ha may have been used for rough grazing but cannot have been useful for very much more.91 The high level of glacial till deposited in the north-east lowlands of Durham and the Tees Valley created good, light soils that have long been preferred for agriculture. Glaciofluvial sands and gravels, deposited by meltwater, are widespread and often form wide terraces above modern rivers. They create light, freely draining soils which would have been accessible for both arable and pastoral farming in the period of study. The drained glacial lakes were filled with clay and silt and became very difficult heavy ground which could not have been easily worked but would have been good for pasture.

The North East: County Durham, Tyne-and-Wear and the Tees Valley Geology and topography North East England is dominated by the Pennines to the west and the Cheviots to the East but also contains smaller upland areas and productive lowlands. Most of the North East uplands are based on Carboniferous sedimentary rocks including sandstones, limestone and coal. On the Pennines the oldest rocks strata, mainly limestones, are almost horizontal creating high plateaus which are usually capped by sandstones. Away from the Pennines the carboniferous and younger

87

Aalen, F. H. A. England’s Landscape: the North East. Harper Collins, London. 2006. p.19 88 Aalen, F. H. A. (2006) p.19 89 Aalen, F. H. A. (2006) p.19 90 Aalen, F. H. A. (2006) p.20 91 Aalen, F. H. A. (2006) p.21

85 Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.29. The development of new tools is discussed in Fowler, P. The Farming of Prehistoric Britain. CUP, Cambridge. 1983 and below p.54 86 Butlin, R. A. (ed.) (2004) p.29

11

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE centre were forced upwards creating a dome from which water flowed out along previous streams and fault lines. These lines of radial drainage were later followed by ice streams and this led to the creation of the major Lakes in a pattern rather like the spokes of a wheel radiating out from the centre.99

Cumbria: The Lake District and the Cumbrian Lowlands The Lakes and surrounding hills Geology and topography The main part of the Lake District is made up of ancient rocks of the Ordovician and Silurian periods.92 These were laid down between 400 and 500million years ago.93 Initially the rocks were created in layers but at the end of the Silurian came the Caledonian mountain building period. This led to severe folding and fracturing of the region and to the creation of the Caledonian mountains which were eventually eroded to a level similar to that seen today.94

It took more than one period of glaciation to form the landscape of the Lake District and indeed all of the glacial and peri-glacial periods have had a massive impact on the region. However it is the last ice age in the Devensian period that has left the most evidence. Huge valley glaciers filled the Lakeland valleys and at the periods of maximum glaciations they overflowed and joined to cover virtually the whole area with the exception of the highest peaks. Ice from the Lakes flowed outwards not only across the District itself but also across the Pennines and southwards carrying rocks from the Lake District into Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire and even Nottinghamshire.100 The mobile ice, flowing out from the centre and following the radial valley drainage patterns, carved out great U-shaped valleys, cutting off hanging valleys and creating lakes and tarns. The Lakes of Lakeland were certainly created by ice because they have U-shaped sections and their lowest points often lie below sea level, indeed Lake Windermere is 38m above sea level on the surface yet is at least 64m deep.101 The glaciers also deposited banks of moraine which formed dams and further helped to create the tarns and the lakes of the area. Meanwhile drumlins formed at the southern edge of the Lakes.102

The oldest rocks are the Ordovician Skiddaw Slates, sedimentary rocks built up from the material eroded from even older rocks, which make up the high, rounded geology of the northern fells.95 Further to the south are the Borrowdale Volcanics which have created the crags of the central Lakes including Scafell, Coniston, Helvellyn and Highstreet. These rocks mark the remains of an ancient Ordovician volcano which once stood more than 5000metres high about 450 million years ago when the Lake District lay 20 degrees south of the equator. Lava and ash from this volcano built up and subsequent geological tilting and folding has exposed many layers across the central lakes, known as the Borrowdale Volcanics.96 The most southerly section of the Lakes, the Windermere Group, is formed of layers of Silurian mudstones and sandstones and covers Windermere and the Furness Fells. By contrast with the central lakes this area is made up of sedimentary rocks laid down in seas of varying depth which form a gentler landscape.

Soils After the last ice age deep upland peat-bogs developed in the high level, waterlogged, areas of the Lake District although the steep slopes of the mountains restricted their formation to the rare flatter areas.103 Glaciation stripped the high fells of all soil-forming material, leaving exposed rocky slopes which were then subject to freezethaw and other actions creating crags and scree slopes.104 The lower slopes are made up from materials eroded from higher up the slopes and from material deposited by the glaciers on the valley sides.105 These soils are usually highly acidic gleys and would have been both difficult to cultivate and swiftly exhausted. In particular deforestation would have caused any nutrients to be washed from these poor soils rendering them virtually useless. It was the valley bottoms, where these were not filled with water, that were the most fertile. Here silts, sands and alluvium were deposited by meltwater and rivers, some of which completely silted up lakes to form

In addition to the main rock types making up the Lake District numerous intrusions of magma have created granite outcrops spread throughout the region. The heat to which these rocks were exposed has made them extremely hard and impermeable.97 Around 70 million years after the end of the Caledonian period tropical Carboniferous seas advanced into the Lake District and laid down the Carboniferous limestones which surround the Lakeland mountains.98 These younger rocks create escarpments around the main Lake District massif and are the rocks which now link the Lakes to Eden Valley, the Pennines and the Dales. The final period of uplift occurred sometime after the Triassic period and created the radial pattern of drainage which gives the Lake District its unique appearance. The rocks of the

99

Fryer, G. (1991) p.6 Fryer, G. (1991) p.8 101 The glacial processes are well described in Fryer, G. (1991) p.12-19 102 Fryer, G. (1991) p.13 103 Mosley, F. Geology of the Lake District. Yorkshire Geological Society, Leeds. 1974. p.30 104 Bendelow, V. C. ‘Soils, geology and climate in the Lake District National Park’ in Soils and Land use in the Lake District National Park: Proceedings of the North of England Soils Discussion Group 20. 1984. p.3 105 Mosley, F. (1974) p.31 100

92 Mosley, F. Geology and Scenery in the Lake District. Geologists Association, London. 1990. p.3 93 Fryer, G. A Natural History of the Lakes, Tarns and Streams of the Lake District. Freshwater Biological Association, Cumbria. 1991. p.1 94 Mosley, F. (1990) p.7 95 Fryer, F. (1991) p.1 96 Mosley, F. (1990) p.7 97 Fryer, G. (1991) p.5 98 Mosley, F. (1990) p.7

12

CHAPTER 1: REVIEW reasonably fertile valleys but with heavy, difficult soils which could only have been useful for pasturage and may have been difficult to cultivate even after the introduction of new tools.106

Lancashire The highest land in Lancashire is in the Forest of Bowland, an extension of the Pennines and thus made up of fairly resistant carboniferous limestone rocks rising to a maximum of 561m.115 Apart from this area the solid geology of the rest of the area, a series of Permo-Triassic rocks with sandstone in the east and mudstones in the west, is largely deeply buried under glacial drift deposits and has had little impact on the landscape since the end of the Devensian period.116

The Cumbrian Lowlands In Southern Cumbria the land is divided between northerly Silurian rocks which create high, craggy ground, and more southerly carboniferous limestone covered with glacial till. Finally the Furness peninsula is made up of mudstone and sandstone although this again is covered with glacial till.107

The Lancashire coastal plain is a boulder clay landscape and most of it lies below 30m above sea level. As a result the area is heavily waterlogged with mires around the coasts the largest of which is the Fylde. Added to this three rivers, the Lune, Ribble and Wyre, flow through the low-lying flood plain.117 Of the three soil types in the lowlands two, colluvium and alluvium, are found in the waterlogged riverine and estuarine areas. The third, peat, made up most of the landscape of North Lancashire. Middleton, describing the early landscape of the area states that prior to the industrial era, ‘mires occupying the waterlogged marine clay flats and glacial till hollows stretched uninterruptedly from the salt marshes of the northern shore of Over Wyre almost to the River Wyre in the south and from the Preesall district in the west to Winmarleigh and Nateby in the east. In south and central Fylde, valley and raised mires snaked along the low-lying topography between till uplands forming a mosaic of open wetland’.118 Further valley and raised mires dominated even the more upland areas although these were also afforested and blanket peats covered the highest land in the area now known as the Bowland Forest.119 From this evidence it is clear that North Lancashire was not an easy environment at any time and this would certainly have been the case in the period of study. However the area is used for upland and lowland pasture with rough grazing in the Forest of Bowland, and this could have been the case in the late Iron Age and Roman periods.120

Although more accessible for agriculture than the steep, narrow Lakeland valleys the soils in this area remain relatively poor. The higher, northern slopes produce peat and acidic gleys which would have been impossible to use for anything but rough pasture.108 The Carboniferous soils are more varied producing gleys but also more useful brown earth although it is questionable how accessible these soils would have been for anything but pasturage in the period of study. The lowest land contains some lighter soils associated with the limestone geology and may have been the most useful for agriculture but they are limited in extent.109 The Solway Plain has a more complex history having been affected both by the Devensian glaciation and the later ‘Scottish re-advance’ which deposited new material across much of the area delaying the formation of soils although this would not have been the case as late as the period of study.110 The underlying geology is mainly sandstone in the east whilst Jurassic shales make up the land to the west.111 The area is drained by several large rivers and much of the northern area nearest the coast is frequently waterlogged.112 Here peat and clay dominate the area and the soils could only have been of use for seasonal pasturage. The most useful, well drained alluvial loams are also found around the coast and along the rivers systems, particularly of the River Ellen to the west of Carlisle and it is these areas which would have been the most use for agriculture, particularly pasturage, during the period of study.113 In particular the south-western part of this area contains well drained loam soils which could have been used for more intensive agriculture.114

MODERN LITERATURE ON THE BRIGANTES Cunliffe sums up the reasons behind the creation of modern ‘Brigantia’ well: ‘The Greek geographer Ptolemy, writing in the second century AD tells us of a northern tribe, the Brigantes, whose territory stretched from ‘sea to sea’. This vision of a northern people ‘the most populous in the whole province’ was also conjured up by Tacitus writing of the conquest of Britain. From these descriptions has sprung the modern construct of Brigantia, conceived of as a vast

106

Mosley, F. (1974) p.31 Hodgkinson, D. et al. The Lowland Wetlands of Cumbria: North West wetlands survey 6. Lancaster Imprints, Lancaster. 2000. p.23-24 108 Hodgkinson, D. et al. (2000) p.23 109 Hodgkinson, D. et al. (2000) p.24 110 Bewley, R. H. Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement in the Solway Plain, Cumbria. Oxbow Monograph 36, Oxford. 1994. p.9 111 Bewley, R. H. (1994) p.10 112 Hodgkinson, D. et al. (2000) p.85 113 Hodgkinson, D. et al. (2000) p.85 114 Hodgkinson, D. et al. (2000) p.85 and see Bewley, R. H. (1994) p.13 107

115 Middleton, R. et al. The Wetlands of North Lancashire: North West Wetlands Survey. Lancashire Imprints, Lancaster. 1995. p.6 116 Middleton, R. et al. (1995) p.8 117 Middleton, R. et al. (1995) p.6 118 Middleton, R. et al. (1995) p.8 119 Middleton, R. et al. (1995) p.8 120 Middleton, R. et al. (1995) p.8

13

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE territory extending from the Peak District to Hadrian’s Wall and from the Irish Sea to the North Sea, a political and cultural monolith. The vision is given enhanced respectability by the story of the Brigantian queen, Cartimandua and her husband Venutius recorded in part by Tacitus’.121

Hanson and Campbell Hanson and Campbell do not discuss the size or status of the Brigantes in detail, their paper focuses on the conflict between the relevant passages in Tacitus’ Histories and Annals; they do, however, discuss the debate over the pre-Roman centre and the Brigantes possible status and history as a client kingdom after 43AD.128 Although this paper was published after serious doubt had been cast on the assumption that the Brigantes held direct control over northern England, Hanson and Campbell appear to retain the belief that the Brigantes may have held direct control over northern England; ‘given the large size of the Brigantian kingdom, factional disagreement is likely to have common and centralised control’.129 This notion is further supported by the fact that, in discussing the possible presence of other tribes in the area with reference to Agricola, they come to the conclusion that the groups mentioned must be from Scotland rather than giving credence to the idea that they could have been septs of the Brigantes or even separate tribes.130 The validity of this paper may be affected by the fact that it was written before the major reconsideration of the Stanwick fortifications by Haselgrove.131 As a result it relies on out of date information and any conclusions regarding the territory of the tribe must be treated with caution.

Wheeler Sir Mortimer Wheeler reported on his excavation at the oppidum site of Stanwick in 1954 and was the most significant recent author to unquestioningly attribute the entirety of northern England, his Brigantia, to the Brigantes tribe. However even as late as 1980 Ramm mapped the Iron Age settlement of the Brigantes and clearly attributed to them the entirety of northern England with the exception of the south-eastern corner; attributed to the Parisi, and the north-western corner; attributed to the Carvetii.122 Wheeler excavated the fortifications at Stanwick and found, to his belief, clear archaeological evidence for the events described by Tacitus and considered in detail in chapter 2.123 Wheeler took the information from Tacitus at face value and believed that the Brigantes were the only tribe present in northern England with a territory that may even had stretched into Dumfriesshire and certainly included County Durham and Southern Yorkshire.124 ‘Brigantia stretched from the Yorkshire-Derbyshire borderland in the south to Durham or beyond in the north: roughly perhaps from the Don and the Mersey to the Tyne and the lower Eden’.125

Higham Higham discussed the position of the Brigantes in 1987.132 He believes that some form of Brigantian state did exist and uses it to loosely describe Britain from the Humber/ Mersey to the lowlands of Dumfriesshire and southern Northumberland.133 Higham discusses the history of the region including environmental and climatic factors and the effect of change over time. This method highlights the varying development of different regions and in particular the clear differentiation between the Wolds communities and the rest of northern England in the last half of the first millennium BC, although Higham believes that this area may have been subordinate to the Brigantes by the AD50’s and 60’s.134 Higham also considers the period post AD43 and the position of Stanwick as a key political site although he points out its poor economic position. Although this paper was published before the results of the reevaluation of Stanwick, Higham doubts Wheeler’s conclusion that the site fell to Venutius and argues strongly for its continuity as Cartimandua’s capital until her position as a client ruler came to an end in AD69. In

Since Wheeler, considerable change has been wrought in the interpretation of the social structure and tribal boundaries of the Brigantes. However, literature on the area and the possible identity of social groupings within northern England remains very limited. Braund In view of the lack of literature on the Brigantes the paper by Braund is worthy of mention here, although he only covers the debate over the extent of ‘Brigantian’ power briefly in his analysis of the conflict between passages in Tacitus’ Histories and Annals.126 He believes that the Brigantes were probably some form of federation but, recognising the debate over their status, he gives credence to Salway’s question over whether it would have been possible to control a federation of this size and agrees that this assumption has never been proven.127

121 Cunliffe, B. Iron Age Communities in Britain. Routledge, London. 19913. p.189 122 Ramm, H. ‘Native settlements East of the Pennines’ in Branigan, K. (ed.) Rome and the Brigantes: the impact of Rome on Northern England. University of Sheffield. 1980. p.29. 123 Wheeler, M. The Stanwick Fortifications North Riding of Yorkshire. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London No.17. OUP, Oxford. 1954. pp.17-22 124 Wheeler, M. (1954) p.22 125 Wheeler, M. (1954) p.23 126 Braund, D. ‘Observations on Cartimandua’ in Britannia 15. 1984. p.1. Tacitus is further discussed in chapter 2. 127 Salway, P. Roman Britain. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1982. p.108

128

Hanson, W.S. and Campbell, D.B. ‘The Brigantes: from Clientage to Conquest’ in Britannia 17. 1986. pp.73-89 129 Hanson, W.S. and Campbell, D.B. (1986) p.73 130 Hanson, W.S. and Campbell, D.B. (1986) p.87 131 Haselgrove has re-excavated and re-interpreted the Stanwick Oppidum. Haselgrove, C. C. et al. ‘Stanwick-Oppidum (Stanwick revealed as Cartimandua’s capital)’, Current Archaeology 119. 1990c. pp.380-385. The re-excavation is discussed below pp.17-19 132 Higham, N. ‘Brigantia Revisited’ in Northern History 23. 1987. pp.1-20 133 Higham, N. (1987) p.1 134 Higham, N. (1987) p.18

14

CHAPTER 1: REVIEW particular he highlights the fact that the Stanwick fortifications were not slighted after the conquest of AD69 which would not be the case of a centre with any link to resistance.135

Hartley and Fitts discuss the debate over the extent of ‘Brigantia’; however, following the theory of a large and powerful confederation, their aim is to use every piece of available evidence to define the largest possible extent of the region. Using literature and dedications to the goddess Brigantia, the weaknesses of which are discussed in chapter 2 below, Hartley and Fitts define a northern limit including Northumberland and Dumfriesshire.144 Their southern limit is less defined but, using dedications again, they include the Leeds area and suggest the River Don as the eastern limit whilst including the Derbyshire Dales on the west and giving the Mersey as the southern boundary on the west.145 This seems a vast territory to hold even as a confederation and brings Hartley and Fitts’ conclusions about the status and extent of the Brigantes into considerable doubt.

Higham notes that the Brigantes are described in both general and more specific terms. He argues that, ‘this apparent duality in the use of the tribal name invites the interpretation that northern England exhibited broad similarities with other areas of ‘Celtica’ in which dominant communities acted as the patrons or hegemonal rulers of peripheral client tribes’.136 Higham does not fully support the idea of a confederacy and prefers to see the Brigantes and other tribes as separate units connected as a community by a system of clientage.137 Hartley and Fitts

Fairless The last large scale work on the Brigantes was carried out by Hartley and Fitts and published in 1988.138 It does take into account the re-evaluation of Stanwick as a major oppidum site and questions long held assumptions that the Brigantes depended on pastoralism although they include so much land within their territory that this will affect their assumptions on the agricultural traditions of the community.139 In addition much work on smaller Iron Age sites has been carried out since its publication. This work argues that there must have been many individual societies in northern England. Hartley and Fitts suggest that there were up to six named tribes in northern England and potentially a multiplicity of others all of which were amalgamated into a confederacy under the Brigantes.140 They project that the varied physical geography of the region would have encouraged the development of many independent communities with, potentially, one group in each Pennine valley, one in the Lancashire plain, another in the Lakes and a further in the Eden Valley whilst east of the Pennines they believe there must have been more than one unit on the lowlands, a further on the North Yorks Moors and an unknown number on the lowlands of Durham and Northumberland since the area cannot be easily subdivided.141

Keith Fairless was the last author to write in detail on the Brigantes in his 1989 thesis ‘Aspects of the archaeology of the Brigantes’. Fairless mapped rectilinear enclosures, villas and other types of enclosure ‘other sites’ to look for patterning, particularly in types of enclosures.146 He also considered the religious evidence from northern Britain looking at the spatial distribution of dedications to Belatucadrus, Cocidius and Veteris. This may be a valid approach, but Fairless does not appear to consider the weakness of this material as evidence for the Iron Age. Namely that much of this material is likely to be of Roman date and is likely to represent military syncretisation rather than native religious belief. This bias is revealed on Fairless’s maps where much of the evidence for religious dedications is found on and around Hadrian’s Wall.147 From the patterns in enclosures and religious dedications he observed Fairless concluded that Brigantia consisted of a series of smaller tribes ruled over by one supreme tribe, the Brigantes.148 He believed that the Brigantes were hill people who moved down from an unspecified area into the Stanwick area which was well placed to control a large area of central England. However he does not explain how this might have taken place or what might have happened to the area they left behind. From the patterning evidence he observed, Fairless argues that it is plausible to argue the presence of one tribe per Pennine valley with the addition of the Eden Valley and the Craven area. He considers the Tyne Gap to be the northern boundary of ‘Brigantia’ but is less clear on a southern boundary.149

Hartley and Fitts follow the trend in believing that the Northern England was not inhabited by one single tribe but they continue to assume that there must have been a confederation despite the difficulty of holding power over such an area. ‘It is usual to assume that the Brigantes were a confederation of smaller tribes which had been welded into a larger unit during the later stages of the preRoman Iron Age’142 ‘a remarkable and powerful figure must have been responsible for the amalgamation of the diverse units’.143

Fairless believes that other tribal septs within northern England may have included the Carvetii, the Setantii and

135

Higham, N. (1987) p.17 Higham, N. (1987). p.9 137 Higham, N. (1987). p.9 138 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. The Brigantes. Sutton, Gloucester. 1988 139 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.9 140 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.1 141 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.3 142 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.1 143 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.2 136

144

Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.5 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.5 Fairless, K. Aspects of the Archaeology of the Brigantes. University of Durham PhD Thesis. 1989 (unpublished) 147 Fairless, K. (1989) (unpublished) 148 Fairless, K. (1989) (unpublished) 149 Fairless, K. (1989) (unpublished) 145 146

15

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE others. However he is convinced that the Brigantes held some form of overarching control over them. His interesting solution is that the Brigantes controlled other tribal areas through an ancient ‘hostage’ system allowing them to keep these lesser societies in check.150

ARCHAEOLOGY IN NORTHERN ENGLAND SINCE THE 1960’S History For much of the 19th and 20th centuries archaeological investigations focused on Roman military and AngloSaxon religious archaeology and until very recently work on the Roman period continued to focus primarily on military sites.156 Although much of his work focused on Northumberland, north of the study area, the key figure in investigating the importance of later prehistory in northern England was George Jobey.157 Jobey, working in the 1950’s and 60’s, investigated several of the key sites in the region such as West Brandon. The critical aspect of his work was his ‘systematic classification of the numerous, and previously largely ignored, native sites in the area, testing out hypotheses against excavation work and developing a chronology for the prehistoric period’.158 Jobey changed attitudes towards native archaeology in the north-east but his work focused mainly on Northumberland. South of the Tyne there was no equivalent until the 1970’s when aerial photography began to enhance the previously poorly understood archaeology of the lowlands of Durham. This was further developed by the Durham Archaeological Survey in 1983-87 which field walked five large study areas although little pottery was actually found.159 Indeed it was largely aerial photography which increased knowledge of sites in the north-east in the 20th century with the work of Denis Harding in County Durham and Blaise Vyner and Leslie Still on Teeside.160 This work has helped to identify several important new sites which were later excavated including Thorpe Thewles and Coxhoe.161

Cunliffe Cunliffe brings out the lack of evidence for differentiation in northern England. He argues that slight but widespread evidence of a mixed economy and a lack of notable variation in elements of material culture such as ceramics reveals, ‘there is little evidence on which to distinguish regional or tribal variation’.151 He goes on to highlight Stanwick as a highly anomalous site and believes it to be at the heart of ‘Brigantian’ territory.152 Cunliffe follows the opinion that the Brigantes cannot have been the only society present in northern England but he remains ambivalent on the position of others listing in his section of tribes of northern England, the ‘Brigantes and their neighbours’.153 He follows modern consensus that the Brigantes were the dominant force in northern England but does not believe that there is necessarily any evidence for the presence of a confederacy stating that, ‘the other tribal groups should not be overlooked nor should the whole north be written off as a ‘Brigantian confederacy’.154 Instead Cunliffe suggests that the Brigantes still held some degree of influence over other societies in northern England who held some form of ‘client’ status. He supports this theory by suggesting that the Brigantes probably occupied the lands of the Pennines and their flanks, giving them control of the major route ways and well-drained soils on both sides of this barrier which formed the basis of their power. Although indicating that the Brigantes may not have been as powerful as previously believed, Cunliffe clearly considers them pre-eminent in northern England throughout the late Iron Age with a monopoly over trade and communication which further strengthened, ‘their hegemony over their lesser neighbours’.155

In Yorkshire there has been a long tradition of archaeology with major large scale work in East Yorkshire and in York. 162 One of the greatest advances in the understanding of late prehistoric and Roman archaeology in the area was the aerial investigation by St Joseph which identified a wealth of new Iron Age and Romano-British landscape archaeology, particularly around Grassington and Malham in the upper Yorkshire

Much new archaeological work has been carried out since the last detailed work on the so called Brigantes. This renders a new assessment of tribal society in northern England, including further aspects of material culture and settlement density, a timely and valid exercise. Using an interdisciplinary approach this study covers literary evidence, some place-name evidence, material culture and settlement evidence. This methodology provides a detailed and comprehensive study of the late Iron Age and early Roman period in northern England.

156 Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. Shared Visions: the North-East Regional Research Framework for the Historic Environment. Durham County Council, Durham. 2006. p.33 and 45 157 Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.33 158 Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.33. For West Brandon see Jobey, G. ‘An Iron Age homestead at West Brandon, Durham’ in Archaeologia Aeliana (4th series) 40. 1962. pp.1-34 159 Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.33 160 Harding, D. W. ‘Air survey in the Tyne-Tees Region 1969-79’ in Higham, N. J. (ed.) The Changing Past. University of Manchester, Manchester. 1979. pp.21-30, Still, L. and Vyner, B.E. ‘Air photographic evidence for later prehistoric settlement in the Tees Valley’ in Durham Archaeological Journal 2. 1986. pp.11-24 161 Haselgrove, C. C. ‘Excavation at West House Coxhoe’ in Archaeologia Aeliana10, 1982. pp.5-51, Heslop, D. H. The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement at Thorpe Thewles, Cleveland 1980-1982, Council For British Archaeology, London.1987 162 Manby, T.G., Moorhouse, S. and Ottaway, P. The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the beginning of the 21st Century. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Occasional Paper 3, Leeds. 2003. p.13

150

Fairless, K. (1989) (unpublished) Cunliffe, B. (19913) p.191 Cunliffe, B. (19913) p.191 153 Cunliffe, B. Iron Age Communities in Britain. Routledge, London. 19913. p.189 154 Cunliffe, B. (19913) p.189 155 Cunliffe, B. (19913) p.193 151 152

16

CHAPTER 1: REVIEW Dales.163 The programme of aerial photography was continued by Still and Vyner and Riley who have between them identified many more previously unknown sites in Central Yorkshire whilst Wilson has discussed a body of aerial photography identifying sites on the North Yorks Moors.164 Other key figures have been Challis and Harding who produced a synthesis of sites and assemblages from the area. Their work, updated by Spratt who has improved upon knowledge of sites from northeast Yorkshire, remains a key source of information on sites from across the area.165 These landscape surveys have been very useful but excavation has been very limited, particularly in the Pennines.166 Despite the limited excavation in Yorkshire, outside of East Yorkshire and York the area has seen the excavation of perhaps the most important native site in northern England at the unique oppidum site of Stanwick with work undertaken by Wheeler in 1951and more recently by Haselgrove in the 1980’s.167 As with the rest of northern England Roman archaeology has tended to focus on military sites with major excavations at forts, colonia and, more latterly, vici. More rural sites were rarely excavated unless they were directly connected to a villa.168 In recent years there has been a greater trend towards investigating native sites, particularly those at and near Stanwick, but there has also been an increase in interest at rural sites across the area although excavation is still limited with much identification being restricted to aerial photographic work.169

Robert Bewley.172 Both undertook extensive aerial photographic work over the north-west and their work greatly increased the number of known archaeological sites, particularly sites of native settlement. The discoveries made through aerial photography have been followed up with programmes of field walking and small scale excavation on the Solway Plain, especially by Bewley, who has demonstrated that the dating of sites in north-west England by form alone is not necessarily a valid procedure.173 Despite work over the last decades to identify at least in part the presence of native settlement of the Iron Age and Roman periods in the north-west, the difficulty of identifying sites in the region continues to limit the success of these efforts and large scale excavation is lacking. Stanwick Perhaps the most well known native site in the region of study is the oppidum settlement at Stanwick, North Yorkshire. This key site has been excavated twice, by Wheeler in the 1950’s and, importantly, by Haselgrove in the 1980’s. The second excavation of Stanwick reinterpreted the site from a swiftly constructed set of defensive earthworks used for Venutius’ last stand against the Romans, as Wheeler had proposed, into a major high status oppidum site which acted as Cartimandua’s capital with earthworks designed more to impress than to serve an active purpose in defence. The later studies clearly indicate that, ‘Wheeler’s deceptively straightforward scheme for the context and development of the Stanwick earthworks can no longer be accepted. The reality is considerably more complicated, and even now not fully understood’.174

In the North-West as with the North-East archaeological investigation has tended to focus on the substantial Roman military remains in the region.170 This influence continues with recent projects at major Roman sites such as Birdoswald,171 but the situation began to change with the work of Barri Jones in the 1970’s and later that of

Haselgrove’s excavations of the 1980’s have not been fully published and due to the significance of this key site to the whole of this study it is of value to discuss the most recent investigations of Stanwick in more detail here. The earthwork complex is ‘easily the most extensive and impressive surviving iron age monument in northern England’.175 The extensive earthworks, which still survive to heights of 5m in many places, enclose nearly 300 hectares and are well drained by two becks, the Mary Wild Beck and Aldborough Beck.176 The scale of human effort involved in constructing the earthworks indicates that Stanwick was a centre of far more than purely local significance.177 The site lies close to two major route ways which later became Roman roads, Dere Street and

163

St Joseph, J. K. ‘Aerial Reconnaissance in Roman Britain’ in Journal of Roman Studies 67. 1977. pp.125-61 164 Still, L., Vyner, B. E. and Bewley, R. ‘A decade of air survey in Cleveland and the Tees Valley hinterland’ in Durham Archaeological Journal 5. 1989. pp.1-10, Riley, D. N. ‘Air reconnaissance of west and south Yorkshire in 1975’ Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 48. 1976. pp. 13-17; Riley, D. N. ‘Air reconnaissance in 1977’ Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 50. 1978. pp.21-4, Wilson, P.R. ‘The North Yorkshire Moors in the Roman Period: developments and directions’ in Vyner, B. E. (ed.) Moorland Monuments: Studies in the Archaeology of North-East Yorkshire in Honour of Raymond Hayes and Don Spratt. CBA Research Report 101, London. 1995. pp.69-78 165 Challis, A. J. and Harding, D. W. Later Prehistory from Trent to Tyne. BAR British Series 20. 1975. Spratt, D. A. Prehistoric and Roman Archaeology of North-east Yorkshire. CBA Research Report 104, London. 1993 166 Manby, T.G. et al. (2003) p.123 167 Wheeler, M. The Stanwick Fortifications, North Riding of Yorkshire. Society of Antiquaries London 17. 1954, Haselgrove, C. C. et al. ‘Stanwick, North Yorkshire part 1’ in Archaeological Journal 147. 1990a. pp.1-15 ; Haselgrove, C. C. et al. ‘Stanwick, North Yorkshire part 1’ in Archaeological Journal 147. 1990b. pp.37-90 168 Manby, T.G. et al. (2003) p.132 169 Manby, T.G. et al. (2003) p.138-9 170 http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/mol/archaeology/arf/documents /ASSESSMENTINTRODUCTION.pdf p.7 171 Birdoswald: Wilmott, T. Birdoswald; Excavations of a Roman fort on Hadrian’s Wall and its successor settlement: 1987-92. English Heritage Archaeological Reports 14, London. 1997.

172 Higham,N. J. and Jones, G. D. B. ‘Frontiers, forts and farmers, Cumbrian aerial survey, 1974-75’ in Archaeological Journal 132. 1975. pp.16-53. Bewley, R.H. Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement in the Solway Plain, Cumbria. Oxbow Monograph 36. Oxford. 1994 173 Bewley, R.H. ‘Survey and excavation at a crop-mark enclosure, Plasketlands, Cumbria’ in Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (new series) 93. 1993. pp.1-18 174 Haselgrove, C. C. et al. ‘Stanwick, North Yorkshire, Part 1: Recent research and previous archaeological investigations’ in The Archaeological Journal 147. 1990 a. p.1 175 Haselgrove, C. C. et al. (1990a) p.1 176 Haselgrove, C. C. et al. (1990a) p.2 177 Haselgrove, C. C. et al. (1990a) p.1

17

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

Fig. 1. Plan of the Stanwick earthworks.178 the Stainmore Pass, but would certainly have had greater antiquity.179 The surrounding land is one of the few areas in north-east England classed as Grade 2 in the Agricultural Land Classification and would thus have been an excellent resource for both arable and pastoral farming.180

demonstrates the longevity of the site in the Iron Age period.182 The Stanwick earthworks create a rampart 8km long which could never have been defensible and it is therefore unlikely that the site was ever a defended ‘hillfort’ type site.183 This does not mean that the defences served no purpose beyond display; no enemy could have attacked over so wide an area and therefore defence could have been concentrated in the area of attack.184 In addition the defences are designed to give a good outlook over the surrounding area and thus allow for some warning of any impending attack. The site consists of a large and relatively open area enclosed by massive earthworks. Within this the north-western part of the defended area is divided off from the rest by internal earthworks and is known as the Tofts. This area appears

A number of low clay banks and small ditches clearly predate the main Stanwick earthworks and in at least three cases these are distinct from the later earthworks therefore they cannot be any form of marking-out features. These banks indicate settlement earlier than the extant Stanwick fortifications and, ‘could represent either the fields or landholdings associated with the settlement or settlements from which the later fortified complex emerged, or vestiges of even earlier territorial divisions’.181 In addition the 1984 excavations demonstrated the presence of a well established roadway predating the late iron-age entrance which further

182

Haselgrove, C. C. et al. (1990b). p.50 Welfare, H. et al. ‘Stanwick, North Yorkshire, Part 2: A summary description of the earthworks’ in The Archaeological Journal 147, 1990. p.35 and Haselgrove, C. C. (1990b) p.86 184 Welfare, H. et al. (1990) p.35

178

183

After Welfare, H. et al. (1990) p.16-17 insert 1:65000 179 Haselgrove, C. C. et al. (1990a) p.1 180 Haselgrove, C. C. et al. (1990a) p.2 181 Haselgrove, C. C. et al. (1990b) p.85

18

CHAPTER 1: REVIEW disrepair relatively quickly.194 Whatever their purpose it appears to have been more for short term display than for long term defence and this interpretation is further supported by evidence from the north-west entrance to the site which was an imposing structure again built after Roman imports had begun to arrive at the Tofts settlement site.

to have been the focus for a high status settlement and is discussed below. To the north-east of the site is Henah Hill which appears to have been excluded from the earthwork perimeter with the main earthworks passing behind it.185 This is surprising and, as yet, unexplained but further negates any suggestion that the site could have contained, or developed from, a hill-fort since the only hill in the area is outside of the main defences. Both the external and internal Tofts earthworks appear to have been revetted in stone and there is some indication that they were not vertical but, at some point, inclined backwards at an angle.186 However there is no evidence for any form of slighting which would be indicative of an attack on the site.187

Knowledge of settlement within the Stanwick site is constrained by the sheer size of the area involved.195 It is clear that the Tofts field in the north-east of the site and separated by internal earthworks from the rest of the site is the major site of high status occupation yet discovered. However little or nothing is known about occupation elsewhere in the interior of the site. Haselgrove suggests that, ‘given the enormous resources expended in building the outer circuit of defences, it does seem inherently unlikely that the whole of the southern part of the site was given over purely to agriculture’.196 In addition it is also possible that a further settlement site lay outside of the defences in Cat Wood to the immediate north-west of the site. A further question lies in the fate of the Stanwick site. Despite the presence of a central authority capable of drawing on great manpower and with a definite desire for display on a large scale and for contact with the Roman Empire in the period before the conquest of northern England the site appears to have fallen out of use by the late first century AD.197 There is, as yet, no explanation for this and it remains one of the many as yet unanswered questions about the Stanwick site.

Settlement evidence from Stanwick has, so far, pointed to the Tofts as the main focus of occupation. It is clear that a number of enclosures and buildings, in the form of traditional roundhouses, stood here and that the archaeology represents multi-phase occupation over a long period.188 Major changes took place in the Roman period when new enclosures, enclosing several multiphase roundhouses, were constructed, apparently superimposed on top of the previous building layout.189 Five adult burials and that of a 6 month old child were also discovered in the settlement area suggesting complex ritual processes.190 Plentiful carbonised remains of spelt wheat and 6 row barley, numerous rotary querns, and an abundant faunal assemblage also indicate that the inhabitants of Stanwick practiced a thriving mixed farming economy.191

Current factors affecting archaeological investigations Current archaeological practice has been directly affected by the new planning laws PPG16 and PPG15 which demand investigation of sites with planned development and physical protection of any remains of national importance.198 The result of these policies had an immediate effect on the organisation of conservation and field archaeology in England and in particular in the amount of fieldwork and recording taking place. Across the country around three times more investigation took place in 1999 than in 1990 of which 89% were the result of planning and development controls.199 However with a focus on these planning related excavations much funding has been withdrawn from other archaeological units and this has led to an effort to create regional research frameworks with an aim of continuing important excavation in non-threatened areas.

It is clear that the later Iron Age earthworks were not constructed as one unit. The dating evidence is scarce but indicates that the main defences were erected no earlier than the mid-first century AD and probably within a relatively short period, by which time the Tofts settlement was well established and already receiving Roman imports.192 The purpose of the internal earthworks, for which a clear chronology is also lacking, which divide off the northern part of the site and the Tofts enclosure from the rest of the Stanwick complex is not as yet clear; however Haselgrove suggests that these, ‘might reasonably be interpreted as designed to defend and divide off specific areas of the interior from the rest of the complex’.193 The main earthworks, which appear to have been constructed after the site was already in contact with the Roman Empire, do not seem to have lasted for very long and the indication is that some sections fell into

The national trend has been reflected in the area of study. In particular it has increased the routine use of geophysical survey as a prospection tool in advance of green field development which has helped to identify unknown sites which had not previously been seen on

185

Welfare, H. et al. (1990) p.35 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990b) p.86 187 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990b) p.86 188 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990b) p.58 see also plan p.68, Haselgrove, C. C. et al. ‘Stanwick-Oppidum (Stanwick revealed as Cartimandua’s capital)’, Current Archaeology 119. 1990c. p.381 189 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990 c.) p.384 190 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990 c.) p.384 191 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990 c.) p.385 192 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990b) p.86 193 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990b) p.86 186

194

Haselgrove, C. C. (1990b) p.86 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990b) p.86 196 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990b) p.86 197 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990b) p.86 198 Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.1 199 Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.1 195

19

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE aerial photography.200 A range of sites have been identified through the new planning controls but the majority have been smaller, previously unknown sites such as the 2004 survey at Faverdale near Darlington which revealed a late Iron Age farmstead and field system.201Investigation in the north-east has tended to focus primarily on Roman military archaeology in the area due to planning investigations in major centres such as Newcastle and York.202 However recent excavations by Archaeological Services, Durham University with an aim of developing a greater knowledge of civilian archaeology in the region have discovered an important new site at Sedgefield.203 Thus for the purposes of this study recent developments in archaeology have added in particular to the understanding of Iron Age native settlement in north-east England. In the north-west the new planning laws have also allowed investigation of development sites however funding was withdrawn from many of the academic archaeological units and this may have affected the degree to which sites which are not under threat from development have been investigated in the region.204 Investigation under the auspices of bodies such as the National Trust or by universities may now be the source of increasing data on the native, rural settlements of north-west England and the recent programme of excavation and investigation at Glencoyne Park is a good example of this.205

hoarding and the adoption of iron for utilitarian objects are indeed related – as seems likely – this implies that iron was already common by the eighth century BC’.208 Why iron work began to appear at this time is unclear but it may be due to an increased difficulty in obtaining bronze whilst iron ore was easier to obtain.209 Although the seventh century BC is termed as the start date for the Iron Age great social and economic changes had been taking place since the late second millennium and these continued beyond this rather arbitrary date. In reality there is a great deal of continuity between the late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age and any dating boundaries are modern constructs which mask a far more gradual change.210 This section will discuss recent work on themes within the Iron Age in Northern England. Settlement There are a number of Iron Age settlement types across northern England ranging from single unenclosed homesteads to large hill-forts. In an attempt to identify the progression of settlement morphology the Hownam sequence was developed by Piggot in 1948.211 Initially this sequence was only designed to be applied to the borders of Scotland but it was rapidly applied to much of northern England, particularly the North East. Piggott excavated Hownam, a hillfort in the Borders, to look for a sequence of developments and apply each to waves of influence from Southern England.212 The result was a progressive development from palisaded enclosure to a single walled and then a multivallate fort.213 This elegant sequence stood until the mid 1960s when radiocarbon dating greatly extended the chronology of the site from a couple of centuries to more than seven hundred years. Armit states, ‘such an extended timescale for structural and architectural change on enclosed sites of the southeast (of Scotland) seemed increasingly to preclude simple explanations in which widespread, sequential changes in hillfort design were precipitated by successive waves of southern English influence’.214 The basic Hownam sequence still stood, however, until the early 1980’s when excavations in East Lothian proved that the reality was far more complex. In particular there was no evidence for a progressively grander enclosure sequence.215

Review of recent work on the Iron Age in Northern England This section will review recent scholarship on the middle and late Iron Age periods in the region of study. The information will be addressed under the topics of settlement, environment and agriculture and social organisation all of which are relevant themes within the scope of this work. The period from c. 800/700 BC206 is termed the Iron Age but when and why the transition to iron occurred across Britain is far from clear. Iron was used in some objects before the end of the Bronze Age and became only gradually more common between 800 – 300BC.207 Hazelgrove comments that, ‘ if the cessation of bronze 200

Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.35 Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.35. 202 Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.45, Manby, T.G. et al. (2003) p.136 203 Sedgefield is a large and complex site revealing a number of roads and enclosures and also industrial production including pottery manufacture. The site is one of the largest Roman sites in the region and there is, as yet, no evidence for any military presence in the area. Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.54 (includes image of geophysical survey) see also www.dur.ac.uk/archaeological.services/research_and_training/sedgefiel d 204 http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/mol/archaeology/arf/documents /ASSESSMENTINTRODUCTION.pdf p.7 205 Glencoyne Park: Loney, H. and Hoean, A ‘Upland settlement in Glencoyne Park Ullswater, Cumbria' in Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Series 3 vol.3, 2003. pp.51-65 206 Cunliffe, B. Book of Iron Age Britain. Batsford, London. 1995. p.27 207 Haselgrove, C. et al. Understanding the British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action. Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury. 2001. p.26 201

208

Haselgrove, C. et al. (2001) p.27 Darville, T. Prehistoric Britain. Batsford, London. 1987. p.122 The Late Bronze Age is dated to c 1300-1250 cal. BC – the approximate start date of the late Bronze Age in metalworking terms. Haselgrove, C. in Brooks, C., Daniels, R., and Harding, A. (eds.) (2002) p.49 211 Piggott, C. M. ‘Excavation of Hownam Rings, Roxburghshire’ in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 82, 1948. pp.193225 212 Armit, I. ‘Life after Hownam: the Iron Age in south-east Scotland’ in Bevan, B. (ed.) Northern Exposure: interpretative devolution and the British Iron Age. Leicester Archaeology Monographs 4, Leicester. 1999. p.65 213 Armit, I. (1999) p.69 214 Armit, I. (1999) p.70 215 Broxmouth revealed an initial enclosed settlement followed by successive defences, some univallate and some bivallate with periods between when the defences were left to decay. Meanwhile Dryburn Bridge showed a palisaded enclosure succeeded by an open settlement of timber roundhouses and other structures. Armit, I. (1999) p.70 209 210

20

CHAPTER 1: REVIEW castle; Haslegrove illustrates Barwick-in-Elmet as an example of the latter.223

Although the Hownam model has now been discredited, no replacement model for the sequence has been found. Armit suggests that one of the main problems is the ‘absence of a firm chronological framework for the various forms of enclosed settlement (particularly hillforts) and houses’.216 Armit argues that there were clearly complex relationships between enclosed and unenclosed settlements with both types often sharing the same elements. As a result no one all encompassing interpretation can be placed on the function and meaning of enclosed settlement in northern England.217

Although slightly outside of this study area, the native settlements of Northumberland, excavated by Joby, are worthy of brief discussion. They give the region a very different settlement character to the rest of northern England.224 In Northumberland many hillforts developed on the steep sided valleys of the Cheviots and this may be linked to the nature of the landscape. By far the largest example is Yeavering Bell but more common are smaller hillforts, typically 0.4ha in size and surrounded by one or more ditches.225

The population of Iron Age Britain is unknown but that for Roman Britain is estimated at between 2.5 and 3.6 million and population growth would have taken place throughout the Iron Age although the rate is difficult to define.218 Tipping argues that population growth cannot be aligned with woodland clearances for agriculture since the earliest hillforts appear to pre-date the earliest clearances.219 In addition he suggests that the radiocarbon chronology of later Iron Age settlement forms is not sufficient to test ideas of population growth and the increasing productivity of farmland could just as easily have been for trade rather than to feed a growing population.

Hillforts may appear to represent large defensive communities but they need not represent focal points of large communities and this is particularly the case where there are so many fortified sites in close proximity to each other. Whilst James and Rigby believe that hillforts represent the gathering together of previously scattered communities into a ‘mosaic of petty chiefdoms’ they do not necessarily represent the rise of a warrior aristocracy and may be simply a sign of a recognised need for a common defence. 226 Cunliffe argues that although the geography of an area may suggest that its inhabitants could have considered themselves part of one unified tribal group this need not have been the case in reality: there is no evidence that the entire population of an area fell under the control and influence of the same leading family.227

Habitation would have been spread across the countryside of northern England but concentrated into more fertile areas such as river valleys, lowlands and coastal plains. Enclosed settlement appears to have been the main habitation type across most of Iron Age Britain.220 Enclosures varied in size and form but generally took the format of a space enclosing anything from a single roundhouse to a complete hill-fort surrounded by a bank of earth or a stone wall and often surrounded again by a ditch. Many enclosures continued in use into the Roman period. 221

Smaller scale enclosures It appears that hillforts had gone out of use across most of the region of study by the end of the Iron Age.228 Enclosed sites make up the most common type of native settlements across the region of study and they vary both in shape and in the type of boundary they employ. Haselgrove states that, ‘smallish rectilinear or subrectangular homesteads...constitute the dominant settlement type in northern England as a whole from the later Bronze Age until at least the Roman period’.229 Hingley has attempted to identify some variation across northern England; in the Tyne Valley and possibly the

Hillforts Hillforts in northern England are generally few in number and relatively small. Their defences vary in form and make up, usually depending on the availability of local materials. It would appear that most hillforts both east and west of the Pennines can be dated to the earlier Iron Age and were later abandoned although Haselgrove suggests that some sites could have remained active as ritual or ceremonial centres as with Traprain Law in southern Scotland.222 It is possible that there were originally more defended sites in low-lying areas and that these have now been build over either by urban development or re-use as a Norman motte-and-bailey

223

Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.69 Eg. Jobey, G. ‘Excavations at Brough Law and Ingram Hill’ in Archaeologia Aeliana (4th series) 6. 1971. pp.1-28, Jobey, G. ‘Iron Age and later farmsteads on Belling Law, Northumberland’ in Arcaheologia Aeliana (5th series) 5, 1977. pp.1-38. See also bibliography in Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.254. For a good brief summary of earlier 20th century work on the Iron Age in Northern England see Welfare, H. ‘The Uplands of the Northern Counties in the First Millennium BC’ in Brooks, C., Daniels, R. and Harding, A. Past Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England. Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5, Durham. 2002. pp.71-77 225 Oswald, A. Hillforts: Prehistoric Strongholds of Northumberland National Park. English Heritage, Swindon. 2006. For Yeavering in particular see: Hope-Taylor, B. Yeavering: An Anglo-British centre of early Northumbria. HMSO, London. 1977 226 James, S. and Rigby, V. Britain and the Celtic Iron Age. British Museum Press, London. 1997. p.58 227 Cunliffe, B. (1995) p.57 228 Hingley, R. (2004) p.340 229 Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.61 224

216

Armit, I. (1999) p.73 Armit, I. (1999) p.73 218 Hingley, R. ‘Rural Settlement in Northern Britain’ in Todd, M. Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell. 2004. p.327 219 Tipping, R. ‘Pollen analysis and the impact of Rome on native agriculture around Hadrian’s Wall’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow, Oxford. 1997. p.244 220 Hingley, R. (2004) p.339 221 Hingley, R. (2004) p.336 222 Haselgrove, C. The archaeology of Lancashire. Lancaster University, Lancaster. 1996. p.67 217

21

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Thus the morphology of settlements need not indicate their status.

north-east of England as a whole, sub-rectangular and rectangular enclosures are the most common. In the north-west there is far less commonality and curvilinear sites are also present although these are usually smaller and at higher altitudes to the rectilinear forms.230

Settlements did not have to exist in isolation and Mattingly has briefly discussed the development of nucleated rural settlements. It has been recognised that these could develop alongside roads and near to villages but some villages clearly had pre-Roman origins. Mattingly suggests that these villages represent, ‘another pre-Roman social tendency in parts of Britain for people to live in larger social groupings’.237 In northern England such villages have not been positively identified but Gill Ferrell has cited the area around the Tees, and particularly around Stanwick, as the only one in northeast England where communities are most likely to develop and it is here that nucleated settlements are most likely to be found.238

Mattingly also identifies these clear differences between the north-east and the north-west. North of the Tees area he notes small dispersed rural settlements, many just simple roundhouses in rectilinear enclosures encompassing just 0.2ha or less.231 Within this area, however, he notes that upland enclosures were often formed from a simple wall or mound of piled rubble whilst in lower areas more fixed ditch and embankment structures were used. In the north-west he notes that there are more curvilinear enclosures and that, whilst much evidence is lacking for Lancashire, there is a general tendency to more dense settlement on the lowlands and less density in the Lakeland massif.232

North-East England The middle Bronze Age and late Iron Age were, as with much of England, major periods of transition in northeast England. The latter period of development was most marked in the south of the area where agriculture intensified and settlement expanded onto heavier, less well drained clay soils.239 These changes may have been linked to population growth but other developments included increased exchange between regions and the development of a social and political hierarchy as illustrated by the development of Stanwick and other larger sites in the Tees Valley area.240

Unenclosed settlements Although enclosed settlements appear to be the most common settlement type across northern England this may be connected to their greater visibility in comparison to unenclosed sites. Hingley highlights the complexity of the landscape and the variable nature of many unenclosed settlement landscapes and suggests that unenclosed settlements may be far more common across northern England than current evidence suggests.233 In addition enclosed and unenclosed settlements may not have existed in isolation from each other. At Melsonby an open settlement of mid to later Iron Age date has been found in close association with the enclosed settlement at Stanwick. Meanwhile at Thorpe Thewles an enclosed settlement formed an early phase in what later developed into a large unenclosed settlement and on other sites unenclosed settlements developed immediately on top of enclosed sites in the late Iron Age and Roman periods.234 Indeed Haselgrove suggests that Thorpe Thewles is evidence of a shift from enclosed to unenclosed settlement in north-east England which was not seen in the north-west.235 The evidence suggests that the landscape may have been far more complex than has been thought and there is also nothing to suggest that enclosed settlements were of a different or higher status to unenclosed settlements despite their greater prominence in the landscape. Hingley argues that the deposition of valuable objects at unenclosed sites indicates these could be of equally high status to enclosed sites with access to valuable items.236

Between the middle Bronze Age and the late Iron Age a range of settlement types existed together. Haselgrove lists palisaded enclosures, ditched enclosures and unenclosed settlements and states that many settlements appear to have passed through both open and enclosed stages but these developments do not follow a common pattern.241 Discussing enclosed settlements, the most common type as yet discovered in the north-east, Haselgrove argues that a distinction should not be made between earthwork enclosures according to their position, and that a more sensible division should be between enclosures housing single households and those for larger communities.242 Both small and medium-sized enclosures appear to have been inhabited by single households, with variations in size perhaps indicating differences in status or farming practices, whilst larger sites housed larger groups.243 This distinction is seen in both rectilinear sites, which are more common on the lowlands, and curvilinear sites, which occur more on higher ground, but is clearer in the former. In addition there were also open

230

237

Hingley, R. (2004) p.341 Mattingly, D. (2006) p.421 232 Mattingly, D. (2006) p.421-2 233 Hingley, R. (2004) p.341. This view is also supported by Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.66 and in Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.62 234 Hingley, R. (2004) p.341. Also Heslop, D. H. The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement at Thorpe Thewles Cleveland 1980-1982. CBA Research Report no.65, London. 1987. p.110 235 Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.66 236 Hingley, R. (2004) p.341

Mattingly, D. An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire. Penguin. London. 2006. p.378 Ferrell, G. ‘Space and Society in the Iron Age of north-east England’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow, Oxford. 1997. p.233 239 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.57 240 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.57 241 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.57-9 242 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.59 243 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.59

231

238

22

CHAPTER 1: REVIEW settlements and Haselgrove suggests that crannogs may also have existed in wet areas such as the carrlands of south-east Durham. If fortified sites did exist in the lowlands they may not have been major centres and may instead have been used for refuge and ceremonial purposes.244

common in the late Iron Age settlements may have taken the form of small palisaded enclosures which would be as hard to identify on aerial photography, the main source of information on the area, as unenclosed sites.251 In addition many sites may have been re-occupied in the Roman period which could mask their Iron Age history.

Enclosures on the lowlands appear to have been abandoned later than those on the contour between upland and lowland areas. Even though sites in the latter area had access to both lowland and upland pasturage it seems that the lowland sites fared best, presumably because they had access to better soils, and Haselgrove stresses the longevity of these lowland sites with settlements often replacing each other.245 He argues that whilst this redevelopment may not represent continuous occupation it is in marked contrast to the uplands where sites appear to have been relatively short-lived. A number of rectilinear enclosures also appear to be close to trackways. Haselgrove suggests that this implies these settlements did not stand in isolation as ‘pioneer settlements established in a thinly populated and heavilywooded territory’ and probably formed part of a wellordered and largely open landscape.246

The area was certainly not sparsely settled in the late prehistoric period. Haselgrove comments that ‘the pollen evidence and other factors such as the distribution of late Bronze Age metalwork....indicate that the Eden valley, Furness and the Solway plain were intensively settled in later prehistory’.252 Analysis of the Lune valley has also identified rectangular, sub-rectangular and curvilinear round houses as well as unenclosed round houses, with curvilinear being the more common and open settlement predominating on the lower land. This may support the suggestion that unenclosed settlement predominated across the lowlands. Nevell discusses the palynological evidence from the area of modern Lancashire and suggests that the land available both for arable production and for grazing was reducing during the later first millennium BC. He notes that the few upland univallate hillforts and palisaded enclosures in the southern Pennines had been abandoned by the middle of the millennium and that by the late Iron Age none of the largest hillforts in the North West were occupied. These abandonments may illustrate the impact of the receding grazing lands with the climatic deterioration of the early to mid first millennium BC.253 Nonetheless occupation continued and indeed with the improving climate settlement and woodland clearance appears to have intensified on both the uplands and the lowlands during the late Iron Age although in a localised manner with arable indicators being found in deposits in both areas.254 In addition Nevell suggests that there may have been many more open settlements on the lowlands than are currently known.255

Haselgrove suggests that south of the Tyne palisaded enclosures and rectilinear ditched enclosures developed early, even before the adoption of bee-hive querns. However north of the Tyne smaller rectilinear enclosures did not develop until the very end of the Iron Age.247 He goes on to suggest that the evidence, ‘is consistent in suggesting that the extensive complexes found in the Tees lowlands...are essentially of late Iron Age date, many of them continuing to be occupied in the Roman period’.248 In addition many smaller enclosures in both the uplands and the lowlands continued to be occupied from the third and fourth centuries BC until beyond the development of rectilinear enclosures. From this it appears that the size of sites may not indicate their status, ‘this raises interesting questions about the social and economic relationships between different categories of open and enclosed sites’.249

The majority of evidence from north-west England has been derived from aerial photography and excavation, indeed all archaeological evidence is very limited. Mattingly has suggested that enclosed settlement may have developed slightly later on the lowlands of the Solway plain than in other parts of northern England.250 Haselgrove suggests that if lowland enclosures were less

As further evidence for intensification Nevell notes that whilst the majority of sites are found on the well drained soils of the region, a few have been found on heavier boulder clays suggesting, ‘that competition for the lighter, more easily worked, soils was already sufficient to encourage some communities to colonise these marginal areas’.256 That the majority of multivallate sites, which can be associated with defence of lands and property, have been found on the lighter soils of the lowlands further supports this hypothesis.257 Despite the undoubted evidence for the presence of a range of settlement types in the lowlands and uplands of Lancashire Nevell admits

244

251

245

252

North-West England

Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.59 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.60 246 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.60 247 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.62 248 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.62 249 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.62 250 Mattingly, D. (2006) p.422. This idea is based on the excavation of a sample of twelve sites of which nine did not appear to have Iron Age evidence. The sample is small but it is possible that enclosures in the Solway Plain area are later than has previously been thought. This evidence is discussed in Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.56

Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.56 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.55 253 Nevell, M. ‘Iron Age and Romano-British Rural Settlement in North West England: theory, marginality and settlement’ in Nevell, M. (ed.) Living on the Edge of Empire: models, Methodology and Marginality. Council for British Archaeology North West, University of Manchester and Chester Archaeology. 1999a. p.23 254 Nevell, M. (1999a) p.26 255 Nevell, M. (1999a) p.25-26 256 Nevell, M. (1999a) p.25 257 Nevell, M. (1999a) p.25

23

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Tipping argues that pollen analysis proves this was the case.266 Although it is not possible to tell the balance between arable and pastoral land use, Tipping argues that had land been cleared for non arable purposes scrub or heathland would have developed whereas the pollen record shows evidence for cereal pollens and pastoral herbs. ‘A pronounced expansion in pastoral herbs accompanies the prodigious rise of grasses....and grains of Secale cereal (rye) are recorded only following deforestation’.267

that the limited evidence from the area cannot be entirely attributed to lack of archaeological investigation and that, ‘we must conclude that it also reflects, however imperfect and statistically unsatisfactory, a genuine lower level of population and settlement activity’.258 Environment and agriculture The climate of England declined at the end of the second millennium BC and continued to get colder and wetter until 150 BC when temperatures slowly began to climb. The impact of such fluctuations would have been severe and this was particularly the case west of the Pennines. Nevell states that, ‘the effect of these climatic changes on the altitudinal limit of cultivation, and by implication permanent settlement, would have been particularly severe’.259 The impact of the wetter climate on vegetation in the north-west is shown by the rapid and permanent growth of peat in the region which replaced the heath and scrubland that existed in the region before c. 1200 BC and could have been used for rough grazing albeit little else.260

The great clearances and intensification of farming on heavier, but more fertile lowland clays both east and west of the Pennines was made possible by a combination of improved technology and agricultural methods. The most particular technological development was the iron-tipped ard which allowed ploughing of heavier lowland soils, but a further development was the innovation of the beehive quern allowing processing of larger amounts of grain.268 Alongside the iron-tipped ard drainage methods further enabled the cultivation of heavier soils and this was also helped by the introduction of crops such as spelt wheat which were suited to cultivation on damper and heavier soils.269In terms of pastoral agriculture there have been few useful assemblages discovered north of the Humber but where they have been discovered cattle take precedence followed by sheep/ goat and finally pig. Although this could be an effect of the limited survival of animal bone assemblages Haselgrove suggests that the assemblages are actually different in character to those from southern England where sheep is the most frequent find.270

Despite evidence for environmental deterioration in the later Bronze Age it appears from the pollen record that limited and fairly localised clearances took place in the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. Far greater changes appear to have taken place in the later Iron Age when large scale permanent clearances took place and Tipping suggests that the earliest extensive Iron Age clearances in the region occurred around 350 cal BC.261 These massive changes took place on both sides of the Pennines, and in north-east England there is clear evidence of arable intensification and settlement expansion on the lowland clays well before the conquest.262 Similar changes have been noted on the Solway Firth where Tipping suggests that wholesale woodland removal must have taken less than decades.263 Although there are potential problems with radiocarbon dating because earlier dates around 500 cal. BC lie on the early-mid Iron Age radiocarbon ‘plateau’, Tipping argues that later Iron Age dates are not affected by this issue and therefore the number of radiocarbon dates lying between c. 200-100 cal. BC probably mark an actual acceleration and intensification of clearance across the region.264 Mattingly summarises the landscape as, ‘one of mixed woodland and open land by the late Iron Age. Areas of denser forest were comparatively rare and in a few areas woodland had been reduced to a very low threshold’.265

West of the Pennines the land is generally quite high and where the Lake District experiences the highest annual rainfall anywhere in England (over 100cm of rain per annum). Such high rainfall is well above that preferred for wheat and barely and it is likely that pastoral farming predominated, as is the case today.271 However Haselgrove argues that this does not mean crops were not grown; ‘Almost certainly the population was largely sedentary, although there will have been some seasonal movement of herds and flocks to upland summer pastures, while crops will have been grown wherever the local conditions allowed’.272 Although Tipping suggests that it is difficult to identify differences in the balance of arable and pastoral farming east and west of the Pennines, Haselgrove highlights the strong evidence for arable farming in the north east. In particular he points out the presence of spelt wheat and barley in North Yorkshire and the discovery of Cord rigg evidence in Northumberland. Iron Age Cord rigg evidence has also been discovered sealed under remains

The woodland clearances of the last millennium BC, particularly from around 350 cal. BC, need not necessarily have been for agricultural purposes but 258

Nevell, M. (1999a) p.26 Nevell, M. (1999a) p.17 260 Nevell, M. (1999a) p.17 and Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.50 261 Tipping, R. (1997) p.242; Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.63 and Mattingly, D. (2006) p.364 262 Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.63 also Tipping, R. (1997) p.244 263 Tipping, R. (1997) p.244 264 Tipping, R. (1997) p.242 265 Mattingly, D. (2006) p.365 259

266

Tipping, R. (1997) p.243 Tipping, R. (1997) p.243 Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.63 269 Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.63 270 Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.63 271 Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.63 272 Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.63 267 268

24

CHAPTER 1: REVIEW at Hadrian’s Wall.273 In addition Haselgrove points out the presence of bread wheat prior to the Roman period at a group of farmsteads in the Tees Valley including Rock Castle and Scotch Corner which lie on more exposed land with poorer soils fringing the river valley.274 He suggests that this is a sign of innovation and particularly that it may mean Iron Age farms in more marginal areas were among the first to try out new crops.275

representing low labour input and the smaller-scale sites indicating small-scale, labour intensive conservative practices. A conservatism further emphasised by the dominance of more traditional emmer wheat which is in marked contrast to the innovative hulled barley and bread wheat of the Cleveland and North Yorkshire sites.281 In the lowland area around Thorpe Thewles and Stanwick, Ferrell has suggested the presence of a highly integrated, hierarchical, society and argues that innovation spreads rapidly in such areas where there are small, stable population groups exhibiting a high degree of continuity and both owning and inheriting the same land.282 Here individual households are productive units owning the means of production and existing separately from the community, which only exists because they choose to participate in shared activities within it and may thus share a common identity.283 By contrast the more conservative upland areas are seen as nonhierarchical with low levels of settlement integration. In these areas settlement groups were larger and agriculture took place on a communal level with less evidence for rebuilding, inheritance of land and land ownership. Ferrell suggests that society in this area could have formed a single general group identity without any further subdivision. In this situation communal societies possessed the land but there was no individual ownership and lands may have been held in common by extended families or village groups. ‘The system is thus based on division of labour with craft workers producing directly for their own community and being maintained by it’.284 Haselgrove further suggests that rock cut motifs found on Northumbrian sites could mark ownership of particular sites and territories.285 In this way a form of hierarchy could exist, based on gift exchange, but would need no land ownership and, ‘isolated settlements could satisfy their own needs and even maintain a centre...without being integrated into any more developed hierarchy with their immediate neighbours’.286 Following this distinction between the uplands north of the Tyne and the lowlands to the south, Haselgrove argues that the Tyne itself formed an important cultural boundary.287

Social organisation Agricultural evidence has been used to develop ideas of social organisation in northern England, particularly in the north-east where more detailed work has been carried out. Tipping argues that ideas of social organisation and development can be read into the massive changes in the scale, intensity and rapidity of woodland clearance seen in parts of in northern England and in particular the lowlands.276 He notes that after c. 300 ca. BC ‘a broadly synchronous phase of extensive and complete woodland clearance occurred throughout the region is indicative of a dramatically different approach to deforestation and agriculture’.277 Given that the areas of clearance are larger than the land likely to have been contained within a single farm the inference is that, ‘Late Iron Age agricultural decision making seems to have been exercised at a more centralised level, with the initiative to expand the land available for farming taken within a corporate of hierarchical social context....the rapidity and extent of clearance perhaps implies a labour force exceeding that available from individual farms’.278 The agricultural evidence suggests that where large scale late Iron Age clearance took place this can be seen as evidence for the growth of hierarchical societies and more centralised organisation beyond the individual farmsteads. Ferrell discusses the evidence from cultivation in northeast England more specifically and stresses the presence of hulled barley and spelt at lowland sites in Cleveland and North Yorkshire in comparison with hulled barley, emmer and spelt in Northumberland.279 At the former group she suggests there is evidence for intensive cropping without replacement of nutrients whilst in the latter group she suggest small-scale production with soil fertility being maintained by regular soil disturbance and manuring.280 Ferrell argues that this difference in agricultural techniques could illustrate the differing roles of labour in each region, with intensive cropping

This chapter has discussed the geological background ultimately underpinning and directing human settlement in northern England. It has also reviewed modern scholarship on the ‘Brigantes’ and the history of archaeological work in the region of study. The chapter particularly highlights the extent of regional variation in the geological and geographical background, and the environments to be found across the area. In addition, it illustrates the range of settlement forms across the area and the lack of chronology for the morphological development of these various settlement forms. As a result it is clear that there are still many gaps in our

273

Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.64 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.64 Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.64 276 Tipping, R. (1997) p.245 277 Tipping, R. (1997) p.245 278 Tipping, R. (1997) p.245 279 Ferrell, G. (1997) p.235. Van der Veen initially concluded that cultural differences rather than environmental variation explained the differences in cultivation practices between those living north and south of the Tyne: Van der Veen, M. Crop Husbandry Regimes: an Archaeological Study of Farming in Northern England 1000 BC-AD 500. Sheffield Archaeological Monograph, Sheffield. 1992. Her suggestions are repeated by Huntley, J. P. (1997) p.85 280 Ferrell, G. (1997) p.235 274 275

281

Ferrell, G. (1997) p.235 Ferrell, G. (1997) p.235 Ferrell, G. (1997) p.236 284 Ferrell, G. (1997) p.236 285 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.63 286 Ferrell, G. (1997) p.236 287 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.64 282 283

25

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE understanding of the nature and chronologies of native settlement in northern England in the late Iron Age and early Roman periods. Whilst the degrees of variation between areas of northern England are a matter for debate there are already clear grounds to suggest differences between populations of the lands east and west of the Pennines.

26

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE RELATING TO NORTHERN ENGLAND

differentiation between individuals and larger groups. The definition of a tribe as understood by the ancient authors need not have been a true reflection of the relationships between populations in northern England. As a result it is possible that the groups described as ‘tribes’ in both the ancient and modern literature may not have considered themselves to be anything of the sort.

PART 1: THE LITERARY, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE Introduction Traditional opinion, drawn from classical literature, holds that one tribe alone, the Brigantes, ruled northern Britain from the Humber to beyond Hadrian’s Wall and ‘extending to each sea’.288 Textual evidence from Ptolemy and inscriptional evidence from Roman Britain reveals several other possible tribal names which may also be connected to the area. A variety of different tribal names have been indicated by modern historians along with possible territorial areas but all are agreed that the main tribal group was still the Brigantes and any others, with the exception of the Parisi, were, to a greater or lesser extent, semi-autonomous groups, federated to the Brigantes in some unknown way.

ANCIENT LITERATURE Before looking at the evidence for each tribe in detail a general assessment of ancient sources that mention northern England is advisable. The order of the individual authors considered reflects the relevance of their references from the most important sources to the more passing and less certain. These are Tacitus and Ptolemy and, to a lesser extent, Juvenal, Seneca, Pausanias and Dio. This will be followed by a brief assessment of the Ravenna Cosmography and Antonine Itinerary and an overview of the epigraphic evidence.

This chapter will set out to evaluate the literary, epigraphic and place-name evidence for the existence of any of the suggested tribes or their confederation. With regard to literary and epigraphic material on Britain as a whole there is a reasonable amount of information on the military and political history from the late pre-conquest period to AD 85. After this literature has very little to offer but the epigraphic record increases significantly in the second century and, ‘with the archaeological record, vastly supplements the written sources, though usually leaving much open to debate.’289

Tacitus (P. Cornelius Tacitus) Tacitus was born around AD 56 or 57 in northern Italy.292 He lived and worked until at least the end of the reign of Trajan (AD 98-117) but the date of his death is not known. Although perhaps best known for his literary works, Tacitus followed a successful political career which began during the reign of Vespasian. He gained the quaestorship in AD 81 or 82, praetorship in AD 88 and consulship in AD 97 after which he became governor of Asia.293

Hartley and Fitts were the first to challenge the accepted view290 and Shotter has recently taken this further by suggesting the possible existence of a number of tribes in northern England.291 This chapter will consider the tribes defined by Shotter: the most recent published work on the subject currently available. These tribal names are: the Brigantes, Carvetii, Setantii, Lopocares, Gabrantovices, Tectoverdi, Corionototae and Parisi; all of whom receive some form of reference in the Geography of Ptolemy.

Tacitus’ two main historical works were his Histories and Annals and, in the opinion of Woodman, ‘Tacitus is acknowledged to be the greatest historian of ancient Rome, the Annals his greatest work.’294 The Histories covered the lives of Roman emperors from the death of Nero in AD 68 up to AD 96. About a third of the work survives: Books 1 to 4 and the first part of Book 5, which deal with the civil wars following the death of Nero (AD 69-96).295 The Annals, Tacitus’ last and greatest work, is the earliest surviving account of the Julio-Claudian period, covering the years from AD 14, just before the death of Augustus, through Tiberius, Gaius Caligula, Claudius and Nero. Of these two years of the reign of

Beyond this chapter the term tribe is treated with caution, however here it is retained in order to relate the discussion most directly to the terms used in the texts. However it is important to acknowledge that the term ‘tribe’ used in this chapter may be out of date and that identities of various types may be more valid forms of 288

292 Woodman, A. J. Tacitus: The Annals. Hackett, Cambridge. 2004. p.xi 293 Levene, D. S. Tacitus The Histories. Oxford Worlds Classics, OUP, Oxford. 1997. p.vii 294 Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.ix 295 Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xi

Ptolemy Geographia 2.3 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. Peoples of Roman Britain: The Brigantes. Sutton, Gloucester. 1988. p.15 290 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.2 291 Shotter, D. Romans and Britons in North-West England. Centre for North-west Regional Studies, University of Lancaster. 2004. p.4 289

27

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE other authors and invention of detail would not have been out of place and could be expected as normal practice.303 It is likely that Tacitus, writing in this genre, did not consider independent research and absolute accuracy to be the most important elements in his Annals. The conclusion must be that whilst his work is an essential part of the extant corpus of ancient writings its level of accuracy remains in some doubt and his statements should be treated with a suitable degree of caution.

Tiberius are missing along with all of the reign of Gaius, half that of Claudius and the last two years of the reign of Nero but forty years out of fifty-four are still extant, comprising a period of very great significance. Tacitus is an excellent historian and, overall, the most dependable source of information on the early principate, but as with the majority of ancient authors, his account was not at first hand. The extent to which he may have used oral traditions is uncertain. Woodman highlights the problems arising from the fact that Tacitus was writing about events between forty-five years and a century before his own time.296 It is evident that Tacitus must have relied heavily upon earlier writings but he very rarely identifies these. This means that we cannot know the accuracy or potential bias of the sources upon which Tacitus based his history.

Woodman’s is not, of course, the only opinion on Tacitus. The Annals and Histories of Tacitus are, in the view of Benario, ‘perhaps the greatest achievement of Latin historiography. They display an insight into the minds of men, into the workings of government, into the power politics of an empire, that are unrivalled by either Sallust or Livy.304 Benario argues that the works of Tacitus may be more accurate than Woodman believes and that he is likely to have used a range of sources aside from those mentioned in his text.305 According to Benario and others his other sources are likely to have been his father-in-law Agricola, various friends such as Pliny the Younger, and perhaps Pliny’s own friends, who may have been able to provide oral accounts of the later events covered in the Histories, various memoirs, speeches and, probably, the senatorial records.306

It has been a general assumption that the excellence of Tacitus’ Annals is due to his access to and use of the Roman senatorial archives;297 however Woodman points out that Tacitus makes only one reference to use of these documents and this is at the very end of the extant works (15. 74.3).298 This may be an indication of scant consultation of official documents and perhaps even a lack of regard for facts that would be unacceptable in the modern historical genre. Tacitus certainly claims to report either directly or indirectly speeches that he cannot possibly have heard or understood and which may not even have taken place.299 He also appears to have borrowed statements from other authors the accuracy of which he cannot possible have known. Woodman comments that, ‘the key point is that, if such imaginative reconstruction is Tacitus’ practice on a number of identifiable occasions, there is a strong likelihood that his methods will be no different on numerous other occasions which we cannot now identify.’300 Overall it seems that Tacitus generally reported key dates and statements correctly but that total accuracy was not of paramount importance. Instead of relying on senatorial records to any great extent it is likely that he followed the general consensus of opinion without worrying too much about accuracy and treated it ‘according to the mind-set of the ancient world’.301

Tacitus may indeed have used more sources than are referenced in his works but it seems to the current author to be significant that Woodman has identified definite problems with Tacitus’ works. These strongly indicate that the information in the Annals and Histories should not be taken as accurate truth. Although the accuracy of Tacitus can be questioned he was nevertheless in a position to know a reasonable amount about the recent history of Britain. As a successful political figure, Tacitus would certainly have had some knowledge of events in the province, and in addition his father-in-law Agricola, of whom he wrote a biography, was both a military tribune and later (AD 7885) a governor of Britain.307 Tacitus’ relationship with Agricola means that he would have had good access to information about the province during Agricola’s service there. Birley even suggests that since it was not unusual for tribunes to serve under their father-in-law, Tacitus himself may have served in Britain as a military tribune perhaps between 77 and 79.308 This is based on the fact

The form of the Annals is that of a year by year account but in the ancient period Woodman believes that history was written in a poetical style; Quintillian, a contemporary of Tacitus, wrote that historiography was like a poem in prose.302 This directly affects the way Tacitus wrote and the way in which his version of ‘history’ should be compared with a modern definition of the historical genre. Assuming that Woodman is correct and that history was written like poetry, borrowing from

303

For further details of ancient literary convention see Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xviii 304 Benario, H. M. An Introduction to Tacitus. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1975. p.79 305 The sources stated by Tacitus are: Quintillian, Servilius Nonianus, Aufidius Bassus, Cluvius Rufus, Pliny the Elder and Younger, Fabius Rusticus and Vipstanus Messalla. Benario (1975) p. 82-3 306 For further information see Benario (1975) p.82-3, Woodman (2004) p.xiv-xv, Wellesley, K. Cornelius Tacitus: the Histories Book III. Sydney University Press, Sydney. 1972. p.6-10 307 There is some debate over the dating of Agricola’s governorship (AD 77-84 or 78-85); however the latter dating seems more likely. Birley, A. R. Tacitus: Agricola and Germany. Oxford Worlds Classics, OUP, Oxford. 1999 p.ix 308 Birley, A. R. (1999) p.xxii

296

Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xiv Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xv 298 Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xv 299 eg. Boudicca’s speech before the battle of Mons Graupius. Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xvi 300 Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xvii 301 Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xviii 302 Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xviii 297

28

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE that Tacitus’ account of the first three years covered in the Agricola is considerably fuller than that of the following period, but there is no hard evidence to support the theory. Indeed Birley also comments that ‘compared with the Germany there is less detail about Britain and the Britons in Agricola.’309 If Tacitus had served in Britain he would surely have more to say about its inhabitants than he does. Indeed whether or not Tacitus was ever present in Britain it is remarkable that he has so little to say of the province given his close relationship with such a valuable source of information as Agricola. This further supports the notion that Tacitus attributed little importance to acquiring accurate information from first hand research when the general consensus provided sufficient detail to support the point he wished to make.

two places of different longitude at different times and Ptolemy needed to know the longitude of each site in order to calculate exact information about the event in question.316 After dealing with longitude Ptolemy moved onto the more complicated issue of latitude. He developed a series of parallels on the earth, each listed with the geographical name of a site through which they passed. This was the only geographical data in the Almagest, the rest being almost entirely theoretical in design.317 The Geography probably grew out of the list begun in the Almagest. However Berggren and Jones state that ‘on the way Ptolemy’s scope broadened from the establishment of co-ordinates for a few hundred cities to a far more comprehensive codification of thousands of elements (towns, borders, natural features) of the entire known world.’318 The main purpose of the work also shifted from astronomical tables to an attempt to lay the foundations for the accurate mapping of the world. Ptolemy claims that the greatest part of his work was in the development of map making and he wrote down the latitude and longitude of every site used so that others could reproduce his map from the text alone. He also claimed to be the first to devise a method by which the curvature of the earth and the position of sites upon its surface could be represented.319 Unfortunately coordinates are given only in twelfths of a degree and therefore the map cannot show distances smaller than this. As a result the sizes and placements of offshore islands are not to scale and, even assuming that Ptolemy’s own calculations were accurate, sites on land cannot be placed with absolute precision.

In addition to the potential problems with Tacitus’ own work there are also difficulties with the extant transcripts of his manuscripts.310 The Latin in the surviving manuscripts is not an exact version of the original text produced by Tacitus. 311 The earliest manuscript of the Annals, which consists of books 1-4 a little of 5 and most of 6, is known as the ‘first Medicean’ and was copied in Germany in the mid-ninth century.312 Books 11-16 and the entire extant Histories survive from an even later manuscript the ‘second Medicean’ which was produced in the mid-eleventh century.313 Although these are the earliest known copies of the Tacitus manuscripts several further centuries of scribal errors took place before the first printed books appeared in the late fifteenth century.314 Such problems are not restricted to the Annals or indeed the works of Tacitus and the problems created by errors in the Latin text must be borne in mind when reading works by both Tacitus and the majority of ancient authors.

In acknowledging the concept that astronomical observations were better than itineraries for fixing specific locations Ptolemy was not unique.320 The difference between the work of Ptolemy and that of his predecessors is that he attempted to carry out in actual practice the principle of fixing locations using latitude and longitude. Ptolemy’s work was highly original but Berggren and Jones note that, ‘he was too far ahead of his time in maintaining this principle to be able to follow it in practice, because he possessed reliable astronomical data for only a handful of places.’321 The reality of this statement is that instead of using accurate astronomical data for all sites (as Ptolemy implies he does) the majority of his locations ‘would have been located on his maps by direct measurement on a bearing from a place whose location had been fixed.’322 As a result ‘any error in the bearing or the distance of a place from his “fixed points” would have had serious consequences for Ptolemy’s map.’323 Ptolemy’s maps do not survive but

Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) was born in about AD 100 and began his career as a scientist in or near Alexandria in Egypt in the mid-120s.315 It is likely that he lived into the later part of the century. Ptolemy is best known as an astronomer and it is through this work that he probably became interested in the mathematical challenge of recording the accurate location of geographical places. Ptolemy’s earliest work, the Almagest, is a theoretical approach to the motion of the sun, moon, stars and planets. Out of this work arose the need to accurately plot the location of the two recordings needed for analysis of any astronomical event. These recordings were taken at 309

Birley, A. R. (1999) p.xxvii For specific problems with the Annals see Woodman, A. J. (2004) xxvii 311 Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xxvi 312 Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xxvii 313 Levene, D. S. (1997) p.viii 314 Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.xxvii 315 Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. Ptolemy’s Geography: an Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters. Princeton University Press, Oxford. 2000. p.17 310

316

For further information see Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. (2000) p.17 Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. (2000) p.18 318 Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. (2000) p.19 319 Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. (2000) p.3 320 Hipparchus, writing three centuries earlier than Ptolemy, also believed this. Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. (2000) p.3 321 Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. (2000) p.3 322 Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.17 323 Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.17 317

29

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE wider sense of ‘places with a name’. Jones and Mattingly suggest that ‘Ptolemy himself may not have known, or cared overmuch, whether he was including towns, Roman forts, or native sites. He simply used a selection of names from whatever sources were available to him to fill up his own maps. Therefore there is no guarantee that he always selected the most important sites for inclusion or that those chosen were all of one type.’331 Certainly there are far more known Flavian forts than places named by Ptolemy and this suggests that his selection criteria regarding the locations and types of site to include may have been fairly random.332 For the sites listed in northern Britain it is thought that Ptolemy’s main source must have been a military map dating to the Flavian conquest and brief occupation of the area north of the Tyne-Solway line.333 A number of place-names are listed in association with tribal names but at present problems with Ptolemy’s latitude and longitude calculations mean the majority are impossible to locate. Bearing in mind the original source material it is likely that the majority of sites were actually Roman forts rather than temporary marching camps or native settlements but this has not helped to identify many sites with any degree of security. In particular the problem with the misalignment of Scotland has made it very difficult to correlate archaeological sites with names in the Geography.334

they can be recreated and it is when this is carried out that the problems with his lack of accurate astronomical data become clear. There are a number of cases where sites, the name and position of which are known to archaeologists and historians, appear some considerable distance away from their location according to Ptolemy’s map. Examples of this in Britain are St Albans, which was placed on the same latitude as Leicester, and Silchester, which was placed north of Cirencester and London.324 In addition to the problems with Ptolemy’s own calculations it is very difficult to discover the original sources of information: they are likely to have included older maps and itineraries the accuracy of which is unknown but certainly questionable. Itineraries were also never intended to be used for cartographical work and therefore much of the information essential to obtaining an accurate location was left out.325 According to Ptolemy the places and their arrangements as listed in his Geography were based on the work of an earlier cartographer Marinos of Tyre.326 There are some surprising omissions from the Gazetteer of British places bearing in mind that Ptolemy was compiling his Geography no earlier and potentially considerably later than the mid 120s AD. The most obvious gaps are Hadrian’s Wall, the Antonine Wall, and the legionary fortresses at Caerleon, Gloucester, Dorchester and Caerwent. The absence of these sites is an example of the effect on Ptolemy’s work of using out of date information: Marinos was working in around AD 100 and very little that came into existence after AD 110 is included in the Geography.327 Assuming that Marinos was reading from older maps these are likely to have been drawn in a very different way from that intended by Ptolemy. As a result locations given by Marinos could not have been turned directly into latitudinal and longitudinal locations without severe inaccuracy and this may have been one reason for the distortions discovered when an attempt is made to recreate Ptolemy’s map.328 Ptolemy appears to rotate Scotland about 90 degrees clockwise so that its main axis is west to east and not north to south. This error may be an example of the inaccuracies produced when Ptolemy drew on information gleaned by Marinos from maps which represented information ‘schematically or qualitatively’.329

Juvenal (Decimus Junius Juvenalis) Juvenal worked during the late first and early second century and died in around AD 127 but he did not seek publicity for his work. Virtually nothing is known for certain about his life and even his name is in doubt.335 Reference made to him by the poet Martial,336 who seems to have been a friend, suggests that he was far from the elite circles of Roman society. Rudd and Barr suggest that, ‘his own descriptions in the earlier satires of the condition of the respectable poor at Rome seem to imply that he was no stranger to hardships and humiliations imposed on those at the lower end of the social scale.’337 However Braund argues that Juvenal may have been a member of the elite because his satires are not dedicated to any patron.338 Juvenal makes one reference to the name Brigantes in his satires.339 No matter what social class he came from his writing style renders his works difficult to use as accurate factual documents. Instead they give the ‘common man’s’ point of view in which all peoples on the edge of the

One further problem with the Geography in relation to the geography of native Britain is in the identification and typology of the places mentioned; it is, at least, likely that many were sited on or nearby major route ways.330 Ptolemy designated all places in his work as ‘poleis’, (Greek for ‘towns’), but he clearly used this term in the

331

Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.18 Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.19 333 Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.19 334 For a map of Britain according to the information provided by Ptolemy see Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.19 335 Braund, S. M. Juvenal and Perseus. Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, London. 2004. p.18 336 These are in the Epigrams (7.24, 7.91, 12.18 1-9) Rudd, N. and Barr, W. Juvenal: The Satires. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1991. p.x 337 Rudd, N. and Barr, W. (1991) p.xiii 338 Braund, S. M. (2004) p.19 339 This is discussed below p.36 332

324

Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.17 Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. (2000) p.26 326 The only known information on Marinos is that found in the Geography. Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. (2000) p.24 327 Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. (2000) p.23 328 Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. (2000) p.25 329 Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. (2000) p.25 330 Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.17 325

30

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE empire are too far away to warrant close attention.340 In the main his poetry represents common knowledge and rumour and this fact must be born in mind when considering the historical validity of any of his comments. Rudd and Barr state as his main achievement that; ‘there is no surviving Roman satirist whose approach more nearly matches most modern readers’ expectations of the genre.’341 That Juvenal takes the satirist’s licence to exaggerate to new heights demands further caution when considering the historical accuracy of his writing.

Even the title of Seneca’s satirical work the Apocolocyntosis has been the subject of much debate. Dio’s History referred to it more than a century later (60.35.2 ff)346 but this is the sole ancient allusion and there is still discussion as to whether the title has been applied to the correct surviving work. 347 General acceptance that the identification has been made correctly has led to further questions about the meaning and purpose of the title which Dio mentions as ‘Gourdification’. The date and even authorship of the work is also open to discussion: the death of Claudius naturally constitutes a terminus post quem for the document, and it is in fact likely to have been written only very shortly after this event in October AD 54. It was probably produced for the Saturnalia beginning 17th December AD 54.348 Although, like Juvenal, Seneca refers to the Brigantes only in a single statement, this reference is of particular importance because it can be dated with some accuracy to AD 54 only eleven years after the Claudian invasion of Britain.

Cassius Dio (Cassius Dio Cocceianus) Dio, the son of a Roman senator, lived between around AD 150-235 and appears to have been close to the imperial household of the early third century. Although he passed in and out of favour with successive emperors he held the consulship twice and maintained his position close to the heart of the Roman political world until the end of his career. His history seems to have been written during the middle stages of his life when he was stationed mainly in Rome and could observe all the chaotic events of the early third century.342 His residence in Rome and position in society allowed him access to libraries from which he attempted to make his work as accurate as reliance on earlier historical works (rather than research from original documents) allowed.

Pausanias The very little that is known about Pausanias is gleaned from scattered hints in his own work, Periegesis tes Hellados or Tour of Greece.349 Pausanias appears to have been a native of Magnesia-on-Sipylos in Lydia350 and to have been writing around the third quarter of the second century AD.351 Pausanias travelled around the cities and shrines of mainland Greece during the middle of the second century and recorded details of the buildings, traditions and cults in each of the places he visited. To this he added information from previous writers about myths and historical events associated with these sites. This resulted in a work ten scrolls in length.352 The work is mentioned here for another single reference to the name ‘Brigantes’.353

Cassius Dio’s Roman History, which covered the origins to AD 229 survives only in a fairly fragmentary format consisting of Books 36-54 (68-10 BC), large parts of Books 55-60 (9 BC – AD 46) and part of Books 79-80 (the death of Caracalla to the middle of the reign of Elagabalus).343 The rest of the text has to be restored from three main sources.344 Seneca (L. Annaeus Seneca) Seneca lived from 4 BC to AD 65. He was appointed as Nero’s tutor in AD 49 Seneca was close to the imperial household which would suggest that his facts are likely to be correct although their inclusion in the satirical form encourages extreme caution due to the nature of such works.345

The Ravenna Cosmography and Antonine Itinerary The Ravenna Cosmography and Antonine Itinerary are groups of routes which include Roman Britain. They list site names, often with a high degree of clerical inaccuracy, and cannot be used as direct evidence for tribal territories in northern England. However they may be of some use in identifying tribal groupings when combined with some forms of epigraphic evidence such as grave markers.354

340 For a detailed discussion of the Roman approach to the ‘edges of the world’ see Romm, J. S. The edges of the earth in ancient thought: geography, exploration, and fiction. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 1992; also Clarke, C. ‘An Island Nation: Re-reading Tacitus’ Agricola’ in Journal of Roman Studies 91. 2001. pp.94-112 341 Rudd, N. and Barr, W. (1991) p.ix 342 Millar, F. A Study of Cassius Dio. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1964. p.27 343 Millar, F. (1964) p.1 344 The earliest copy, made for Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, preserves much of Dio’s own wording. The second, an Epitome of books 36-80 made by the monk Ioannes Xiphilinus in the later 11th century, is an erratic selection but appears fairly true to the original text in the sections used. The third copy, a history by the 12th century monk Iohannes Zonaras, uses books 7-9 and 10-11. It is clear he read the original and his text is more coherent than the 11th century work. Millar (1964) p.1-3 345 Note: Satire gave the writer a licence to over exaggerate any point in order to aid his purposes. See Juvenal above. p.23

346

Eden, P. T. Seneca: Apocolocyntosis. CUP, Cambridge. 1984. p.1 Dio suggests the title refers to the murder of Claudius by Nero and Agrippina and was meant to sound like a form of deification. Eden, P. T. (1984) p.1 348 Eden, P. T. (1984) p.5 349 Hutton, W. Describing Greece: Landscape and Literature in the Periegesis of Pausanias. CUP, Cambridge. 2005. pp.9-11 350 Hutton, W. (2005) p.9 351 The writing of his fifth book can be dated to AD 174. Jones, W. S. Pausanias: Description of Greece. Volume I. Loeb Classical Library, Heinemann, London. 1943. p.ix. 352 Hutton, W. (2005) p.1 353 Pausanias Periegesis tes Hellados VIII Arcadia 43 3-4 354 See discussion of Lopocares below p.46 347

31

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE study.361 That the native population were able to adopt Latin if they so wished is evidence by the Togidubnus stone from Chichester and curse tablets from Bath (130), and Uley (140) and at least twenty other sites, however as yet no examples of this sort are known north of Nottingham.362

The Ravenna Cosmography is a form of itinerary. It was created by a cleric, whose name is unknown, in Ravenna around AD 700 and consists of a vast list of placenames.355 Although the Cosmography contains a vast number of mistakes and inaccuracies it indicates that the creator had access to at least two maps of Britain and lists nearly 300 names in the island. However the value of the source is severely affected by the number of errors, which make it extremely difficult accurately to identify sites with any degree of confidence; the fact that there are no attempts to differentiate between the type of site named; and the way that names are given in an apparently random order within a given area rather than along a road.356 The last problem creates particular difficulties when dealing with northern England since it means that sites cannot be given a rough geographical setting, which might then help with identification, through the use of the previous and following names. The Ravenna Cosmography therefore cannot be used alone as a secure indicator of any name or place in Britain.357

There are thus no pre-conquest inscriptions from northern Britain and very few if any native inscriptions from the period of occupation. The surviving inscriptions from Roman Britain have become a key part of understanding the history of the province during the period of occupation but they are almost entirely military in purpose and / or origin. There are only a handful of inscriptions which may refer to members of the indigenous population of northern England and their date and origin remain very unclear. Although they are rare and difficult to use with any confidence the few inscriptions of this kind that do exist often provide the only written indication of the possible existence of native individuals or tribal groups. These inscriptions frequently lack any other supporting literary evidence and must be treated with great caution. They nevertheless remain of significant value in attempting to identify the native population of northern England.363

The Antonine Itinerary is a rather more trustworthy source of names in Roman Britain. It survived as a manuscript describing fifteen routes and listing over 100 different place-names with mileages between sites.358 The distances are not always correct but, although there are still a large number of copying errors to deal with, the places are listed in a logical order: this makes it much easier to identify sites using the Antonine Itinerary than is the case with the Ravenna Cosmography.359 Although both military and civilian sites are listed the majority of those in northern England would appear to be military. However the Itinerary is still of some use as an indicator of place-names and in the majority of cases is likely to be more trustworthy than the Ravenna Cosmography.360

One of the greatest problems with inscriptions across the Roman world is that many of them are damaged or fragmentary. This damage often occurred when the stone was re-used in a different building and it can mean that the information is gone forever but at other times the surviving fragments can allow restoration with varying degrees of confidence. In northern England military inscriptions such as those from the forts along Hadrian’s Wall can be reconstructed with some accuracy when they include conventional abbreviations for Imperial titles or Roman names; by contrast, the very small number which may refer to civilian contexts are far harder to reconstruct due to a lack of comparable examples of nomenclature.364

EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE Advantages and disadvantages of the source material

A further problem with the use and interpretation of inscriptions is the issue of dating. A small minority of inscriptions can be very accurately dated from the information contained within them but very few carry any form of exact year date. Instead the names of the consuls were sometimes given and from this the year of the inscription can be suggested with considerable certainty. Alternatively a detailed description of the name, titles and offices of the emperor narrows down the possible years whilst details such as the number of times an emperor had held tribunicia potestas allows a date to be given at least within a year. Unfortunately if only the name of the emperor is given the inscription can be dated only to the years of his reign and in reality ‘many, indeed most, Latin inscriptions do not offer any direct clues to dating, and

The epigraphic evidence from Roman Britain is abundant and increasing. The information provided by inscriptions is often invaluable in defining more detail about a site or person. However in northern England, indeed across Britain as a whole, writing and epigraphy were rarely practised by the native population except on pre-conquest coinage, which was produced in southern Britain but does not appear to have been produced or used in the area of

355

Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.29 Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.29. Rivet and Smith discuss in detail the difficulties with the Ravenna Cosmography and in particular highlight the exceptional number of ‘impenetrably corrupted forms’ and the compilers, ‘haphazardly selective methods’. Rivet, A. L. F. And Smith, C. The Place-Names of Roman Britain. Batsford, London. 1979. p.199 357 For a map of the probable identifications of places and sites listed in the Cosmography see Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p. 30 358 Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.23 359 Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.23 360 For maps of the routes listing names and mileages see Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) pp.24-28 356

361

See further discussion in Chapter 3 Togidubnus stone: Mattingly, D. (2006) p.267. For distribution of curse tablets see: Mattingly, D. (2006) p.310-314 see also Mattingly, D. (2004) p.20 363 See discussion of Carvetii and Tectoverdi p.37 and 39 364 Keppie gives several examples of the dangers of reconstruction and the chances of making mistakes. Keppie, L. J. F. (2001) p.22 and 41 362

32

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE recourse has to be made to other methods.’365 Changes in the use of abbreviations over time, for example from civilian to military purposes, can be used to give some clues but where there are no other indicators this is not helpful since the stone could belong to either context and thus either date.366

Latin names There are only four definite place-names with Latin derivations in the entire north-east and north-west. In Northumberland Pons Aelius (Newcastle upon Tyne) means Hadrian’s Bridge,370 in Cumbria Concavata (Drumburgh) is the only fort on Hadrian’s Wall with a Latin name referring to the hollowed out shape of the coastline in this area. The Latin name is exceptional among forts in this area and Rivet and Smith believe that this may show that the fort was built in exceptional circumstances.371 The possible secondary nature of this fort is a matter of considerable and ongoing academic debate and the fact that it has the only Latin name on the Wall may well support the argument that this fort was built under different circumstances to the rest. South of the Tees it used to be accepted that there were two placenames with Latin derivations but whilst Calcaria (Tadcaster) meaning limeworks is not in doubt, indeed the name survived for a time within the Anglo-Saxon or possibly British kingdom of Elmet,372 there is now some debate on Cataractonium (Catterick).373 That this tendency to adopt British or at least ‘Celtic’ place-names was not limited to the northern militarised zone is seen in a study of Roman place-names in South East Britain for comparative purposes. This reveals only one Latin name in the entire area from Dover to Portchester: Pontibus (Staines) refers to the bridges at this site.374

One of the greatest uses of inscriptions in Roman Britain has been in the identification of religious cults.367 The Iron Age people of Britain did not use inscriptions and the names of their deities can only be identified when they have been adopted into the Roman pantheon, usually by soldiers keen to appease any local deity who might not appreciate their presence. Although these inscriptions can be useful for identifying the main native deities of northern England they have all been found in military contexts and have been dedicated by members of the Roman army.368 Inscriptional evidence therefore cannot be used to locate the sites at which these gods and goddesses were worshipped by the indigenous population or to identify ways in which such worship was carried out. Further examples of the importance of inscriptional evidence from Britain are the Vindolanda letters which give a unique insight into the daily workings of frontier forts and, indeed, into military life in Britain as a whole. Again these inscriptions are wholly military in nature but they are of exceptional importance in understanding the lives of ordinary Roman military personnel. Although the late dating and military bias of the vast majority of inscriptions from northern England weakens their use as a source they can be very valuable. Epigraphic evidence such as this should be used with caution but may give some important clues about social organisation and cultural practices in northern England in the late pre-conquest and particularly the early postconquest periods.

It is already well known that the Romans operated a policy of tolerance in their provinces. Perhaps the clearest example is in religion where beliefs were not tampered with and alongside allowing the survival of native deities Roman religion sometimes adopted a new deity from a province or, recognising similarities between a native deity and a member of their pantheon, they syncretised the two.375 Although official business was carried out in Latin this did not filter down to the level at which the

PLACE-NAMES OF ROMAN SITES

370

Note Tyne is a pre-Celtic river name meaning ‘flowing one’ Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.315 372 For some further discussion on the post-Roman kingdom of Barwick in Elmet see Stenton, F. Anglo Saxon England. OUP, Oxford. 19713 373 Traditionally the name Cataractonium is thought to refer to an association with rapids on the river Swale and to be taken from the Latin Cataracta meaning ‘waterfalls or rapids’. Both Rivet and Smith; Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979), and Mills; Mills, A. D. A Dictionary of County Durham Place-Names. The English Place-Name Society, Nottingham. 2003, now believe this may be wrong and that the original name for Cataractonium may have a British root. They believe that the original British name was caturactonium ‘place of the battle ramparts’ and may well be the name given by the native people to the Roman fort. Later the name was mistakenly associated with the Latin word cataracta due to the similarity between this and both the ancient and modern names and thus a link to the Swale was created by early modern antiquarians in order to explain it. In his major work on Catterick Wilson discusses both opinions but gives no final judgement either way: Wilson, P.R. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland, excavations and research 1958-97 Part 1. CBA research report 128, York. 2002 It is of note that cataracta can also mean ‘portcullis’ in Latin. This clearly suggests a fortified place and gives another possible derivation for Catterick referring to the fort but drawn from a Latin and not a Celtic root. 374 See appendix B 375 Mattingly, D. (2004) p.21, Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.274281 371

Places with names known from the Roman period tend to be large and important military and civilian centres rather than the small villages and hamlets that much of the native population appeared to be living in (see Map 1).369 This would suggest that ‘official’ names; names that were recorded for official use, were only given to places that were important to the Romans. These sites are not small native settlements but towns, tribal civitas capitals and forts. The names of these sites give some indication of the nature of linguistic change, and indeed the lack of it, after the Roman invasion. 365

Keppie, L. J. F. (2001) p.28 See discussion of RIB 933 (Carvetii) pp.43-44 367 Ireland, S. Roman Britain: A Sourcebook. Routledge, London. 1996. p.8 368 See references to the goddess Brigantia p.43 369 Number of sites with known Roman names: County Durham and Yorkshire north of the Tees- 6, Northumberland 15, Cumbria 20, Yorkshire South of the Tees, 9. The apparently large numbers of sites in Northumberland and Cumbria are due to the strong military presence in this area, especially on Hadrian’s Wall. The majority of sites with Roman names in these areas are forts. 366

33

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

Map 1. Roman place-names in the region of study. Roman Cilurnum.378 Good examples of Roman names taken directly from British roots include many of the forts and vici on Hadrian’s Wall such as Vindolanda ‘bright moor’ from the British vindo (bright/ shining) and lande (heath/moor).379

majority of the population came into contact with the authorities. Whilst they had to deal with Roman money to pay their taxes the people did not speak Latin nor were they expected to.376 The lack of Latin place-names known from northern England and indeed Roman Britain may reflect this tolerance.

In the north-east and north-west the majority of sites were forts whose vici had no separate name, especially around Hadrian’s Wall, and there are few known towns.380 In the north-west the only major non-military centre with a known name is Carlisle (Luguvalium) whilst in the northeast there are York (Eboracum), Brough on Humber (Petuaria), Aldborough (Isurium Brigantium) and Malton (possibly Derventio).

Romanised Celtic names Given the Roman tolerance and policy of leaving native systems and languages in place as far as possible it is perhaps no great surprise to see clear evidence for the adoption of Celtic names for major Roman settlements.377 This was yet another way in which the population could be kept less unhappy with the Roman presence and is likely to reflect official policy rather than mere chance. There are a high number of Roman names with Celtic origins. From the evidence it is clear that in almost every case in both northern and southern Britain the Roman place-name was taken directly from Celtic roots, although slightly Latinised in some cases; for example Celtic Onna becomes Roman Onnum and Celtic Cilurno becomes

South of the Tees there are two place-names which have survived from Roman and indeed pre-Roman roots. 378

Percentage of Roman place-names with Celtic Roots- County Durham and Yorkshire north of the Tees- 67% (of six towns there is no known derivation for two), Northumberland- 93% (one Latin placename), Cumbria 95% (one Latin place-name), Yorkshire south of the Tees- 78% (one Latin place-name and one with no clear derivation) For further examples see Appendix B. (Roman place-names and their derivations) 380 For positions of sites and names See map 1 below. Note Aldborough (Isurium Brigantium) is now thought to be a Roman town which did not have a military origin. See Bishop, M. C. et al. ‘A New Flavian Military Site at Roecliffe, North Yorkshire’ in Britannia 36, 2005. pp.135-223

376

See discussion of taxation in Conclusion pp.109-110 The majority of the native British population spoke P-Celtic at the time of the Roman Conquest and there is no evidence to suggest a language change. For further information on P-Celtic and Q-Celtic see Mattingly, D. (2006) p.52 and Mills, A. D. (2003) p.xv 377

34

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE Catterick, which has survived relatively intact, has been discussed above. The other site, another of the four towns to be given names in the Roman period, is York. The Roman name for this site Eburacum derives from Celtic ‘place of the yews’ or, alternatively, ‘estate of Eburos’ and although it is now too far corrupted to see the link in the modern name York is derived directly from this original root.381 The Celtic name for the site was Eburacon, Ptolemy wrote the name as Eborakon in AD150 and by the late Roman period in Britain it was known as Eboracum. During the Anglo-Saxon period Ebor was replaced by eofor meaning ‘a boar’, the closest equivalent Old English word although not connected to the old Celtic meaning, and acum by the Old English – wic ‘village’. From Eoforwic came the Scandinavian corruption Iorvik in the ninth century, this is clearly a change effected by differences in pronunciation between Old English and Scandinavian rather than a new Viking name for the site. Iorvik later developed into Iork although still during the period of Scandinavian settlement. All that was now left to happen was a thirteenth century substitution of Y for I and the name York was finally developed.382

adoption of local names by invading soldiers but the use of names, pre-existing or otherwise, that could be understood by both the military and the native populations. The inclusion of the latter may, however, have been more of a by product than a plan and Mattingly emphasises the deliberate attempt by the Roman army to stress its distance from the native population of Britain.388 If the latter scenario is the case then it is possible that change did take place following the invasion and that new names in the Celtic language may have been created by the incoming military forces. Such changes would be invisible to modern study because there was no change of language and no literary tradition prior to the Roman occupation. Instead, as a result of the retention of the Celtic language familiar to the military personnel, they may be mistaken for continuity and possible evidence for a policy of tolerance. In addition James notes that ‘non-combatants were intimately integrated into the life of soldiers and regiments, in a variety of capacities’.389 Alongside unofficial families (a ban on marriage among soldiers is thought to date to the reign of Augustus), and contact with local traders and entrepreneurs in vici soldiers and regiments could employ male and female local inhabitants as servants in a variety of forms.390 Such contact between often Celtic speaking soldiers and local Celtic speaking people would have helped to create a link between communities and could well have encouraged the adoption of Celtic names that would have been understood by both soldiers and local inhabitants. Again this would represent a degree of change with the creation of new place-names in the Celtic language but it is invisible to modern study and may appear more as continuity.

The predominance of Celtic names for known Roman sites in northern England may be explained through adoption by the invasionary forces of the local name for the fort as part of the Roman policy of tolerance for local tradition. Mattingly follows this theory; noting that the roots of the majority of place-names were British or ‘Celtic’ and that, ‘the Roman conquest of Britain thus did not involve the imposition of a new set of toponyms at the expense of local usage’.383 The recording of so many Celtic names for sites may thus simply reflect Roman foreign policy of not changing that which did not require it but this may not be the only explanation. James and Mattingly have highlighted the great range of ethnic backgrounds among the soldiers serving in northern England.384 Mattingly states that, ‘the widespread origins, varied languages and differing social mores of the soldiery and the civilians in the garrison settlements created great cultural variability within the military community’.385 Only a limited number of military personnel in Britain would have originated from Italy and spoke Latin as their native tongue. The vast majority of soldiers in northern England were from other ‘Celtic’ provinces and many would have been very comfortable with the native language.386 Mattingly notes that overall, ‘there appears to have been a strong preference for sending to Britain units originally raised through mass conscription in what we may term the ‘Celtic’ sphere – Germany (over 30), Gaul (25) or Spain (10)’.387 In this situation the presence of Celtic names on Roman sites in northern England need not demonstrate a tolerant

Whatever the origin of the Celtic place-names of Britain in the Roman period, the lack of Latin place-names is an indication that a linguistic change was not forced upon the population. Indeed given the fact that the majority of place-names surviving into the modern period have roots in Old-English it would appear that linguistic change did not take place until the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the fifth century and beyond.391 PART 2: THE EVIDENCE FOR POSSIBLE TRIBES OF NORTHERN ENGLAND The authors and texts referred to here are Tacitus (Annals and Histories), Juvenal (Satires 14), Seneca (Apocolocyntosis), Ptolemy (Geography), Pausanias (Tour of Greece) and the Ravenna Cosmography and Antonine Itinerary.

381

Room, A. Dictionary of Place-Names in the British Isles. Bloomsbury, London.1988. p. 407 382 Room, A. (1988) p.407 383 Mattingly, D. (2006) p.43 384 James, S. (2001b) p.80 385 Mattingly, D. (2006) p.199 386 James, S. (2006) p.79, Mattingly, D. (2006) p.168 387 Mattingly, D. (2006) p.168

388

Mattingly, D. (2006) p.199 James, S. (2001b) p.80 390 James, S. (2001b) p.80 391 Mills, A. D. (2003) p.xvi see also Thurlow, W. Yorkshire PlaceNames. Dalesman Books, North Yorkshire. 1979. p.12 389

35

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE the whole of Britain and indeed the Ocean as well.397 Seneca appears to have picked a name to mention almost at random, possibly because of the similarity between the name Brigantes and that of Britain, whether or not that tribe had actually been subdued. The Brigantes are thus used as general reference to the whole of Britain.

BRIGANTES ‘The Brigantes, and who they were, present one of the perennial problems of Roman Britain. However specific the term may have been in scope, it is clear several Roman writers used the name generically to cover the natives of North Britain’.392

Juvenal was alive at the same time, or slightly after, the invasion and subsequent campaigns in Britain and he may therefore have had some degree of current knowledge even though he was never close to current political affairs. Although this is the case, the writing of Juvenal is so generalised and exaggerated that it cannot be taken as an accurate source. When Juvenal alludes to tearing down ‘the forts of the Brigantes’ he is clearly referring to the Britons as a whole. Whilst many southern hillforts were destroyed by the invading Roman army there is little evidence for their existence in the territory of the Brigantes, let alone their destruction. This supports the notion that Juvenal does not refer to one tribe but is using the term Brigantes as a generic reference to Britain. Juvenal’s writing style is also relevant to this point. He was not only a satirist, and therefore not deliberately setting out to speak the accurate truth, but was also writing to encourage sons to follow their fathers’ expectations by joining the army and going out to conquer the edges of the world and extend the Roman Empire. Juvenal is thus using the name Brigantes as an entirely general reference to Britain which was not only on the edge of the empire but, lying across the Channel, actually beyond it.

This assertion provides a starting point for an investigation of the literary and epigraphic evidence for the Brigantes. The Brigantes are almost the only tribe to be mentioned by Roman authors. Some of the references are clearly specific whilst others are of a far more general nature and may be considered to represent all the barbarian peoples of northern Britain.393 The two examples of the latter are found in Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis and Juvenal’s Satires: He [Claudius] commanded the Britons, beyond the shores of the sea we know, and the Brigantes with indigo shields, to submit their necks to Romulus’ chains, and Ocean himself to tremble at the new enforcements of the Roman axe. 394 Ille Britannos ultra noti litora ponti et caeruleos scuta Brigantas dare Romuleis colla catenis iussit et ipsum nova Romanae iura secures tremere Oceanum. Seneca, Apocolocyntosis 12.3 lines 13-16

The most precise literary evidence for the Brigantes tribe comes from the works of Tacitus. He clearly refers to events occurring in a specific tribe and his evidence can certainly be used to prove the existence of the Brigantes although it is not helpful regarding the size of their tribal territory. The evidence for this is discussed below. Allusions to the Brigantes by Tacitus are to be found in a number of passages in Tacitus’ Annals and Histories:

Tear down the huts of the Moors and the forts of the Brigantes dirue Maurorum attegias, castella Brigantum, Juvenal, Satires 14 line 196395 The Claudian invasion of Britain succeeded in gaining Roman control over the southern tribes but those of the north were not subdued until at least the campaigns of Petilius Cerialis in AD 71-74. Dio tells us that Claudius left Plautius with instructions to subjugate the rest of Britain and Seneca’s reference in the Apocolocyntosis would appear to ascribe the name Brigantes to all the tribes left unconquered when Claudius returned to Rome.396 It seems very unlikely that Seneca could be putting across an accurate point. This part of the Apocolocyntosis is supposedly a funeral dirge, in the traditional verse format: it is exaggerated to the point of parody. Seneca was writing as if Claudius had conquered

and they [the Roman army] had arrived not far from the sea which looks toward the island of Hibernia when disaffection springing up among the Brigantes brought the leader back, fixed as he was in his design not to engineer new achievements without consolidating the earlier. The Brigantes for their part – after the killing of a few of them who had begun to take up arms, and with pardon given to the rest – quietened down again; but neither fright nor clemency could change 397 Braund discusses the significance of conquering boundaries such as rivers and oceans, where man-eating beasts were thought to dwell, in Roman literature. He comments that, ‘from a Roman perspective, Britain lay both in Ocean and beyond Ocean, so that the conquest of Britain was also the conquest of Ocean itself’ and that ; ‘In so far as Britain lay beyond Ocean, its conquest fulfilled the abandoned ambition famously accorded to Alexander of crossing Ocean into another world, breaking the boundaries of nature as known to mankind’. Braund, D. ‘The Conquest of Ocean’ in Ruling Roman Britain: Kings, queens, governors and emperors from Julius Caesar to Augustus. Routledge, London. 1996. pp.12 and 21

392

Higham, N. and Jones, B. Peoples of Roman Britain: the Carvetii. Sutton, Gloucester. 1985. p.9 393 Rivet and Smith argue convincingly for a translation of the name as ‘upland people’. Rivet A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.278 394 Eden, P. T. (1984) p.54-55 395 Braund, S. (2004) p.473 396 Cassius Dio Histories 60.21 Cary, E. Dio’s Roman History Volume 7. Heinemann, London. 1924

36

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE the race of the Silures, who engaged in war and required to be suppressed by a legions’ camp. So that this might come about more readily, the colony of Camulodunum with a substantial unit of veterans was settled in captured territory as a garrison against rebellion and to imbue the allies with a sense of duty toward the law. 398

Inflamed by this, and goaded by the ignominious thought of submitting to her female command, the enemy – effective young men chosen for their armed fighting – invaded her kingdom. This had been foreseen by us, and the cohorts dispatched to help her made it a fierce battle, whose conclusion was more welcome than its equivocal beginning.401

iamque ventum haud procul mari, quod Hiberniam insulam adspectat, cum ortae apud Brigantas discordiae retraxere ducem, destinationis certum, ne nova moliretur nisi prioribus firmatis. et Brigantes quidem, paucis qui arma coeptabant interfectis, in reliquos data venia, resedere: Silurum gens non atrocitate, non clementia mutabatur, quin bellum exerceret castrisque legionum premenda foret. id quo promptius veniret, colonia Camulodunum valida veteranorum manu deducitur in agros captivos, subsidium adversus rebelles et imbuendis sociis ad officia legum.399

at Caesar cognita morte legati, ne provincia sine rectore foret, A. Didium suffecit. is propere vectus non tamen integras res invenit, adversa interim legionis pugna, cui Manlius Valens praeerat; auctaque et apud hostis eius rei fama, quo venientem ducem exterrerent, atque illo augente audita, ut maior laus compositi vel, si duravissent, iustior venia tribueretur. Silures id quoque damnum intulerant lateque persultabant, donec adcursu Didii pellerentur. sed post captum Caratacum praecipuus scientia rei militaris Venutius, e Brigantum civitate, ut supra memoravi, fidusque diu et Romanis armis defensus, cum Cartimanduam reginam matrimonio teneret; mox orto discidio et statim bello, etiam adversus nos hostilia induerat. sed primo tantum inter ipsos certabatur, callidisque Cartimandua artibus fratrem ac propinquos Venutii intercepit. inde accensi hostes, stimulante ignominia, ne feminae imperio subderentur, valida et lecta armis iuventus regnum eius invadunt. quod nobis praevisum, et missae auxilio cohortes acre proelium fecere, cuius initio ambiguo finis laetior fuit.

Tacitus, Annals 12.32 The man himself [Caratacus] had sought sanctuary with Cartimandua, queen of the Brigantes, but (adversity is generally unsafe) he was chained and handed over to the conquerors – in the ninth year after war in Britain began [AD 51]400 Ipse, ut ferme intuta sunt adversa, cum fidem Cartimanduae reginae Brigantum petivisset, vinctus ac victoribus traditus est, nono post anno quam bellum in Britannia coeptum.

Tacitus, Annals 12.40 This quarrel between the legions, and the constant rumours of civil war, encouraged the Britons to take heart. Their chief instigator was one Venutius. He was of ferocious disposition and hated the name of Rome, but his strongest motive was a private quarrel with Queen Cartimandua, a member of a powerful family, who ruled the Brigantes. Her authority had lately increased, since she had betrayed King Caratacus into the hands of the Romans, and was thus considered to have provided the Emperor Claudius with his triumph. Thus she had grown rich, and with prosperity came dissipation. She threw over Venutius, who was her husband, and gave her hand and kingdom to his squire Vellocatus. This scandal soon proved the ruin of her house. The husband was backed by popular zeal: the lover by the queen’s brutal lusts. Venutius therefore summoned assistance and, aided by the simultaneous revolt of the Brigantes, brought Cartimandua into dire straits. She petitioned for troops from Rome. Our auxiliaries, both horse and foot, then fought several engagements with varying success, but eventually rescued the queen. The kingdom was left in Venutius’ hands – and the war in ours.402

Tacitus, Annals 12.36 But Caesar, hearing of the legate’s death, substituted A. Didius so that the province should not be without a governor. Though travelling there quickly, the latter nevertheless did not find affairs in a healthy state, an adverse fight having been suffered in the meantime by the legion of which Manlius Valens was in charge…..It was the Silures who had inflicted these losses too, and they were scouring far and wide until beaten back by an onrush from Didius; but after the capture of Caratacus the principal in knowledge of military affairs was Venutius (from the community of the Brigantes, as I recalled above), loyal for a long time and defended by Roman arms all the while his marriage to queen Cartimandua held; but, on the occurrence of their divorce and of immediate warfare, he had assumed hostilities even against us too. Yet at first the struggle was only among themselves, as Cartimandua with her astute calculations cut off Venutius’ brother and kinsmen. 398

Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.211 Unless otherwise stated all Latin text is drawn from the Latin Library: Carey, W. L. (ed.) The Latin Library. [online] http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/index.html [Accessed June 2007] 400 Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.228 399

401 402

37

Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.230 Levene, D. S. (1997) p.143

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

Ea discordia et crebris belli civilis rumoribus Britanni sustulere animos auctore Venutio, qui super insitam ferociam et Romani nominis odium propriis in Cartimanduam reginam stimulis accendebatur. Cartimandua Brigantibus imperitabat, pollens nobilitate; et auxerat potentiam, postquam capto per dolum rege Carataco instruxisse triumphum Claudii Caesaris videbatur. inde opes et rerum secundarum luxus: spreto Venutio (is fuit maritus) armigerum eius Vellocatum in matrimonium regnumque accepit. concussa statim flagitio domus: pro marito studia civitatis, pro adultero libido reginae et saevitia. igitur Venutius accitis auxiliis, simul ipsorum Brigantum defectione in extremum discrimen Cartimanduam adduxit. tum petita a Romanis praesidia. et cohortes alaeque nostrae variis proeliis, exemere tamen periculo reginam; regnum Venutio, bellum nobis relictum.

In the Histories, Tacitus describes the same events in largely similar terms. However he gives a completely different dating context for them. The first line of 3.45 quoted above mentions ‘this quarrel between the legions, and the constant rumours of civil war’. Immediately prior to and following the extract quoted above Tacitus is describing the events of the so called ‘Year of the four Emperors’ which occurred in mid AD 69. The passage from the Histories does not contain the same type of dating contradictions as that in the Annals and the whole scene is placed in much firmer context. The events taking place in the rest of the Empire; the rebellion in Germany and the capture of Valens, one of Vitellius’ leading officers,405 are securely dated to AD 69. Indeed it is possible to give an even closer estimation of the dating. Tacitus places the revolt of the Brigantes after the capture of Valens and in conjunction with rumours of further civil war but before the second battle of Cremona. This places it between May and the 24th October AD 69.

Tacitus, Histories 3.45

Given the lack of clear evidence to support the date of AD 52 suggested by the Annals passage and the far stronger, and less problematic, evidence to support the Histories date of AD 69, I would suggest that the troubles between queen Cartimandua and Venutius described in both passages should be dated to AD 69. Tacitus’ apparent mistake in the Annals can be explained by consideration of Annals 12.32 (quoted above). Tacitus describes the situation in Britain as inherited by Ostorius Scapula, the predecessor to Didius: a revolt by the Brigantes that took place during his governorship and was quelled relatively easily.406 This uprising took place in AD 50, the year before Claudius held the consulship for the fifth time and the same actual date given for events of Annals 12.40 although there remains the discrepancy in the dating of the governorship of Aulus Didius. It seems not impossible that Tacitus, when writing about the Brigantian rebellion of AD 50, which was suppressed by Ostorius Scapula, may have inadvertently included the events of the Brigantian rebellion of AD 69, conflating two separate uprisings. Indeed Tacitus admits in Annals 12.40.5 that he has combined into one account the activities of the two governors:

As can be seen from the quotations above, Tacitus describes the events surrounding the uprising against Cartimandua in two of his works. There are a number of comments to be made about each individual passage but first of all it is necessary to attempt to resolve the apparent dating inconsistency between the two. Since the date of the passages gives a context to the only well described event in the history of native northern Britain it is of great importance to try and ascertain which of the two is more likely to be correct. There is no other textual or epigraphic evidence for the events described by Tacitus or indeed for the existence of Cartimandua and Venutius so the two passages must be compared, along with any dating evidence they contain, in order to ascertain which is more likely to be in the correct historical context. In 12.41 Tacitus states that after Aulus Didus became governor Claudius became consul for the fifth time alongside Servius Cornelius Orfitus (Ti. Claudio quintum Servio Cornelio Orfito consulibus).403 Claudius held his fifth consulship in AD 51 therefore the Tacitean passage suggests that Didius would have been appointed governor prior to this in AD 50. However if Tacitus is taken literally a serious dating problem arises. In Annals 12.40 Tactitus reports that Didius was appointed governor after the death of Ostorius Scapula. Scapula controlled the province between AD 47 and his death in AD 52 therefore Didius cannot have arrived in the province until AD 52, two years after Tacitus indicates that he took over. 404 No obvious solution to this discrepancy can be offered but it highlights the problem with the dating of the troubles between Cartimandua and Venutius as described in the Annals.

Though these were the achievements of two propraetors, Ostorius and Didius, over several years, I linked them together lest their division

405 For more information on the year of the four emperors see Wellesley, K. The Year of the Four Emperors. Routledge, London. 2000. Vitellius succeeded Otho as Emperor in AD 69 and one of his leading generals was the naval commander Valens. By mid 69 the supremacy of Vitellius was waning and Vespasian was emerging as the probable new Roman emperor. Valens set out to raise a rebellion amongst the tribes of Gaul and Germany but Tacitus reports that due to bad weather he was thrown off course and was captured. All of this took place after the first Battle of Cremona on April 14th AD 69 thus placing his capture in May of the same year. Tacitus describes these events fully in Histories 3.41-44. 406 For the full text of the relevant section see Tacitus Annals 12.32 above.

403

Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.228 For further information on Aulus Didius Gallus including tables showing the governors of Britain and their years of office see Birley, A. R. The Fasti of Roman Britain. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1981. p.389, 391 404

38

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE might not render them as effective as their recollection deserves.407

he could have been directly involved with the actions of the young men referred to as ‘the enemy’ by Tacitus.

haec, quamquam a duobus pro praetoribus pluris per annos gesta, coniunxi ne divisa haud perinde ad memoriam sui valerent

It is possible that Venutius could have led a rebellion within the friendly kingdom of the Brigantes in which case he and his compatriots would certainly have been regarded as enemies of Rome, but there is little evidence either way and the inference from Tacitus is that Venutius was actively involved in an invasion of Brigantian territory. If the Brigantes held all of the north as one tribal area then this comment makes little sense. It does, however, fit if Venutius was not Brigantian but, as suggested above, the leader of another allied but at least semi-autonomous group. If this was the case then it would make sense for Venutius to be involved in an attack on the kingdom of the Brigantian Queen in response to her treatment of his brother and other members of his family: quite what she did is unclear given the ambiguity of intercepit. The fact that Venutius does not appear to have been taken with the idea of being subject to Queen Cartimandua could perhaps support the earlier suggestion that a divorce occurred because he did not receive the equal status he had hoped for in their marriage.

Tacitus, Annals 12.40.5 Tacitus’ deliberate manipulation of chronology in the interests of effectiveness thus means that the apparent sequence of events in Annals need not be taken too literally. Having dealt with the dating problem affecting both the Annals and Histories passages there are several individual points of interest to be taken from each. In Annals 12.40 Tacitus refers to Venutius as under Roman protection ‘all the while his marriage to queen Cartimandua held’ whilst with a change of subject he goes on to describe ‘young men’ who ‘invaded’ her kingdom. Venutius is not directly referred to as an enemy but the inference is certainly that he incited the actions of these ‘young men’ and was therefore directly involved in their invasion. The term hostes should be taken in relation to Rome and thus indicates that these young men and, by association, Venutius, were enemies not only of Cartimandua but also of Rome. Given the apparent good diplomatic relations between the Brigantes and Rome this suggests that either the tribe was divided into two differing factions, with Venutius belonging to the anti-Roman side despite his close ties to Cartimandua, or that at least one other tribe or sub-tribe was present in northern England who were not on the friendly terms with Rome. On the basis that the Brigantes were thought to have ruled all of northern Britain it has been assumed that Venutius was Brigantian but these comments bring the matter into some doubt. It is unfortunate that this earlier discussion of Venutius’ background is no longer extant to elucidate the precise sense in which he was ‘from the community of the Brigantes’. I suggest that his membership of that community might have come about through marriage, as indicated by the reference to a divorce, rather than being membership by birth. It seems at least possible, on the basis of this passage, that Venutius could have been the leader of a second northern tribe, perhaps one which recognised some form of Brigantian overlordship, and that he made a marriage alliance with Queen Cartimandua to gain the benefits of Roman protection but was perhaps looking for equal rule in order to have control over both tribes.408 A divorce seems to have occurred for an unknown reason, perhaps because Venutius had planned on sharing power rather than being subject to Cartimandua. After turning against her and thus against Roman protection, it is plausible to suggest that

There is further potential evidence for the particular status of the Brigantes in Tacitus’ use of the term ‘civitas’ in two of his references to the tribe (Annals 12.40 and Agricola 17). ‘Civitas’ implies political or at least diplomatic recognition of the status of the Brigantian population as a community and state by the Roman authorities. Tacitus does not use the term to describe the other tribes mentioned in context with the sections discussed here and this indicates that he considered the Brigantes to have a special status. If Venutius was married into the tribe, as the text implies, then the specific use of ‘civitas’ to describe the Brigantes would suggest that his own people did not hold the same status and did not view Rome in the same light. This would certainly indicate the presence of a different tribal grouping and one perhaps entirely separate from the Brigantes although some sort of political link, unrecognised by Rome, remains possible. Tacitus suggests that after Cartimandua had been extracted from her predicament by the Roman authorities Venutius ‘got the kingdom’ and no moves were made against him until the arrival of Petilius Cerialis in AD 71.409 In the interim, during the governorship of Vettius Bolanus, he indicates that, due to the inability of the Roman governor, no action was taken against Venutius. Shotter questions the credibility of this scenario and points out that although Tacitus has little praise for Bolanus, his actions, including those against Venutius, must have been sufficient to please Rome since he remained in office until AD 71.410 Assuming that the disagreement between Cartimandua and Venutius can be dated to AD 69 as suggested above,

407

Woodman, A. J. (2004) p.231 408 Shotter believes that Venutius was the leader of the Carvetii, a tribe that appear to have been based in the North-west: Shotter, D. (2004) p.16-17. The literary and epigraphic evidence for this tribe is discussed later in this chapter.

409 410

39

Tacitus Agricola 17 Shotter, D. (2004) p.22-24 and 28

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE a relevant historical note can be made.411 Felling dates obtained from dendrochronology tests indicate that building was taking place in Carlisle from about AD 72.412 This is reasonably close to the time suggested for Venutius’ action against Cartimandua. It is therefore possible that the Roman movement into the north, which appears to have concentrated on the western side of the Pennines in its earliest stages, may have chosen this route in order to take some sort of action against the tribe or tribal leader responsible for the removal of one of their client monarchs. Bearing in mind the evidence for a Roman presence in Carlisle by AD 72 and the possibility that this indicates a deliberate choice to subdue the northwest of the country before the east, it seems possible that this relates to Bolanus’ action against Venutius. Although the earliest current evidence for actual building indicates that this took place shortly after Bolanus had departed, much of the prior action required to subdue this area is likely to have occurred during his period of office. If it was thought that the majority of the people on the eastern side of the country could be trusted then it would make sense for the Roman authorities to advance up the western side of the Pennines first. The Roman presence in Carlisle in the early 70s supports the view that they initially moved in this direction. An intention to gain control over the homeland of the perpetrator of the AD 69 rebellion would be a logical explanation for such action. Agricola 17 suggests that Cerialis continued to annexe the community of the Brigantes and it could be that it was at this time that the remaining tribal territory was brought under Roman control.413

It is clear that the land to the east of the Pennines was more densely populated than that to the west so this could explain the reference to a number of battles. Once the dust had settled following the chaos of AD 68-69, Rome would have had more troops to spare and more time to think about Britain, so this would have been a sensible time for campaigning in the eastern and north east. Tacitus attests that Petilius Cerialis became governor of Britain in AD 71. The date is only indicated by Tacitus but Cerialis’ position as governor of Britain is also mentioned by Josephus.415 The implications of Cerialis’ actions against the Brigantes along with the possibility of earlier actions on the part of his predecessor have been discussed above. It is of note that events in this passage follow on from those described in the Annals and Histories, and are dated to AD 71 with the governorship of Petilius Cerialis. This further supports the suggestion that the Histories has the correct dating for the war between Cartimandua and Venutius, and that Tacitus is mistaken when he attributes it to AD 52 in the Annals. In Histories 3.45 Tacitus comments that Venutius summoned help from outside and that at the same time there was a revolt amongst ‘the Brigantes themselves’. It would appear that the Brigantian people were encouraged to revolt by the appearance of support from elsewhere, but the emphasis on external aid bringing about a rebellion among the Brigantes ‘themselves’ also gives the implication that the Brigantes were not the only people Venutius could call upon for aid; therefore they were not the only tribe in northern England. This does not mean they were not in some way dominant over other peoples of the north and did not hold some form of overlordship over them, but it does suggest that there were other people, in a different tribe, on whom Venutius could call for support for his cause.

But when together with the rest of the world, Vespasian recovered Britain as well, there came great generals and outstanding armies and the enemies’ hopes dwindled. Petilius Cerialis at once struck them with terror by attacking the state of the Brigantes, which is said to be the most populous in the whole province. There were many battles, some not without bloodshed; and he embraced a great part of the Brigantes within the range either of victory or of war. 414

The passages are not clear on any of the matters discussed above and there is no proof of Venutius’ status. He could have been a member of the Brigantes tribe, the leader of another tribe that acknowledged their overlordship but retained independence, or the leader of an entirely independent and potentially rival tribe. The second option may be the most likely of the three as it allows for Tacitus’ references to enemies and kingdoms but also for a marriage alliance which would seem less likely to have occurred between two totally independent groups. The archaeological evidence for a Roman presence in Carlisle in AD 72 also gives no reason to doubt this suggestion as it can be explained by reference to Venutius and his actions in AD 69. However more evidence for some form of link between the two areas must be obtained before assuming that Venutius’ group were subject to Brigantian rule in any way. It must also be borne in mind that Tacitus may not have understood the true nature of groups and identities and their relationships in northern England. He may therefore have described events in terms which fitted his understanding

Sed ubi cum cetero orbe Vespasianus et Britanniam recuperavit, magni duces, egregii exercitus, minuta hostium spes. Et terrorem statim intulit Petilius Cerialis, Brigantum civitatem, quae numerosissima provinciae totius perhibetur, adgressus. Multa proelia, et al.iquando non incruenta; magnamque Brigantum partem aut victoria amplexus est aut bello. Tacitus, Agricola 17 411 A fuller discussion on the archaeological evidence from Carlisle and North-west Britain as whole with reference to any evidence it may give on the presence of tribal peoples will be given in a later chapter. For initial information see Shotter, D. (2004) Chapter 3. 412 Shotter, D. (2004) p.35 413 Vettius Bolanus left Britain in AD 70 therefore Cerialis would have taken up his governorship in AD 71. Birley, A. R. (1981) p.378 for further information on the career of Cerialis see also Birley, A. R. ‘Petillius Cerialis and the conquest of Brigantia’, Britannia 4 (1973) pp. 179-190 414 Birley, A. R. (1999) p.14

415 Josephus 7.82. Radice, B. Josephus: The Jewish War. Penguin Books. 1970 (rev. ed.) p.368

40

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE Ἰσούριον Ῥιγόδουνον Ὀλίκανα Ἐβόρακον

but not reality. As a result it may not be possible to draw any accurate information on social organisation, the presence of tribes, or boundaries in northern England from the works of Tacitus alone and his writing must be regarded with caution.

§17. Λεγίων ς νικηφόρος Καμουλόδουνον ιη δ νζ ΠρÄς ο½ς πέρ½ τÄν ΕÕλίμενον κόλπον Πάρισοι καà πόλις Πετουαρία κ γο' νς γο'

Tribal territory The only detailed ancient textual evidence of Brigantian tribal territory comes from the second century Greek writer Ptolemy in his Geography (2.3.16-18):

§18. ὙπÄ δÁ τούτους καà τοÅς Βρίγαντας οÓκο³σι δυσμικώτατοι μÁν Ὀρδοούικες

§16. Again, below the Segones and the Otedini416 is the territory of the Brigantes extending to each sea; and their towns are: Epiacum

18° 30’ 58° 30’

Vinovium

17° 30’ 58° 0’

Cataractonium

20° 0’ 58° 0’

Calatum

19° 0’ 57° 45’

Isurium

20° 0’ 57° 40’

Rigudunum

18° 0’ 57° 30’

Olicana

19° 0’ 57° 30’

Eboracum

20° 0’ 57° 15’

Ptolemy, Geography 2.16-18418 Ptolemy’s reference to the land of the Brigantes stretching from sea to sea creates an image of one huge tribal kingdom, stretching from the Humber to somewhere beyond the area now defined by Hadrian’s Wall and from the east to the west coasts. More recently historians have attempted to qualify this assumption with the suggestion that the Brigantes held some form of overlordship over a number of other smaller tribes which may have existed in the region.419 The dangers with Ptolemy’s work have been discussed in the earlier section of this chapter but we should remember that he was working from second and third hand knowledge and the accuracy of his statements has already been proved wrong in some cases. Certainly he describes the Brigantes as dwelling below (hupo) the Parisi which is highly unlikely to be correct and indicates that Ptolemy was using inaccurate information, probably taken from the work of Marinos, which he did not or could not verify. The presence of this error suggests that there are likely to be other inaccuracies in the Geography which cannot now be identified due to a lack of secure evidence linking sites to names given by Ptolemy. It is also clear that he did not distinguish between the type of settlement named: we do not know whether the places named were Roman or native and whether they were built and instituted by a Roman presence or had any further antiquity. All of these problems make it very difficult to use with any confidence the information that Ptolemy provides on the Brigantes and in particular the extent of their tribal territory.

§17. Legion Six Victrix Camulodunum

18° 45’ 57° 0’

The territory near to Good Harbour is related to the Parisi whose town is; Petuaria

κ νζ γο' ιη νζ ιθ νζ † κ νζ γ'

20° 40’ 56° 40’

§18. Below these dwell the Brigantes while further to the west is the territory of Ordovices 417 §16. Πάλιν δ' ÜπÄ μÁν τοÅς Σελγοούας καà τοÅς ὨταδήνοÅς διήκοντες Ñφ' Øκάτερα τά πελάγη Βρίγαντες, Ñν οÚς πόλεις, Ἐπείακον ιη νη ΟÕιννοούιον ιζ γ νη Κατουρακτόνιον κ νη ιθ νζ δ Κάλατον

Ptolemy mentions known Roman military sites such as York (Eboracum), Catterick (Cataractonium), Binchester (Vinovia) and Ilkley (Olicana) and the presumed military centre at Aldborough (Isurium).420 Rigodunum is often equated with the Iron Age hillfort on Ingleborough but 418 Ptolemy Geographia I-III. Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, Hildesheim. 1844 rep. 1966. p.71-2 419 Eg. Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.1, also Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.44 420 The Antonine Itinerary mentions Aldborough as ISURIUM in Route I and ISUBRIGANTIUM in Route V, implying that Aldborough was the capital of Brigantia during the Roman period. For information on these place-names see Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. The Place-Names of Roman Britain. Batsford, London. (1979). See also note 326 above.

416

Conventionally referred to as the Selgovae and Votadini 417 Ptolemy Geography Book 2.3.16-18. Louis Francis. Ptolemy’s Geographia: Books 1 and 2. 1994 [online] http://www.reshistoriaeantiqua.co.uk/Ptolemy%20B.html [Accessed 15th May 2006]. Also new edition of Ptolemy: Ptolemy von Stückelberger, A. und Graßhoff, G. unter Mitarbeit von Mittenhuber, F. [et al.]. Handbuch der Geographie: griechisch-deutsch / herausgegeben Schwabe, Basel. 2006 (non vidi)

41

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE surrounded by garrisons and forts with such skill and thoroughness that no new part of Britain ever came over with so little damage.429

could also have been the Roman fort on Castleshaw, whilst Camulodunum is generally thought to be the native name for Almondbury hillfort which was then transferred to the auxiliary fort at Slack in the Roman period.421 The other two places mentioned by Ptolemy are unknown; Epiacum is conjectured to be Whitley Castle in Northumberland and Calacum could possibly be Burrow in Lonsdale but there is no evidence for either of these claims.422 Ptolemy’s evidence for sites in the territory of the Brigantes highlights two of the problems when dealing with his evidence for the tribe. The uncertain identity of a number of the sites illustrates the difficulty in discovering any clear evidence for the extent of their territory; whilst the number of Roman military sites mentioned highlight how few native sites Ptolemy was aware of or cared about and his lack of a specific method for noting sites of any particular type or size.

Quibus rebus multae civitates, quae in illum diem ex aequo egerant, datis obsidibus iram posuere et praesidiis castellisque circumdatae, et tanta ratione curaque, ut nulla ante Britanniae nova pars [pariter] inlacessita transierit. Tacitus, Agricola 20 This fragment is drawn from Tacitus’ descriptions of Agricola’s activities in the north. Shotter and others cast doubt on just how much Agricola achieved and discuss the possibility that much of the progress in the north should be attributed to his predecessors and successors430 but no matter who the passage should refer to it does suggest that there were a number of separate sections of northern Britain which were independent until the arrival of Roman authorities in the north. From the varied geography of the north Hartley and Fitts believe it is more than possible a number of tribes existed here at least until the late pre-Roman Iron Age.431

The modern historical explanation for the apparently vast territory of the Brigantes is that they ‘were a confederation of smaller tribes which had been welded into a larger unit during the later stages of the pre-Roman Iron Age’.423 The name Brigantes, comes from the ancient Celtic adjective ‘brig’ meaning ‘high’. Rivet and Smith discuss the possibility of this representing some form of lordly status but given the number of places with names based on this root it seems unlikely all of them could have been in a position of dominance. Thus they prefer to see the name representing ‘upland people’.424 The Celtic noun ‘Briga’ means ‘hill’ and therefore there is good reason to accept this theory.425 Hartley and Fitts presume it applied to one tribe who later became dominant over a number of others.426 They also postulate a possible relationship to the people who settled in the area of Bregenz in Western Austria and, perhaps more realistically, plausible links with a tribe of the same name in Ireland.427 Other tribal names which may apply to northern Britain are the Carvetii, Setantii, Gabrantovices, Tectoverdi, Lopocares, Corionototae and Latenses. The Brigantes may have been formed from a collection of any or all of these possible tribal peoples.428

There is one further, much debated reference to the Brigantes and their territory to be found in Pausanias’ Tour of Greece: Antoninus…never willingly involved the Romans in war…he also removed much of the territory of the Brigantes in Britain because they had embarked upon an armed invasion of Genounia, which was subject to the Romans.432 ÛδÁ Ἀντων²νος….πόλεμον μÁν Ῥωμαίοις ÑθελοντÂς Ñπηγάγετο οÕδένα…. Ðπετέμετο δέ καà τ´ν Ñν ΒριττανίZ Βριγάντων τÂν πολλήν, ëτι Ñπεσβαίνειν καà ο¾τοι σÅν ëπλοις ¶ρξαν Ñς τÂν Γενουνίαν μο²ραν, Üπηκόους Ῥωμαίων. Pausanias, Tour of Greece 8. Arcadia 43 3-4

Tacitus may give some evidence to support this view in his Agricola:

This passing reference to the Brigantes by a mid second century Greek author writing what was essentially a tourist guide to Greece has been the subject of much discussion. Pausanias liked to break off into historical asides433 but there is confusion over the chronology of this reference and the identification of Genounia. There is no clear cut answer to the debate but one suggestion given by Salway and repeated by Ireland notes fresh issues of a type of bronze sestertius mentioning Britain and dated to AD 154/5. The issue of this celebratory coinage suggests renewed trouble and further Roman

As a result, many states (civitates) which up to that moment had operated on equal terms abandoned violence and gave hostages. They were also 421

Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.448 (Rigodunum), p.295 (Camulodunum) 422 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.360 (Epiacum), p.288 (Calacum) 423 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.1 424 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.279 425 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.278 426 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.1 427 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.1 and for the reference to the Irish Brigantes see Ptolemy Geography Book 2.2.7. Ptolemy is the only ancient source to mention Irish Brigantes but Rivet and Smith note the derivation of the Irish name place-name Brighid from the ‘Brig’ root. 428 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.1 and Shotter, D. (2004) p.4 (map). Note: it is commonly thought that the Parisii were a separate and independent tribal people.

429

Birley, A. R. (1999) p.16 Shotter, D. (2004) pp.26-51 431 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.2-3 432 Ireland, S. (1996) p.94 433 Jones, W. S. (1918) p.xiv 430

42

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE victories in northern Britain and Ireland.434 Thus Pausanias could be referring to this event in his Tour of Greece. Certainly the unrest was enough to require reinforcements from Germany. It is also quite possible that he confused information on an uprising by the Brigantii of Raetia against their neighbours the Genauni with news of some action in Britain.435 Whether Pausanias was referring to an otherwise unrecorded area or his information was simply wrong we do not know.436 Among so few literary references to the tribal name and territory this possibility must be mentioned but it is also worth bearing in mind that as with Juvenal and Seneca there is no evidence to suggest that, even if Pausanias is referring to Britain, he is not writing of northern Britain in general rather than to one tribe in particular. Although their civitas capitals would have survived it seems scarcely likely that the Brigantes could still have existed as a recognised tribal unit in the mid second century and thus if Genounia existed at all it can only be a generic term for territory outside of the land they once held.

of the Brigantes in this area.439 The problem with all these dedications is that they come from military contexts and must have been made after the Roman occupation of the north. Thus they cannot be used as evidence for the presence of any native late Iron Age tribes but rather as an indicator of the uptake of dedications to native deities amongst the Roman military. The proposed tribal area of the Brigantes based on the most favourable reading of the evidence, much of which is entirely circumstantial or even hypothetical thus gives an eastern boundary bordering that of the Parisii, a southern boundary east of the Pennines formed, possibly, by the river Don west of the Pennines by a line from the river Mersey swinging south to skirt the Cheshire plain and aiming roughly for Little Chester. Here it would join the southern boundary on the Pennines themselves and, according to Hartley and Fitts, possibly even including the Derbyshire Peak District.440 There are considerable doubts on the southern, western and north-western edges of the Brigantian tribal territory, and as has been shown above, the quality and extent of the available evidence places many limitations on its interpretative value. Hartley and Fitts give the largest possible extent of the tribal territory, including that of all the sub-tribes it could possibly have comprised.441 In reality the evidence must be treated with extreme caution and all suggestions as to the size of the territory of the Brigantes must be qualified with a warning on the paucity of available and trustworthy evidence.

One further possible indication of the tribal area of the Brigantes comes in the form of epigraphic evidence: dedications to the goddess Brigantia, who, by virtue of her name, is assumed to be one of the prime deities of the tribe. Dedications to the goddess come in two areas. Those in the north are found at Castlesteads, Corbridge and South Shields.437 A dedication from Birrens in Dumfriesshire is the only possible evidence for the presence of the Brigantes in the north-west of the country north of Hadrian’s Wall; however it seems more likely that the Birrens dedication was made by a soldier introduced to the cult whilst in York.438 The second group of dedications are clustered around Leeds and the Upper Calder valley and are the only evidence for the presence

CARVETII The evidence for the possible existence of the Carvetii, as with every other northern tribe apart from the Brigantes, is hard to find. Their existence is attested from the late Roman period by two pieces of epigraphic evidence. The first is a tombstone from Old Penrith:

434

Salway, P. Roman Britain. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1982. p.199, Ireland, S. (1996) p.93 435 Hind makes a good case for this in; Hind, J. G. F. ‘The Genounian part of Britain’, Britannia 8. (1977). pp.229-234 but Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.47 note two problems- that Pausanias specifically places the events in Britain and that Pausanias was listing the wars that occurred in the reign of Antoninus Pius and could scarcely fail to mention the campaign of Lollius Urbicus. On the other hand they also point out that the text has almost certainly been tampered with and could well have been altered to mention Britain when the original described Raetia. 436 Salway, P. (1982) p.199 n.1 437 From Castlesteads (RIB 2066 p.634): The vow to the goddess-nymph Brigantia which he made for the welfare and safety of Our Lord the unconquered Emperor Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Pius Felix Augustus (Caracalla) and his whole Divine House, Marcus Cocceius Nigrinus, Procurator of our Emperor and most devoted to his divine power and majesty, has gladly, willingly and deservedly fulfilled (Ireland, S. 1996 p.192). From Corbridge (RIB 1131 p.373): IOVI ΛETERNO DOLICHENO • ET CΛELESTI BRIGΛNTIΛE ET SΛLVTI • G IVLIVS ΛPOLINΛRIS > LEG VI IVSS DEI. From South Shields (RIB 1053): Sacred to the goddess Brigantia. Congenniccus willingly and deservedly fulfilled his vow (Ireland (1996) p.192). 438 From Birrens (RIB 2091 p.640): BRIGANTIÆ S AMANDVS ARCITECTVS EX IMPERIO IMP. Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain: Volume 1 Inscriptions on Stone. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1965-83. The soldier was probably introduced there to the cult of Brigantia set up by Severus after the division of Britain. It therefore cannot be used as evidence for the presence of the cult in this area prior to this time.

To the spirits of the departed (and) Flavius Martius, Senator in the civitas of the Carvetii, of Questorian rank, who lived for 45 years. Martiola, his daughter and heiress, had this set up.442

439

From Adel, Yorkshire (RIB 630 p.211): DEΛE BRIGΛN D CINGETISSA P. From Greetland, West Yorkshire (RIB 627 p.210): front: D VICT BRIG ET NVM AVG T AVR AVRELIANVS D D PRO SE ET SVIS S MAG S right side: ANTONINO III ET GETA II COS. From Longwood near Slack (RIB 623 p.209): DEO BREGANTI ET N AVG T AVR QVINTVS D D P ET S S. From Castleford near Leeds (RIB 628 p.211): DEΛE VICTORIΛE BRIGΛNT A D ΛVR SENOPIΛNVS. Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. (1965-83) 440 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. (1988) p.6 441 Note Higham, N. and Jones, B. (1985) and Shotter, D. (2004) argue strongly for the existence of at least the tribe of the Carvetii and this evidence must be taken into consideration when discussing the possible tribal extent of the Brigantes. 442 Ireland, S. (1986) p.217. Collingwood and Wright translate SEN IN C as ‘senator in the cohort (or senator in the community)’ Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. (1965-83) p.310

43

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE D M FL MARTIO SEN IN C CARVETIOR QUESTIORIO VIXIT AN XXXXV MARTIOLA FILIA ET HERES PONEN…..CURAVIT.

Tribal territory The territory that could have been held by the Carvetii is an area of great debate and less proof. They are generally assumed to have been based in north-west England in the Solway Plain, north of the Wall and in the Eden and possibly Lune Valleys. The area also contains a presumed pre-Roman tribal centre at Clifton Dykes,450 the crossroads of four major natural routeways at Penrith,451 and a concentration of dedications to the horned god Belatucadrus452 who is thought to have been linked specifically to the north-west of Britain.453

RIB 933443 This tombstone commemorates one Flavius Martius but the abbreviations inscribed on it are open to debate.444 ‘Sen’ has been interpreted as ‘Senator’ if his office was civilian but in the fourth century the same word was used to describe a non-commissioned officer in a military context; yet again, it might simply stand for ‘Senior’ as a third element of the name. Similarly Ireland has interpreted the ‘C’ to stand for civitas whilst Higham and Jones translate it as cohort or canton.445 Sadly there is no dating evidence for this inscription and therefore the question of whether its context is military or civilian and which translation is most likely to be correct remains open to debate. The fact that the monument was set up by his daughter and heiress might indicate a civilian context, although this need not be the case if Flavius Martius was a senior military officer in which case he could also have had family present. A milestone from Frenchfield, north of Brougham, is thought to settle the matter in favour of the latter. Higham and Jones state that the abbreviation RPC Car at the end of the inscription must be translated as respublica civitatis Car(vetiorum) confirming the existence of the Carvetii and their status as a civitas in the mid-third century.446

A milestone from Kirkby Lonsdale has been thought to give some possible evidence of one tribal boundary of the Carvetii.454 It gives a distance of fifty three miles from an unnamed location which is thought to be Carlisle. Found in the Lune Valley, it is used as the basis for the suggestion that part of the Lune Valley fell in to the tribal territory of the Carvetii. The milestone was taken to be evidence for the southern boundary of the tribe: however there is no reason why it should mark a boundary. Higham and Jones note that a distance of 53 miles fits the distance to Carlisle from the milestone along the Roman road through Tebay to Penrith via Low Borrow Bridge, Brougham and Old Penrith. Given this route it is also plausible to suggest that Upper Lonsdale and most of the Lake District may have been within the administrative control of Carlisle at this time. The tendency for Roman administrative areas to follow those of pre-Roman tribal territories could support the notion that the area also fell under the control of the Carvetii, but Higham and Jones

The two inscriptions quoted above give some evidence for the existence of the tribal name of the Carvetii. They are, however, only evidence of its existence in the third and fourth centuries AD and the name could be of entirely Roman origin or, at least, refer to an area created out of the newly composed northern territory. Shotter suggests that, ‘what the Romans developed as the civitas Carvetiorum may, in the pre-Roman period, have constituted a semi-independent ‘sub-group’ of the Brigantes’.447 Rivet and Smith believe that the Carvetii were probably part of the Brigantian confederation and were later identified as a separate civitas. Under Roman rule ‘the Carvetii seem to have constituted a civitas in the third century, with its centre at Carlisle, and for some administrative purposes Civitas Carvetiorum may have been an alternative name to Luguvalium’.448 They also suggest that the name itself may be derived from the British ‘carvos’ meaning ‘deer or stag’.449 There is a possibility that this could have some relationship to the cult of the horned god Belatucadrus discussed below.

450 Shotter, D. (2004) p.5 and 16-17. The possible evidence for a tribal heartland in the Eden Valley will be discussed in chapter 4. 451 Higham, N. and Jones, B. (1985) p.9 452 There may have been a Carvetiian deity with a similar name to this but it is important to note that Belatucadrus is a Romanised form of the word and thus find spots of dedications to a god of this name are only evidence of its existence after the Roman invasion. The significance of the dedications should not be dismissed but they are not evidence in themselves of a pre-Roman deity. 453 Note: Shotter describes Belatucadrus as Brigantian horned deity which could suggest that the presence of such dedications is evidence of Brigantian power but Higham and Jones state that the cult of Belatucadrus was limited to Cumbria and the western edge of Northumberland. (Shotter, D. (2004) p.4-5 and Higham, N. and Jones, B. (1985) p.10-11). If Belatucadrus was truly a Brigantian deity then dedications could be expected east of the Pennines. The restriction of the cult to the north-west suggests if there were indeed such things as tribal deities, which is far from proven, that it may have been tied to a tribe more closely identified with this area, i.e. the Carvetii. This is possible but there is no real proof that tribal deities did exist. Groups may certainly have identified with certain deities but there is no reason to assume that such an association was further attached to a tribal identity. Indeed among those individuals who worshipped Belatucadrus there may have been individuals with differing regional identities and indeed those who did not consider themselves to have any identity beyond a family group or local area. For further discussion of religious identities see Edwards, D. N. ‘The archaeology of religion’ in DiazAndeu, M. et al. The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion. Routledge, London. 2005. pp.110128 454 RIB 2283: M P LIII (found beside a Roman road four miles north of Kirkby Lonsdale) Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. (1965-83) p.715

443

Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. (1965-83) p.310 Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. (1965-83) p.310-11 445 Higham, N. and Jones, B. (1985) p.9 446 Higham, N. and Jones, B. (1985) p.9 and Shotter, D. (2004) p.10 note 13. 447 Shotter, D. (2004) p.5 448 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.301-2 449 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.301 444

44

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE suggest that the boundaries of the tribe, particularly in the south, were not the same in each period.455

actually pro-Roman then it would be sensible to advance through and occupy their territory. If this were the case then it is very unlikely that the Solway plain area could be the stronghold of Venutius, a famously anti-Roman British leader. Control of the north-west would have given the Romans the opportunity to establish their base at Carlisle before moving into the Upper Eden Valley and then eastwards into that of the Brigantes. The Roman forces could thus approach the latter area from two directions; using the route north up the western side of the country as a way to gain access to the north-east from both the north and the south in a form of pincer movement. It is likely that Carlisle and the Solway plain were the territory of a native group in some way sympathetic to Rome, of which Luguvalos could have been the leader at the time of the Roman occupation. A pro-Roman stance would have given Luguvalos a better chance of retaining some influence after the conquest and the retention of a Celtic personal name in the title of the Roman settlement at Carlisle (Luguvalium) may indicate the success of such an approach.

The northern boundary of the Carvetii is equally unknown. One piece of evidence, a statuette dedication to the goddess Brigantia, has been found to suggest the presence of the Brigantes at Birrens but the probability that this is misleading and the dedicator was actually an adherent of the Severan cult sent to the outpost from York has been discussed above.456 Meanwhile Higham and Jones suggest that the good land at the southern end of Annandale, which comes close to fordable areas of the Solway as far west as Bowness, could also have been held by the Carvetii although there is no textual or epigraphic evidence to support this suggestion.457 The Roman name for Carlisle, Luguvalium, may give some indication of the status of this site in the period surrounding the conquest of northern England. Luguvalium means ‘town of a man called Luguvalos’ and the second element in the modern name is a corruption of this. The first element cair meaning ‘fortified town’ also has a British base. Mills states this element was added after the Roman period,458 which would demonstrate continuity of both site and population from pre-Roman to post-Roman times. It is also possible that the Romans called the town Luguvalium whilst at the same time the native British population called it Cair Luguvalio. Luguvalium may have been a pre-existing name dating back several generations but equally it could well have been the name of the chieftain at the time of the conquest.

If evidence for the existence and whereabouts of the Carvetii is slight then it is almost non-existent for all the other postulated northern tribes: GABRANTOVICES Only one piece of evidence exists for the Gabrantovices tribe and this is a reference in Ptolemy:

If the Roman place-name for Carlisle does indeed preserve a current Celtic personal name then it is of considerable interest. If an individual had an Iron Age town named after him this would indicate that he held high status, presumably that of a chieftain or tribal leader. Although the Roman occupation was designed to have relatively little impact on the native population a high ranking leader would normally be someone to remove especially since Carlisle is in the heart of the territory normally assigned to the Carvetii; a tribe usually thought to have been anti-Roman and possibly led by the rebel leader Venutius. For his name to have been preserved in the Roman place-name Luguvalium can only suggest that the chieftain ‘Luguvalos’ was a Roman client ruler or at least sympathetic to Roman and thus favourable to the occupation of the north. If this is the case then it would indicate either that the Carvetii were actually a proRoman group or that they did not occupy land on the Solway Firth.459 It seems likely that the Roman conquest of the north moved faster up the west of the country than the east and then moved into the north-east from two directions. One reason for a faster northward advance in the north-west would be a smaller population to overcome but if the tribe in the Solway Plain area were

§6 Gabrantuicorum Bay being known as Good Harbour. 21° 0’ 57° 0’ ουþκων ό καί Õ λεγόμενος EÕλþμενος κόλπος κα νζ Ptolemy, Geography 2.3.6460 This is an otherwise unknown and unattested group of people. Rivet and Smith suggest that the name is made up of two British elements, ‘gabranto’ meaning ‘horse’ and ‘vic’ meaning ‘fight’ and translates as horse-riding fighter, or cavalryman. They also suggest that the description may have stemmed from its use by the Roman fleet.461 Shotter suggests that if they existed at all they may have been a coastal tribe situated in the northeast, possibly holding lands between the Parisi and the mouth of the Tyne.462 This suggestion is based on a further note in Ptolemy stating that the territory near to Good Harbour belongs to the Parisi.463

455

460

Higham, N. and Jones, B. (1985) p.12 See note 384 above. 457 Higham, N. and Jones, B. (1985) p.13 458 Mills, A. D. (2003) p.99 459 See discussion p.120 and map 4

Louis Francis (1994) [online] Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.364 462 Shotter, D. (2004) p.5 463 2.3.17 The territory near to Good Harbour is related to the Parisi whose town is: Petuaria 20° 40’ 56° 40’: Louis Francis (1994) [online]

456

461

45

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Lopocares’, thus revealing a new tribe in the area, and Shotter follows this view.469 He takes the idea further to suggest that the combination of a tribal name with a place-name, as could have occurred here, may mean that at some stage Corbridge attained the status of a civitascapital.470

TECTOVERDI Evidence for the existence of this tribe is drawn from a single inscription found near Vindolanda: To the goddess Sattada, the assembly of the Tectoverdi willingly and deservedly fulfilled its vow.

There are some problems with this theory. Most importantly the Ravenna Cosmography is known to be littered with scribal errors and it would be very dangerous to assume that any reference made in it is more correct than the Antonine Itinerary.471 Hind states, ‘The Ravenna Cosmography itself notoriously offers corrupt nameforms and it is hazardous to accept that Corie Lopocarium should, without any other supporting evidence, be used to emend the Antonine Itinerary’s Corstopitum’.472 Both Hind and Rivet and Smith believe that the name Corie Lopocarium is not to be trusted and the name given in the Antonine Itinerary is closer to the original although they differ on the reconstruction of what this might have been.473

DEA SAIIADAE CURIA TEXTOVERDORUM V SLM RIB 1695464 The inscription reads Curia Textoverdorum and this could be translated as Corio, another place-name, but it is generally assumed that the term refers to a tribal grouping, translated above as ‘assembly’.465 If this is the case it is possible that the Tectoverdi were a sub-group of a larger tribe and this is likely to have been the Brigantes.466 There is no dating evidence for the inscription. Given the likelihood that after the conquest the Roman authorities divided up the lands of northern Britain, then the huge area postulated to have been controlled by the Brigantes would no longer have existed. If this was the case then the people referred to in the inscription would not have been a sub-group of any other tribe at the time it was created but rather a Roman administrative area, which could well have had its own council. However this does not prevent the possibility that the Tectoverdi could have been a sub-group of another tribe, the Brigantes, prior to Roman supremacy.

Hind offers an interesting explanation for the source of the Ravenna Cosmography reference. This conflates the common element ‘coria’ with a corrupted form of the town ‘Epiacum’ which Ptolemy lists as the most northerly of the Brigantian settlements but which does not appear in the Ravenna Cosmography, unlike virtually all of the other Brigantian centres mentioned by Ptolemy. The only other exception to this is Aldborough which Hind assumes to have been sidelined with the rise of Roman military centres at Ribchester and Tadcaster.474 If the explanation offered by Hind is correct and Lopocarium is a corrupt form of Epiacum then the suggestion that the Ravenna Cosmography is more accurate than the Antonine Itinerary is unnecessary and ‘the idea that the Lopocares existed at all as a sept of the Brigantes will have to be given up.’475 It seems very unlikely that the Lopocares ever existed but Rivet and Smith suggest that Corbridge may well have been a significant centre in the pre-Roman period which was then converted after the Roman occupation, citing as a precedent the Curia Tectoverdorum at Vindolanda.476 If this is the case then it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Corionototae, who are not located at any specific site but might have come from Corbridge, may well have been the tribe native to this area at the time of the conquest.477

LOPOCARES The suggestion that this tribe might have existed is drawn from a single reference in the Ravenna Cosmography: Corie Lopocarium467 The Ravenna Cosmography clearly places Corie Lopocarium in the vicinity of Corbridge and thus the idea has been formed that Corbridge could have been the centre for a tribe called the Lopocares. A problem with this lies in the fact that the Antonine Itinerary labels Corbridge as Corstopitum and the marked difference in these words has led to a hunt for the original RomanoBritish or British name. In looking to the Ravenna Cosmography for an answer to this problem the suggestion has been made that the name here is, unusually, more correct than that given in the Antonine Itinerary. Richmond and Crawford468 believe that the original name might have been ‘hosting place of the

469

Shotter, D. (2004) p.5 Shotter, D. (2004) p.5 471 For a list of problems see Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.29 472 Hind, J. G. F. (1980) p.168 see also discussion of Ravenna Cosmography in Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) 473 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.322-3 reconstruct Coriosopitum whilst Hind (1980) p.170 suggests Corioritum. 474 Hind, J. G. F. (1980) p.168 475 Hind, J. G. F. (1980) p.168 476 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.323. See also discussion above. 477 Shotter, D. (2004) p.5 470

464

Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. (1965-83) p.533 Rivet and Smith can find no clear derivation of the name. The first part ‘tect’ appears to mean ‘possessor’ but the second element is unknown. Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.470 466 Shotter, D. (2004) p.5 and p.10 note 22 467 Ravenna Cosmography 107 (18) 468 Hind, J. G. F ‘The Romano British name for Corbridge’, Britannia 11. (1980). p.168 465

46

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE and harbour of the Setantii was a site near the mouth of the river Wyre in Lancashire, which has now been lost to coastal erosion. This is a very tenuous connection especially as archaeological evidence suggests that the land in this area may not have been particularly viable during the pre-Roman and Roman periods.486

CORIONOTOTAE There is inscriptional evidence for the existence of a group of people with the tribal name of Corionototae: Quintus Calpurnius Concessinis, Prefect of cavalry, following the slaughter of a band of Corionototae, fulfilled his vow to the god of most potent power.

Another suggestion is founded upon the name Setia, also mentioned by Ptolemy.487 This site appears to have been attached to the river Mersey which is believed to have formed part of the boundary between the Cornovii in the south and another tribe, possibly the Setantii, to the north.488

LEG A ... Q CALPVRNIVS CONCESSINIVS PRAEF EQ CAESA CORIONOTOTARVM MANV PRAESENTISSIMI NVMINIS DEI V S RIB 1142478

This area, between the Mersey and Ribble, has traditionally been dismissed as of little importance in either the pre-Roman or Roman periods. It is true that it may have been economically, and thus politically marginal to activities elsewhere in northwest England, but recent work has suggested that it should not be ignored: although, because of prevailing soil-conditions, sites are difficult to recognise through aerial reconnaissance, field-work and excavation have demonstrated that they are to be found, and display continuity from the pre-Roman to the Roman period.489

The inscription was found in the crypt of Hexham Abbey, having been re-used for building work there in the AngloSaxon period. It is likely to have come from a relatively local source and the implication is that the Corionototae were a group local to the area. Rivet and Smith give the derivation as ‘men belonging to a people or kingdom called korionotota’.479 Shotter suggests that the tribe could be located in the Corbridge area and it is thought that the stone came originally from Corbridge;480 however Rivet and Smith merely state that they presumably lived north of Hadrian’s Wall and may have been incorporated into one of the larger tribes in this area.481 An obvious candidate would be the Votadini but the Brigantes are another.

One final proposed tribal area for the Setantii lies much further north: southern Cumbria on the north side of Morecambe Bay.490 ‘The potential significance of the area in pre-Roman times is perhaps indicated by the presence of hillfort (oppidum) sites – Skelmore Heads, Wharton Crag, Castlehead (Allthwaite), the Helme (Natland) and Millon. In contrast to many of the hillfort sites in the region, those mentioned here, for which an established chronology exists, appear compatible with usage in the late pre-Roman Iron Age.’491 Again this is possible but more work is necessary to confirm this evidence. This site for the town and harbour would not preclude the tribal territory from having extended south in to the area of the Ribble and Mersey. Alternatively, given that the land in this area is thought to have been of a considerably better quality than that to the south, the port could also have stood at the southern end of Lake Windermere or on the southern Cumbrian coast on a site now lost to erosion.

SETANTII Only one fragment of evidence can be found for the possible existence of the Setantii.482 This is a passing reference to a Portus Setantiorum in Ptolemy: Setantiorum Town and Harbour 17° 20’ 57° 45’ Σεταντίων λιμήν

ιζ γ' νζ δ'

Ptolemy, Geography 2.3.2483 Ptolemy mentions this site in his description of ‘the west side (of Britain) that lies close to the Hibernian Sea’484 therefore it must have been located somewhere on the coast of north-west England.

ANAVIONENSES There have been numerous suggestions about precisely where the territory of the Setantii could actually have been.485 There is a long held local tradition that the town

There is one piece of evidence for the existence of the Anavionenses, this time epigraphic.492 It comes from the

478

Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. (1965-83) p.376 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1997) p.322 480 Shotter, D. (2004) p.5 and p.10 note 21 481 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.322 482 There is no clear British root in this name but it could possibly derive from a divine name linked to the goddess Sentona. Thus it could perhaps mean ‘wayfarers’ Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.456 483 Louis Francis (1994) [online] 484 Ptolemy II.3.2 Louis Francis (1994) [online] 485 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.456 see also Shotter, D. (2004) p.6-7 479

486

Shotter, D. (2004) p.6 Ptolemy describes Setia Town and Estuary in the same section as the town and estuary of the Setantii (Geography 2.3.2). Louis Francis (1994) [online] 488 Shotter, D. (2004) p.7 489 Shotter, D. (2004) p.7 490 Shotter, D. (2004) p.7 491 Shotter, D. (2004) p.7 492 Birley dates this inscription to the early second century AD; before AD 112. Birley, A. (1981) p.302 487

47

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE the north-west but it does not mean that the Anavionenses were not in some way connected with a tribe further south and came under Roman control when it did. The most likely contender for this tribe would be the Carvetii, since their area of control seems to have bordered that of the Anavionenses and, as discussed above, they appear to have come under Roman control in the early 70s. Rivet then argues that the Romans, even in their temporary retreat from the far north, would have retained control of complete areas and thus could still have been in control of the area around Annandale in AD 100 when the subject of this inscription is likely to have held the office of censitor.501 Birley also suggests (although without any hard supporting evidence) that young men from Annandale could have been conscripted into the Roman army whilst the area was under the control of Haterius Nepos, further support for continued Roman control in this area around the turn of the century.502 If this is the case then the inscription stands as evidence for the existence of the Anavionenses in the late Iron Age and Roman periods, a view strongly supported by Birley who comments that ‘the Anavionenses and Carvetii – may have been small peoples in the northern Pennines, not necessarily subject to anyone, except to Rome’, ‘at all events, the Anavionenses – and their immediate neighbours – had had separate dealings with Rome for nearly three decades before Haterius Nepos arrived.’503 However such a degree of speculation may be too much to base on the evidence of one inscription.

career inscription of an equestrian officer, one Titus Haterius Nepos, whose presence in Britain is also known from other sources,493 and who seems to have held the post of Censitor Brittonum Anavionensium. Haterius’ name is missing from the inscription but the dates of office given allow firm attribution:494 [To Haterius], prefect of the cohort, military tribune, prefect of cavalry, census-officer of the Anavionensian Britons, procurator of Augustus for Armenia Major, of the Great Training-School, and of legacies; and in charge of the census, in charge of petitions of Augustus, prefect of the Watch, prefect of Egypt, M Taminius Ce .. ..............................prae[f(ecto) coh]ortis trib(uno) milit[um p]raef(ecto) equit(um) censito[ri Brittonum Anavion[ens(ium) proc(uratori) Aug(usti) Armeniae Mai[or(is) Ludi magni hereditatium et a censibus a libellis Aug(usti) praef(ecto) vigilum praef(ecto) Aegy[pti M. Taminius Ce............ ILS (inscriptiones latinae selectae) 1338495 The appointment of someone to this position would mean that at least in the time the inscription refers to the territory of the Anavionenses lay within the Roman province of Britannia. Name association suggests that their tribal territory lay in the vicinity of the river Annan496 and included a possible centre at Lochmaben.497 This association has been made in the same way as the Bannienses and Vindolandenses have been connected with specific Roman sites in Britain.498 The improbability that the Romans could have held territory in southern Scotland so long after the Flavian withdrawal in the late 80s has cast doubt upon the assumption that this inscription refers to Annandale but Rivet has argued that it does:499 He assumes that the Anavionenses were a part of the Brigantes on the evidence of a dedication to Brigantia at Birrens.500 It seems improbable that the Brigantes themselves could have held land this far into

MAETAE One final tribal name which could possibly be associated with northern Britain is the Maetae: There are two principal races of the Britons, the Caledonians and the Maetae, and the names of the others have been merged into these two. The Maetae live next to the cross wall which cuts the island in half, and the Caledonians are beyond them. 504 δύο δÁ γένη τ´ν Βρετταν´ν μέγιστά εÓσι, Καληδόνιοι καà Μαιάται· καà Ñς αÕτÀ καà τÀ τ´ν ðλλων προσρήματα Ýς εÓπε²ν συγκεχώρηκεν. οÓκο³σι δÁ οÚ μÁν Μαιάται πρÄς αÕτ© τ© διατειχίσματι û τÂν ν±σον δίχ\ τέμνει, Καληδόνιοι δÁ μετ' Ñκείνους

493 Haterius Nepos is the author of an unpublished Vindolanda letter (Inv. 93/ 1379) to Flavius Genialis and officer at Vindolanda in c. AD 100. Birley, A. R. ‘A New Tombstone from Vindolanda’, Britannia 29. (1998). p.303 see also Birley, A. R. ‘The Anavionenses’, BAR International Series 940. (2001) p.15-16 493 Rivet, A. L. F. (1982) p.321 494 The inscription itself is from Foligno in Umbria: Rivet, A. L. F. ‘The Brittones Anavionenses’, Britannia 13. (1982). p.321 For further information on the attribution of the inscription see Birley, A. R. (2001) p.15 495 Rivet, A. L. F. (1982) p.321 496 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. suggest that this name derives from the British meaning ‘rich river’ Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.24950 497 Note: the land at the southern end of Annandale in southern Scotland has also been tentatively associated with the Carvetii. 498 See RIB 1905 and 1700. Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. (1965-83) p.588 and 535 499 Rivet, A. L. F. (1982) p.321-2 500 The suggestion that the Birrens statue is not sufficient evidence to suggest Brigantian control has been made above in the ‘Brigantes’ section

Epitome of Dio Cassius 77.12 Dio is the only source, either textual or epigraphic, to mention this tribe and it is generally thought that he is describing two tribes of Scotland rather than northern 501

Birley, A. R. (1998) p.303 also Shotter, D. (2004) p.7 Birley, A. R. (1998) p.303 503 Birley, A. R. (2001) p.17 and 20 504 Cary, E. (tr.) Dio Cassius Roman History Books 71-80. Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, London. 1927 502

48

CHAPTER 2: ANCIENT LITERATURE, EPIGRAPHIC AND PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE England.505 Bearing in mind the fact that Dio was probably writing in the early third century the ‘wall which divides the island in two’ could be either Hadrian’s Wall or the Antonine Wall but it has been taken as a reference to the latter. It is unlikely that the Antonine Wall was held after AD 163 and it is reasonable to assume that a late second century author would be writing about an extant wall. Hence the passage probably refers to Hadrian’s Wall and indicates that the Maetae lived near to it. If this is the case then like the other tribes mentioned above, the Maetae may have been an independent tribe or, if a confederation did exist, possibly a sub-tribe of the Brigantes.

gives no help in understanding the lives of the majority of the Brigantian population and cannot be used to give any idea of the history of this tribe either before or after the fall of Queen Cartimandua. The only other literary source of any real use is Ptolemy but although he gives names which could refer to native centres or tribes, no firm conclusions can be derived from his work. His information is, however, of great importance since it is the only literary source to indicate the presence of other tribes in northern England and to specify some tribal names. Used in isolation his evidence is impossible to validate, but following an analysis of artefactual and settlement patterning in northern England, his work may be used to indicate the names of any possible tribal territories identified.

CONCLUSION Analysis of the literary and epigraphic evidence for the presence of the Brigantes and other tribes in northern England has revealed that literary evidence gives no clear indication of the numbers, names and extent of the tribes of northern England. Moreover, although the epigraphic evidence forms a useful addition to the sparse historical record of northern Britain it provides little further help. The presence of a few native groups is demonstrated by inscriptions found around the Corbridge area, but there is little evidence to indicate that these groups represent preconquest tribes. Furthermore, the inscriptions probably reveal the situation in the late Roman period rather than that within the scope of this study. The majority of inscriptions are likely to date from the later period and, as with literature, there is a total lack of any epigraphic tradition among the native peoples of northern Britain in the pre-conquest period and no hard evidence for any change after the Roman occupation. Thus no texts or inscriptions can be used with any confidence to gain an understanding of the area before the Roman conquest.

Perhaps the greatest problem affecting all the literary sources is that none are of native origin, and it is only after the conquest that Greek and Roman authors begin to mention northern England. Naturally, even the little that can be gleaned from these authors provides a very one sided viewpoint and indeed this remains the case throughout the Roman period. Place-names give some interesting clues about the impact of the Roman presence on northern England in terms of linguistic change and may give some important evidence regarding the status of Carlisle in relation to the Carvetii in the late pre- and early post-conquest periods. Indeed the latter point may be the most significant finding from this element of the study. The evidence for a lack of linguistic change on place-names in the area of study is also interesting. It may indeed indicate that very little change in place-names or language was enforced upon northern England during the conquest period. However the evidence can also be interpreted differently and may be a result of the presence of soldiers with ‘Celtic’ origins in the area. Thus they may have adopted original or new names for sites in Celtic because it was also their own first language. Thus what may appear to be a policy of non-intervention may actually be an invisible change or continuity for the convenience of the soldiery rather than for the appeasement of the native population.

The literature is sparse and often contradictory with only one author, Tacitus, providing sufficient detail (such as the names of the queen and other individuals) to indicate that he is referring to a specific tribe when he alludes to the Brigantes, rather than using the term as a general reference to the native population of northern Britain. The other Roman authors all use the term Brigantes in what would appear to be a far less precise way: this suggests that they were intending to refer broadly to the population of northern Britain rather than to any particular tribe. Given the purpose of their writing and their audience this is not a great surprise. While Tacitus certainly confirms the presence of what he understands as a tribe by the name of the Brigantes in northern England, his account cannot be used to indicate the extent of their territory. In all likelihood, Tacitus describes one event, involving only a few elite members of the tribe, and occurring shortly before the Roman conquest of northern England, towards the end of the period under investigation in this book. It

In view of these considerations, it is manifest that the ancient literary, epigraphic and place-name sources cannot be relied upon for an accurate picture of what was happening in Northern England in the late Iron Age and early Roman period. Conclusions based upon these sources alone cannot provide any degree of certainty. In order to gain a better impression of native northern England in the period before and after the Roman conquest other approaches and types of evidence must be used. Neither literature nor language can give sufficient hard evidence and as a result it is necessary to turn to archaeology for further information which may give a clearer picture. Through analysis of artefacts, materials and settlement patterning across northern England in the late Iron Age and early Roman period a much more detailed and accurate picture of native settlement, society

505

Rivet and Smith suggest the name means ‘of the larger part’ and thus that the land north of the Antonine Wall was divided between the Maetae in the larger part and the Caledonii in the smaller part. Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. (1979) p.404

49

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE and possible group identities in northern England can be achieved.

50

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS FROM NORTHERN ENGLAND

of more equal intensity than aerial survey.510 The difficulty with geophysical survey is that it is a developing science. The process is now fast enough to be used routinely for the purpose of identifying new sites, but its use has often been limited to points where an archaeological site was already known or suspected in order to seek more information on its shape and complexity as a preliminary or alternative to excavation.511 Results gained from geophysical survey alone, whilst more detailed than those available from aerial reconnaissance are thus subject to the same limitations; that chronology cannot be confirmed and that other sites within the area may remain unidentified.

VARIATION IN THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD The archaeological record is subject to a number of factors affecting the preservation and quality of sites. These in turn affect the degree to which they are recognised and excavated and the extent to which both the site and any artefactual assemblage may be preserved. The major factors affecting the preservation and visibility of archaeological settlement sites are discussed below. These weaknesses and variations in the data are relevant for both chapters 3 and 4. Field archaeology

Archaeological excavation can take two forms, test pits and full archaeological digs, and can be used to confirm the presence of a site and develop an understanding of its chronology. Sites for excavation can be determined from aerial photography, geophysical survey, test pits, and the survival of remains within the landscape such as earthworks. The latter have largely been discovered and explained either by direct excavation or analogy with similar excavated sites in the region, as with the many enclosure sites of Northumberland.512 Many, although not all, of such sites are found on higher ground which has not been used for intensive agriculture. In the lowlands, the land has continued to be used intensively from the prehistoric period to modern times and thus the areas in which the most sites are likely to have been found are also those where they are most likely to have been lost to industrial, agricultural or urban expansion. Haselgrove notes that, ‘today, upland areas with their excellent preservation of earthwork sites are widely looked on as zones of survival, whereas lowland areas with their high incidence of urban expansion, extractive industry and intensive agriculture are seen as zones of destruction where sites survived only as battered cropmarks’.513

Discussing the difficulties of identifying archaeological sites in northern England and the imbalance between excavation east and west of the Pennines, Haselgrove states that, ‘more lowland is under pasture west of the Pennines, making site discovery harder, while drought can help cropmark formation in the east’.506 The differing land-uses across northern England have had a direct impact upon the discovery and survival of archaeological sites and upon the usefulness of archaeological techniques across the area. Aerial Photography is less useful across much of north-west England whilst Haselgrove believes that the chances of finding sites by simple field walking in the lowlands of the north-west are virtually non-existent.507 Conventional fieldwalking has proved a difficult tool in the process of identifying new archaeological sites. Haselgrove explains that the reasons for this are twofold. Field walking is limited by its very nature to ploughed fields and thus large areas cannot be surveyed using this technique.508 In addition the pottery which would usually identify late Iron Age sites is very friable and fieldwalking must take place immediately after ploughing in order to reveal useful results.509 Given the problems of surface survey in the identification of Iron Age sites a preferable method is geophysical survey. This method can be extremely successful in identifying Iron Age and early Roman sites across all areas and, in particular, it has proved successful in areas where aerial reconnaissance cannot obtain results. The key element of geophysical survey is that it can be used across both arable and pastoral lands and therefore yields more consistent results

Decades of archaeological excavation have investigated many upland and lowland sites and archaeologists have explored increasingly less visible sites with the advent of aerial photography and geophysical surveying. Haselgrove comments that ‘the last two decades have seen the end of an era of large-scale excavation of Iron Age settlements, hillforts and ritual sites with a dramatic floruit of published reports describing the result’.514

                                                             510

Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.53-4 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.54 Eg, Jobey,G. ‘An Iron Age settlement at Hartburn and the Devil’s Causeway, Northumberland, 1971’ Archaeologia Aeliana (5th series) 1, 1973. pp.11-53; Jobey, G. (1977), Jobey, G. (1971) 513 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.50 514 Haselgrove, C. et al. (2001) p.7

                                                            

511

506

512

Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.50. Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.64. Aerial Photography is discussed below p.52 508 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.54 509 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.54 507

51

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE lowland areas leads to a potential imbalance in the artefactual and confirmed settlement record between uplands and lowlands which may mask the real underlying patterns.

These excavations have dramatically increased knowledge of settlement types, plant and animal remains and daily life but this degree of understanding has not been evenly spread across Britain and the same is true of northern England. Haselgrove highlights a few problems such as the site specific nature of excavation without many attempts to identify overall patterns and the fact that whilst settlements themselves have been targeted there has been little wider focus on the areas around them.515 Excavation tends to focus on looking for new sites near to those already identified rather than taking a broader view of the landscape. An example of this is the Tees Valley where there has been great concentration on the region around the well known site of Stanwick.

Excavation, as with all other forms of archaeological investigation, has its limitations. In particular the tendency for site specificity in the choice of what type of sites to look for, where to look for them and where to dig within them has created an imbalance in current knowledge. Whilst all of the information available from archaeological investigation is immensely valuable in identifying sites of settlement, their nature, type and density the information should not be considered a complete, balanced record. Variation in the degree and type of investigation means that apparent densities and gaps in both settlement and settlement types may not be as certain as they appear from the current state of knowledge. There may well be much more information still to find which may considerably alter the appearance of the archaeological settlement record from northern England.

Just as excavation sites focus on areas where finds are already known, excavations themselves can be very limited. Haselgrove notes that the lack of prehistoric material culture from sites in northern England could be linked to the targeting of excavation on settlements rather than enclosure ditches or other areas; ‘middens may well have existed outside what we take to be the settlement boundary. In the lowlands, such deposits may well have been destroyed by subsequent ploughing, but we cannot be sure since we virtually never excavate outside the enclosures’.516 Such a specific focus not only on certain regions but even on certain areas of those sites means that even archaeological excavation cannot give a complete record of any archaeological site.

Aerial photography and archaeology Since the 1970’s aerial photography has been of immense importance in identifying cropmarks of settlement sites across Britain. In particular it has added greatly to the record of late prehistoric and Romano-British enclosures across the region of study. Haselgrove believes that, ‘aerial archaeology has been the single most important contribution to our knowledge of lowland settlement since 1976’.520 Aerial survey has been carried out in Northumberland, County Durham, the Tees Valley, Yorkshire and Cumbria. It has had a particular impact on our knowledge of sites on the Solway Plain and has increased the number of known prehistoric sites across the area; however it is important to remember that aerial survey cannot confirm chronology of sites and not all of those identified will have been occupied at the same time.521

Further problems are created by the nature of the soil conditions across northern England. Soil acidity has led to the loss of virtually all organic materials such as bone, wood and leather.517 Some small pockets of better preservation exist, such as the soil conditions allowing survival of bone assemblages in the Tees Valley,518 and the waterlogged conditions of the Fylde in Lancashire.519 But in general conditions for archaeological preservation not only of sites themselves but also of the artefacts and materials therein are relatively poor across the majority of the study area. The effect of poor preservation conditions in relation to specific materials is discussed further in Chapter 3 below. The subject is mentioned here to highlight the difficulty of creating continuity in the archaeological record for northern England and thus of drawing any conclusions from the surviving finds assemblages of objects prone to damage in poor soils.

Although aerial photography is an invaluable tool for the identification of new sites the process is not without considerable difficulties. Initially only a very limited amount of land is actually available for survey. In the urbanised Wear valley only 30% of the land is available for air survey whilst in the Solway plain just 14% is under arable use thus allowing the best chance of cropmark identification. Results are highly variable and it is not always possible to know whether this is a true picture or a result of factors affecting the reconnaissance itself.522

Whilst excavation, like all other forms of fieldwork, has its weaknesses, it is nevertheless the best method of obtaining detailed information on late prehistoric and Romano-British sites and the information it provides is invaluable. However, the concentration of excavation on

                                                            

515 Haselgrove discusses the need to consider settlements in context of their surrounding landscape and the need for basic regional syntheses. Haselgrove, C. et al. (2001) p.8, 9-11 516 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.51 517 Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.41 518 Eg. Thorpe Thewles: Heslop, D. H. (1987) 519 Hodgkinson, D. Lancaster Imprints 8, North West Wetlands Survey 6: The Lowland Wetlands of Cumbria. Lancaster University Archaeological Unit, Lancaster. 2000

                                                             520

Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.52 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.52 522 The difficulties of aerial photography are discussed in detail in Bewley, R. Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement in the Solway Plain Cumbria. Oxbow Monograph 36, Oxbow,Oxford. 1994 521

52

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS much of northern England are not as good as drier soils for revealing cropmarks.528 Collens illustrates how ten years of survey work in Cheshire and Merseyside yielded fifty new enclosures and a similar number of possible sites, yet over seventy were found in the course of just one summer in Northumberland in 1995.529 Haselgrove also notes that the soils south of Cumbria are very difficult for aerial survey and thus that there will be great variability in the results of such surveying.530

Variation in survey intensity The intensity of aerial reconnaissance affects the reliability of results. Bewley has demonstrated that the evidence from the Solway Plain was not biased according to areas or soil types and argues that where certain soils were favoured for cropmarks this was a genuine reflection of ancient settlement and agricultural practice.523 Meanwhile Haselgrove stresses that there has been more surveying in Cumbria than in the heavily urbanized lowlands of Durham and southern Northumberland.524 He also illustrates the way in which a major site attracts surveying thus giving a false impression of density in comparison to areas which have been less intensively studied.525 The effect of variations in the intensity of reconnaissance could therefore reflect a real difference in population density as with the Solway Plain, or it may also be due to one or more of the many factors affecting the quality and consistency of aerial photography techniques.

The effect of soil type on visibility is exacerbated by landuse. Much of the most accessible and somewhat limited lowland in northern Britain has disappeared beneath urban development thus aerial survey can only cover less suitable uplands and areas which have been used for cultivation. Such a limitation on the area available for aerial survey, whilst unavoidable, must be taken into consideration when making any comments on the density of settlement on lowlands which have since been developed for urban and industrial expansion. Heavy, more waterlogged soils are often used for pasture, as is the case across much of the north-west where the wetter climate is difficult for arable farming. In these circumstances crop marks will only appear in drought conditions. The best landuse for cropmark evidence is cereal cultivation.531 As a result the north-east of England and the Solway Plain are more likely to provide good aerial photographic results. Such differences in soils and landuse between northern England east and west of the Pennines have a direct impact on the interpretation of the results of aerial photography from both regions and on conclusions regarding the density and types of settlement in each area.

Before the land itself is taken into consideration there are difficulties in the actual practice of aerial flying. Flying can only take place when and where permitted. Thus it is difficult to survey areas in controlled airspace, particularly in the summer when conditions such as drought may give the best conditions. Such problems affect the airspace around major airports in the north-west and north-east and may also be an issue in some areas of military activity. In addition funding limitations restrict flying hours and Collens notes that on average only 12hrs flying per year is possible.526 Variability in the number of available flying hours can have an impact on the intensity and frequency of flyovers of an area and thus on the reliability of results.527 Additional flying time in some areas is likely to increase the number of sites identified. Thus apparent variations in the density of sites between regions may be a false image created by the increased intensity of work in a certain region. More flying also allows photography in a range of atmospheric conditions and times therefore giving more chance of capturing an area in optimal conditions for the visibility of cropmarks. Without a stable, constant climate this problem is impossible to overcome but it is important to bear in mind that not all areas will have been photographed in optimal, or even the same, conditions.

Finally the type of site itself affects its visibility. Cropmarks of rectilinear ditched enclosures are far easier to recognise from the air than those of palisaded or open settlements. Haselgrove suggests that in areas where settlement appears limited on aerial survey this may indicate that unenclosed settlement formed a significant part of the settlement pattern.532 Unfortunately such sites are almost invisible from the air. In addition isolated features are often impossible to identify without further investigation.533 The result of this is that many more settlements may exist than have been identified on aerial photography. In particular, areas of apparently sparse population may have been more densely settled with unenclosed and palisaded sites taking greater precedence than has been thought from the aerial photographic evidence.

Soils, landuse and visibility Variation in soils affects the visibility of cropmarks for aerial archaeology. In particular wetter soils such as those which form on glacial bolder clay in the lowlands of

Given the lack of archaeological investigation on native sites in northern England as whole and in particular the upland areas and the north-west of the region much emphasis must, of necessity, be placed upon the evidence provided by cropmarks identified from aerial survey.

                                                             523

Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.52 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.52 525 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.52 526 Collens, J. ‘Flying on the Edge: Aerial Photography and Early Settlement Patterns in Cheshire and Merseyside’ in Nevell, M. (ed.) Living on the Edge of Empire: models, Methodology and Marginality. Council for British Archaeology North West, University of Manchester and Chester Archaeology. 1999. p.36 527 For instance over 20hrs flying were achieved over Northumberland in 1995 and over 70 sites were found in just one summer compared with 50 in ten years in the Lancashire lowlands. Collens, J. (1999) p.36 524

                                                             528

Collens, J. (1999) p.36 Collens, J. (1999) p.36 530 Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.64 531 Collens, J. (1999) p.36 532 Haselgrove, C. (1996) p.64 533 Haselgrove, C. (2002) p.52 529

53

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE archaeological excavations but in northern England it is surprisingly scarce north of the Tees watershed, on the Pennines, and to their west. County Durham appears to have been entirely aceramic during the Iron Age, in direct contrast to the distinct pottery tradition that seems to have developed in the Tees Valley area. Meanwhile sites both on and west of the Pennines are also lacking in pottery with Cumbria also appearing aceramic in the Iron Age. It seems to have taken a surprisingly long time for this situation to change: Cumbria in particular remained almost entirely aceramic for several centuries after the Roman conquest of northern Britain. In order to find a pottery tradition it is necessary to look at the area from the Tees Valley south to the Humber. There was also a pottery tradition north of County Durham in what is now Northumbria: this renders even more remarkable the absence of pottery in the intervening district, sandwiched as it was between two pottery producing areas.

However this data must be used with some caution. It is important to remember that the results are not consistent and are affected by many factors perhaps the most important of which are the varied intensity with which different parts of the region of study have been photographed, the soils and current landuses across the region which greatly affect the visibility of cropmarks from place to place, and the potential for variation in the conditions when photography took place. In addition to these geographical issues the fact that enclosures are more visible as cropmarks than unenclosed settlements and that certain types of settlement such as the enclosures of the Solway Plain may not have emerged at the same date across the region must also be taken into consideration.534 As a result no certainty should be placed on the dating of a site until it can be ascertained through archaeological investigation. Although aerial reconnaissance has great value and should be considered important evidence in the study of settlement in northern England its inherent problems mean that all results must be treated with some caution. Discussion of information including material obtained from aerial photography should be prefaced with an acknowledgement that the data available may not be a complete and accurate record of settlement sites, types and densities and that whilst some assumptions can be made the chronology of sites cannot be confirmed without archaeological investigation.

For the Roman period, the majority of pottery in northern England comes, perhaps not surprisingly, from military sites. There are few large urban, non-military sites in the north which are securely dated to the period of study although Aldborough and Sedgefield may well have developed shortly afterwards in the mid and later second century.535 In this study York and Carlisle, despite their development as major urban centres, are regarded as military settlements, on the grounds of their military origins and their continued military importance throughout the Roman occupation. This study will look, in the main, at pottery assemblages from native settlement sites rather than those with military connections.536 Large amounts of pottery are found in military contexts but these are closely connected with the way of life inside the forts and their vici and almost certainly do not accurately represent the situation in native communities. As Evans has said, ‘given that the population of Roman Britain was in excess of a million it can be fairly safely asserted that around 90% of the population lived on basic rural sites’.537 Vici and urban centres will, however, be considered in relation to the processes by which pottery reached the native settlements of north Britain.

METHODOLOGY This chapter looks at a number of materials and artefacts which have been recovered from northern England. Patterns are identified based on regional differentiation and where factors are particularly notable these are highlighted. Suggested conclusions are then drawn regarding the possible regions that these patterns may indicate. Although possible geographic regions are identified here and differences in status, based on materials, are also considered this work recognises that the differences noted, whilst related to possible regional identities, are not the full story and that patterns in materials may also be linked to more localised and indeed broader identities. The aim of this study is to identify possible regional variations but it is important to recognise that these variations do not exist in isolation. Individuals across northern England may have associated themselves with a range of collective identities on both large and small scales and their identities may also have changed over time as identity is never constant.

                                                            

535 Sedgefield is an ongoing excavation and has not yet been published. A brief resume of the site can be found at:www.dur.ac.uk/archaeological.services/research_and_training/sedgefi eld and for image of geophysical survey see Petts, D. and Gerrard, C. (2006) p.54. The finds from the site have not received expert analysis but raw data is given here to indicate the potential importance of the site for future research projects. I am very grateful to Jenny Jones for her kindness in giving me the information provided here. Sedgefield: Roman Pottery: 3241 sherds, Samian: 181 sherds, Post Roman Pot: 76 sherds, Animal Bone: 4137 fragments, Coins: 26, Iron Objects: 431, Copper Alloy samples: 53, Lead samples: 17, Glass fragments: 48, Worked Bone fragments: 2, Worked Ceramic fragments: 3. Also a range of building materials including daub, plaster and pipe. For Aldborough see: Bishop, M. C. Finds from Roman Aldborough: A Catalogue of Small Finds from the Romano-British town of Isurium Brigantium. Oxbow Monograph 65, Oxford. 1996 536 For information and references to sites within the area of study and references to sites mentioned but outside of the area of study see Appendix A 537 Evans, J. ‘Romanised’, pottery and the rural economy in the northwest (unpublished)

THE IRON AGE AND ROMAN POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES The pottery assemblages of Iron Age and Roman north Britain are not as large or as numerous as those of the south. Pottery is generally a ubiquitous find on

                                                             534

See discussion in Chapter 1 and also Haselgrove, C. (2001) p.2-3

54

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS Removing the military-related pottery assemblages from the study sidelines most of the larger collections. The small amounts of data available from known native sites, especially in the north-west, make statistical and comparative analysis difficult, but work undertaken in recent years has allowed a picture of pottery usage in the north during the Iron Age and Roman periods to emerge. From this it has become clear that northern Britain can be divided up into a number of smaller regions on the basis of its pottery usage and traditions. These regional variations may indicate the presence of groups with different attitudes to pottery form, decoration and indeed usage; something which would suggest the presence of different communities rather than one homogenous unit.

elsewhere. A slightly shouldered jar form with a fairly flat, everted (curving out) rim, and finger tipping decoration has been found at sites in east Yorkshire including Garton Slack, South Cave and Ousethorpe. This form has also been found at Catcote but is otherwise sufficiently restricted to the east Yorkshire region to be of note.

North-east Iron Age ceramic forms538 Jars: Barrel jars There are some patterns in terms of Iron Age ceramic forms that can be observed across north-east Britain from the Humber to the Tyne area.539 Barrel jars are a good form to consider since they are found in many assemblages from across the north-east. Evans has found that Barrel jars with simple vertical or incurving rims (fig. 2) are to be found at a large number of sites in the north-east including sites in Cleveland, the North Yorks Moors and the western side of the Vale of York but are notably far less frequent across the rest of east Yorkshire.540

Fig. 2. Barrel jar – common form across northern England.542

Within this type certain variant forms appear to be restricted to the Tees valley region. This area includes the large and prosperous Iron Age and early Roman sites of Stanwick, Catcote, Holme House Piercebridge, Levisham Moor and Thorpe Thewles. These variants are Barrel jars with an internally thickened rim and jars with a decorated rim created by the use of a finger-tipping technique, (fig. 5) although it must be noted that these can also be found on sites in Northumbria where Barrel jars tend to dominate the assemblages. Another regional feature of the Tees Valley area is found in the lack of jars with handles (fig. 3); which are notably absent from the large assemblages, with the closest being found at Levisham Moor in the far south of the area. Evans has also noted that Barrel jars with pushed down and slightly beaded rims are found only in the Tees Valley and Northumbria (fig. 4).541

Fig. 3. Handled jar - not found in Tees Valley.

Fig. 4. Barrel jar with slightly beaded rim- Tees Valley form.

Although Barrel jars are not as commonly found in the pottery assemblages of east Yorkshire, some are present and indeed a different set of variant forms is specific to this area, only a few examples of which are found

                                                             538

I would like to extend my grateful thanks to Dr Evans for all his help and kind permission to use his unpublished work. 539 Further information on all sites mentioned in these pages can be found in Appendix C 540 This form has been found at Thorpe Thewles, Catcote, Roxby, Great Ayton Moor, Rillington, Stanwick, Normanby, Ingleby Barwick, Levisham Moor and Holme House Piercebridge. 541 Thorpe Thewles, Catcote and Levisham. Evans, J. (1995b) p. 50

Fig. 5. Finger tipped rim- Tees Valley form.

                                                             542

55

Figs. 2-5 after Evans, J. (1995b) p.52-53

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Also restricted almost entirely to this south eastern part of the study area are Barrel jars with everted, thickened and slightly grooved rims; these have been found at sites in Thornton-le-Dale at the southern edge of the North Yorks Moors, Rudston, South Cave and Garton Slack.543 Other jar forms

Fig. 6. Everted rims with tapering, triangular sectioned rims.548

Barrel jars have proven to be of interest in helping to define differing ceramic traditions within the north-east, but other forms are not so helpful. Jars with everted, squared rims are also common across the north-east. This form was clearly widely used and copied and must have been useful to all ceramic using parts of the north-east.544 The same type but with a thickened rim is also common across the area of study but appears to be absent from the Tees Valley. There are, however, examples from the North Yorks Moors at Levisham Moor and Rudston and across east Yorkshire at Garton Slack and Rudston. A slight variant with tapered, triangular sectioned rims would appear to be limited to the eastern side of the area; being found in the Vale of Pickering, North Yorks Moors and Tees Valley.

Fig. 7. Jars with everted, square rims.

Whilst there are a number of ubiquitous types, found across the whole of the north-east, there also exist certain types that are far more regional in nature. Within these more regionalised forms decorative traditions suggest further regional traits. Most notably ‘regional’ within the jar forms is the Barrel jar, being less common in east Yorkshire.545 However more significantly differing jar production and decoration techniques point to the Tees Valley area and east Yorkshire, as having ceramic traditions which stand out as notably different to those around them although the latter, whilst useful for comparative purposes, is not within the study area. It may also be of note that within the square rimmed type those with thickened rims are not found within the Tees Valley.546 The variant with triangular sectioned rims is, unfortunately, rather too widespread to suggest any regional preference although it is interesting that it would appear to be limited to the eastern side of the north-east, perhaps not being of interest to those people living on the western side of the Vale of York and on the eastern edge of the Pennines.547

Fig. 8. Jars with everted, thickened square rims.

Bowls and dishes Bowls and dishes of various slightly differing types are found in all assemblages although not in large numbers. This would suggest a preference for communal dishes rather than each person eating from an individual bowl or dish. Alternatively, it could indicate economic ‘poverty’, but since ceramic wares were not overly expensive and the north-east seems to have been otherwise fairly

Fig. 9. Example of a Butt beaker from Stanwick549

                                                            

                                                            

543

Evans, J. (1995b) p.50 also see figs. 6-8 Evans, J. (1995b) p.50 and illustrations p.55 545 Evans, J. (1995b) p.50 546 Evans, J. (1995b) p.50 547 Evans, J. (1995b) p.50

548

Figs. 6-8 after Evans, J. (1995b) p.55 After Wheeler, M. The Stanwick Fortifications: North Riding of Yorkshire in Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London. Oxford. 1954 p.33

544

549

56

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS prosperous this is less likely to be the case.553 Again with odd exceptions certain bowls and dishes fall into two geographic areas:- Bowls with everted, slightly rising rims are found mainly on the southern side of the North Yorks Moors at Costa Beck, Thornton-le-Dale, Great Ayton Moor and Levisham Moor.554 Meanwhile bowls and dishes with beaded rims are found in the more northerly area of the Tees Valley, in assemblages from Stanwick, Catcote and Thorpe Thewles. A stray example has also been found much further south at Dalton Parlours but since no other examples have been found this cannot be taken as evidence that the type was widely used or produced in the southern area.555 It is of note that, in contrast with the northern distribution of beaded rims discussed above, lightly beaded bowls with finger tipping decoration on the rim have been found only on the northern side of the Wolds at Faxfleet, Flixton and Staxton.556

Figs. 10 and 11. Examples of Crambeck Ware.550

The occurrence of decorated forms of the bowls and dishes discussed above also falls into two clear regional groups with a northern and southern bias.557 The more northerly of these is found on the North Yorks Moors and Teesdale and the more southerly found on the Southern Wolds with relatively few examples to be found in the Vale of Pickering itself. These regions appear to have very distinct decorative traditions given that out of thirteen identified types of decorated pottery forms only two have been found on sites in both regions. Pre-Roman pottery imports into the north-east

Figs. 12 and 13. Examples of Black Burnished Ware (BB1).551

Prior to the Roman invasion of the north there are only two sites in the region of study with large amounts of imported pottery. These are Stanwick in the Tees Valley and North Ferriby on the north bank of the Humber.558 The pottery assemblages from the two sites are very different in character and do not indicate any sort of link between the two. North Ferriby has a large collection of Gallo-Belgic wares and Butt beakers but the assemblage includes relatively little early South Gaulish Samian ware, the type found extensively at Stanwick.559 North Ferriby is only just across the river from the major Roman site of

                                                            

553 Hawthorne has discussed patterns of pottery usage in terms of differences in eating habits as opposed to changing economic traditions. This is based on the fact that ceramic wares were fairly cheap and economic conditions should not have controlled access to a particularly great extent. Instead Hawthorne argues that few ceramic wares, especially when these are large, suggest communal eating habits, whereas many vessels, especially smaller ones, indicate an individual eating. Hawthorne, J. ‘Pottery and Paradigms in the Early Western Empire’ in TRAC 97. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 1998. p.166. 554 Evans, J. (1995b) p.52 555 Wrathmell, S. Dalton Parlours: Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa. Yorkshire Archaeology 3. Yorkshire Archaeology Service, York. 1990 556 Evans, J. (1995b) p.52 557 For further details see Appendix C 558 Evans, J. (1995b) p.53. North Ferriby is outside of the study area for this work but is briefly discussed here in relation to the pottery assemblages at Stanwick 559 Evans, J. (1995b) p.54

Fig. 14. Samian Ware from the Stanwick oppidum552

                                                            

550 After Tyers, P. A. Potsherd: Atlas of Roman Pottery. 2007 [online] http://www.potsherd.uklinux.net [Accessed April 2007] 551 After Tyers, P. A. Potsherd: Atlas of Roman Pottery. 2007 [online] http://www.potsherd.uklinux.net [Accessed April 2007] 552 Examples of decorated Samian Ware from Stanwick after Wheeler, M. (1954) p.32 fairly cheap and economic conditions should not have controlled access to a particularly great extent. Instead Hawthorne argues that few ceramic wares, especially when these are large, suggest communal eating habits, whereas many vessels, especially smaller ones, indicate an individual eating. Hawthorne, J. ‘Pottery and Paradigms in the Early Western Empire’ in TRAC 97. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 1998. p.166.

57

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE By contrast with North Ferriby, the material from Stanwick shows a very strong Roman connection; and the nature of the assemblage, with a wide functional range of high-status material, might suggest a diplomatic gift rather than the type of assemblage that would result from normal trading contacts. 570 This suggestion is endorsed by Willis, 571 who states that the high point of the imported pottery of Stanwick appears to post-date AD 43 and that little or no material was received prior to this date. 572 This tends to confirm the suggestion that the assemblage was diplomatic in nature: the peak of imported pottery dates to the period when, following the conquest of the south, Rome was looking to northern Britain in an attempt to assess which leaders might be pro-Roman and which would put up resistance to the forthcoming invasion of the north.

Dragonby but the two sites have surprisingly little in common beyond their Gallo-Belgic assemblages.560 North Ferriby has generally been termed a ‘port of trade’561 but this may be in doubt since, beyond its clear contact with modern-day Lincolnshire from where its Gallo-Belgic assemblage is most likely to have come, there is little other evidence for its trading influence.562 Goods certainly arrived in North Ferriby via international trade networks, but there is a distinct lack of evidence for sites in northern England receiving goods from North Ferriby itself. The presence of Gallo-Belgic wares marks North Ferriby out from assemblages at other settlement sites in east Yorkshire. This indicates that whilst North Ferriby was clearly receiving goods it was not partaking in a wider trade and distribution network within east Yorkshire let alone beyond. Evans suggests that the goods arriving at North Ferriby very much indicate civil ‘Belgic’ contact with south east England rather than more formally ‘Roman’ ones. This is in marked contrast with the material from Stanwick.563

Willis states that, ‘samian pottery was, indeed, often distributed or treated in ways which were distinct, indicating that it was regarded differently from other pottery, and more “valued”.573 However he also stresses that this situation is likely to have changed over time and that depending on ‘cultural circumstances’ samian need not always have been regarded as a desirable commodity and therefore, ‘it may equally be imagined that samian, and the Roman world which it represented, was not invariably evaluated positively by communities with indigenous roots’.574 Thus the absence of samian from many sites in northern England need not necessarily represent lack of access and may be linked to preference or lack of desire for such wares. If the imported pottery at Stanwick was indeed a diplomatic gift as suggested by Evans and Haselgrove,575 a question arises regarding the degree to which the site was really adopting more Roman ideas.

The pottery assemblage from the Tofts at Stanwick is of a very different character from that of North Ferriby and quite unique in the north-east.564 Willis suggests that the material is most unlikely to have reached Stanwick from North Ferriby, since the two assemblages are so different.565 The material is dominated by the high incidence of South Gaulish Samian ware present in an unusually large range of forms including some types not found frequently even in areas where South Gaulish Samian is more usual. There are several examples of very rare types including Hermet 15 which mark the Stanwick assemblage out as exceptional.566 There is also a very high proportion of decorated material at 45%, far higher than is usual even for large sites (eg. fig. 14).567 Admittedly, the Roman element of the pottery makes up only 2%, by weight, of the whole assemblage: it is, therefore, necessary to realise that although the Samian ware from Stanwick is important it is does not make up very much of the total assemblage, the majority of which consists of other coarsewares.568 Other imported wares such as Butt beakers (fig. 9), Gallo-Belgic wares and a Hofheim flagon are also present but it is the Samian collection at Stanwick that marks it out from the rest.569

A town which deliberately imports Roman goods was clearly becoming romanised: North Ferriby can be considered an instance of this. At Stanwick, on the other hand, the fact that most of the pottery is fine ware rather than coarse ware suggests that it was not intended to be used but to represent, by virtue of the rarity of such ceramics in the late pre-Roman Iron Age, the particular status of the site and the significance of its connections with the Roman Empire.576 Moreover, the small quantity of Roman wares in comparison with other ceramics on the site tends to suggest that Stanwick was ‘romanised’ only to a comparatively slight extent: rather, it was still an Iron Age site with an Iron Age culture, and was in

                                                             560

May, J. Dragonby. Oxbow, Oxford. 1996. For information on GalloBelgic assemblages see Evans, J. (1995b) p.54 561 Evans, J. (1995b) p.54 562 For discussion of North Ferriby, also known as Redcliffe, see Willis, S. (1996) p.193, the fullest publication is in : Crowther, C. and Didsbury, P. ‘Redcliffe and the Humber’ in Price, J. and Wilson, P. R. (eds.) Roman Yorkshire. BAR 193, Oxford. 1988. pp.3-20 563 Evans, J. (1995b) p.54 564 The major excavations of the 1980’s at Stanwick by Haselgrove et al. have not been fully published and have been discussed in Chapter 1. The most complete publications yet available are: Haselgrove, C. C. (1990 a, b and c) 565 Willis, S. ‘The Romanization of pottery assemblages in the east and North-east of England’, Britannia 27. 1996. p.194 566 Evans, J. (1995b) p.55; Willis, S. (1996) p.202 567 Willis, S. (1996) p.193 568 Willis, S. (1996) p.193 569 Evans, J. (1995b) p.55

                                                             570

Evans, J. (1995b) p.55 Willis, S. (1996) p.202 Willis, S. (1996) p.217 573 Willis, S. ‘Samian Pottery in Britain: exploring its Distribution and Archaeological Potential’ in Archaeological Journal 155, London, 1998a. p.86 574 Willis, S. (1998a) p.86 575 Evans, J. (1995b) p.54-55, Haselgrove, C. et al. (1984) p.21 576 Willis notes that in four groups taken from the settlement site at Stanwick fine ware was more common than coarse ware. Since coarse ware was intended for use and fine ware was largely for display it would suggest that the assemblage at Stanwick was designed to impress those to whom it was given rather than for normal use. Willis, S. (1996) p.202 571 572

58

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS receipt of Roman goods not through trade but via political channels. 577

list, including Sedgefield (although this does appear to be a second century and later site) and Street House Loftus, but the data from these sites has not yet been fully published.585

The late Iron Age and early Roman site at Melsonby one mile south east of Stanwick has extensive evidence of occupation concurrent with Stanwick. It also has a large assemblage of South Gaulish Samian ware and Willis suggests that Stanwick may have been a multi-focus site with Melsonby forming one of these foci with another one centred perhaps 650 metres from the most high status part of the Tofts within the Stanwick defences.578 ‘It may be inferred from this evidence that the Stanwick complex, in common with other nucleated centres of the late preRoman Iron Age in western Europe, was poly-focal, comprising a series of occupation ‘zones’ or ‘compounds’.579 From this perspective the Tofts appears as one of a number of foci within, and evidently outside, the earthworks. Albeit perhaps pre-eminent among these’.580 A mile represents some distance and therefore it is fair to suggest that Melsonby could have been an individual settlement with close links to the central oppidum site, as will be suggested for Thorpe Thewles below. However, poly-focal sites appear to have been relatively common in Late Iron Age Britain and therefore Willis’ argument stands as a likely explanation of the relationship between Melsonby and Stanwick.581

Post-conquest: the Roman assemblages in the north-east

impact

on

pottery

The first and second centuries in north Britain show both change and continuity in terms of the pottery assemblages. As discussed above assemblages from rural sites are used because such sites are likely to have had an entirely (or almost entirely) indigenous population: the assemblages are accordingly more indicative of the impact of the occupation on the native people of the north-east. The sites within the region of study with large enough assemblages to be of use are Levisham Moor, Holme House Piercebridge and Catcote. Again County Durham appears to have been almost entirely aceramic: the most northerly assemblages are found on the upper and lower stretches of the Tees at Piercebridge and Catcote.586 If a connection can be made between the sites at Stanwick and Thorpe Thewles, both of which have preconquest assemblages containing imported Samian ware, then it is of note that both of these sites went out of use early in the post-conquest period and do not have assemblages from the latter first and second centuries. There is also little take up of ceramics in west Yorkshire with many sites remaining virtually aceramic from the Iron Age until the third and fourth centuries.587

Although this explanation appears plausible, a mile is a considerable distance for a settlement to be separated from its related foci and therefore it also seems reasonable to suggest that Melsonby could have been an individual settlement albeit almost certainly one with close connections to Stanwick. A similar relation will be suggested below for Thorpe Thewles – but given its greater distance from Stanwick this is likely to have been less close than that of Melsonby.

In general the whole of the north-east continued to use Iron Age styles and fabrics.588 Willis comments that, ‘assemblages in the region did not change significantly immediately following AD 43. Indeed there is continuity with the pre-Claudian pattern such that it can be fairly stated that amongst these groups the conquest is ceramically invisible’.589 This tendency to use Iron Age styles can be seen in the assemblages from Catcote in the second century whilst at Levisham Moor ‘native’ wares continued to be the main ceramic wares of choice well into the second century.590 Indeed, ‘it would seem that pre-existing arrangements were not smashed by the military advent of Rome and that there was no sudden flood of importation.’591

The few other sites known in the study area with any preconquest imports are Thorpe Thewles, Catcote and Scotch Corner.582 Thorpe Thewles has a little preconquest South Gaulish Samian ware as well as a Butt beaker and a number of wheel-made greyware vessels, some of which some could be early.583 Catcote has less clearly pre-conquest material with the most likely being a piece of terra nigra and no Samian ware whilst the Scotch Corner assemblage includes just three fragments of Samian.584 New sites are emerging which may add to this

                                                            

                                                            

Willis, S. (1996) p.202 578 See Haselgrove, C. C. et al. (1990a and b), Fitts, R. L. Haselgrove, C.C. et al. ‘Melsonby revisited: survey and excavation 1992-5 at the site of the discovery of the ‘Stanwick’, North Yorkshire, hoard of 1843’, Durham Archaeological Journal 14-15. 1999. pp.1-20 579 Willis, S. (1996) p.202 580 Willis, S. (1996) p.202 581 Other examples of polyfocal sites from southern Britain are Camulodunum (Colchester) and Verulamium (St Albans): Mattingly, D. (2006) p.59, 76; Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.47-9 582 For details of sites see Appendix A and C (on CD) 583 Evans, J. (1995b) p.56 584 There is one further currently known assemblage of pre-conquest imported pottery from northern England which comes from Rudston, outside of the study area. This assemblage includes a Butt beaker, a terra rubra girth beaker, and fragments of two white ware flagons but again no Samian ware. Evans, J. (1995b) p.56

Sedgefield is discussed above. Street House is not fully published. See Appendix A for references. Evans, J. (unpublished) 587 Evans, J. (unpublished) 588 This pattern has also been noted in the Yorkshire Wolds indicating a general lack of change in across England north of the Humber as a whole. Rigby notes that it was the scale of production which changed but not the styles. Rigby, Val. ‘Pots in Pits: The British Museum Yorkshire Settlements Project 1988-92’ in East Riding Archaeologist 11. East Riding Archaeological Society, Hull. 2004. p.44 589 Willis, S. (1996) p.193 590 Although out of this study area Willis notes that the patterns seen at Catcote and Levisham Moor can also be identified in assemblages from Beadlam Villa, Rudston Villa, Garton Slack, Wetwang Slack, Langton fortlet and Hawling Road in north Humberside. For references see Appendix A. 591 Willis, S. (1996) p.193

577

585

586

59

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE west of England, covering the modern counties of Cumbria, Lancashire and Cheshire, seems to have remained aceramic throughout the Iron Age and a good part of the Roman occupation.597 The Mersey appears to form a divide between the unusually low levels of ceramic usage and more ‘normal’ assemblages mixed in with aceramic sites in Merseyside and the Wirral. It is only in the third and fourth centuries that ceramics seem to have been adopted to any extent in the north-west, but even then they did not form an integral part of native material culture, falling out of use as soon as pottery supply ceased at the end of the Roman period. In looking for evidence of romanisation Evans has noted that any such study is ‘largely a study of negative evidence’.598

Iron Age traditions also continued in the North Yorkshire Moors. Here locally made ceramics continued to be used until the late Roman period when Crambeck wares (figs. 10 and 11) finally entered the area. The North Yorks Moors are thought to have been a highly conservative area with a population that preferred to have as little to do with the Roman presence as possible: Wilson considers that development of the area and its population was restricted by the geography of the area and its relatively poor economy, which was due to topographic and climatological conditions on the moors.592 The people and their economy appear to have been resistant to change and any late Iron Age contact with the outside world was broken at the start of the Roman period when the population ‘retreated into fragmented and largely self sufficient units constrained by the topography’.593 The reestablishment of some interaction with surrounding communities did occur, but not until the fourth century as indicated by the presence of Crambeck ware. However as Wilson highlights, the use of a very common pottery form does not indicate any degree of romanisation: ‘What cannot be assumed is that the possession of romanised ceramics can be equated with a romanised cultural outlook, particularly as in the 4th century the products of the Crambeck industry appear to have been all-pervasive, reaching almost every site in eastern Yorkshire’.594 Furthermore ‘Given the ubiquity of Crambeck ware, the presence of romanised ceramics, although demonstrating contact with the romanised economy, need not indicate any substantial change in other cultural norms’.595 Iron Age and Roman ceramic usage in the north-west

One reason for the lack of ceramic evidence in the northwest is likely to be the strong bias of archaeological investigations towards the forts and military establishments of the area. Little work has even been done in vici let alone on native settlements although more sites are currently being identified with a view to excavation in the near future. There are very few sites in the north-west with any sort of pottery assemblage although ongoing excavation at Glencoyne Park may add more information in the near future.599 Despite their scarcity the presence of ceramics at these sites and their absence from others is worthy of discussion and may give some indication of the cultural perspective of the indigenous population during the late Iron Age and postconquest periods. This evidence can give a useful comparison with that found in areas to the east of the Pennines.

Iron Age

Cumbria

In line with sites on the Pennines and in County Durham but in complete contrast to the Tees Valley and east Yorkshire there is as yet no evidence for an Iron Age ceramic tradition in the north-west England north of the Mersey.596 If the indigenous populations on both sides of the Pennines were in any way linked in the Iron Age then evidence for this is certainly not to be found in the pottery assemblages from each area. Given the complete absence of pottery evidence from the Iron Age a discussion of ceramics in the north-west can only begin with the start of the Roman period.

Although finds are rare, ceramics are present on some rural sites in the Roman period. In Cumbria few assemblages from Roman-period native sites consist of more than a few sherds, of which some is locally produced rather than commercial material.600 This native material is closer in appearance to the Iron Age tradition than to anything Roman and thus suggests that even though the indigenous population may have begun to produce pottery in the Roman period they did not take on Roman styles. Instead they adopted the Iron Age forms used on the east of the Pennines in previous centuries.601 The largest north-western assemblage, where nearly all of the 280 sherds recovered were from imported vessels, comes from a site on the Stainmore Pass but due to its proximity to the main Roman route over the Pennines and

Roman Although for most, if not all of the period of study, some areas of the north-east remained virtually aceramic there is nevertheless a strong pottery tradition in the Tees Valley and east Yorkshire. The same cannot be said of north-west England. Despite access to pottery supplies and, almost certainly, the economic means to possess such a relatively cheap material, virtually the entire north-

                                                             597

Evans, J. (unpublished) Evans, J. (unpublished) 599 Excavations at Glencoyne Park have been published only in preliminary form with little detail on finds: Loaney, H. and Hoean, A. (2003) pp.51-65. Loaney, H. and Hoean, A. ‘Bronze and Iron Age connections: memory and persistence in Matterdale, Cumbria’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (3rd series) 4. 2004. pp.39-55. 600 Evans, J. (unpublished) 601 Evans, J. This small harvest: pottery from ‘Highland zone’ sites in north Wales and the North-West. 2001 (unpublished) 598

                                                             592

Wilson, P. (1995) p.74 Wilson, P. (1995) p.74 594 Wilson, P. (1995) p.74 595 Wilson, P. (1995) p.74 596 Evans, J. (unpublished) 593

60

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS the availability of passing trade this site cannot be taken as typical.602

assemblage and date to the later first century indicating their arrival on this native site at the same time as the first Roman invasions of the area.609 Although Fairy Knowe has the greatest range of forms, indicating its primacy, it is not the only site in southern Scotland to have Samian and other imported ceramics at this time.610 Willis has shown that the forms found at Fairy Knowe and these other sites are those which are known to have been available at Roman military sites in the region and this clearly demonstrates contact,611 whether through trade or diplomacy, between native and military sites in the earliest period of the Roman conquest of the north. ‘Roman material culture was clearly not abhorrent’ and the population ‘may even have embraced it’.612 Such a marked contrast with sites in north-western England supports the idea that imported ceramics were available to the native populations within the region of study but that in north-west England, and perhaps also across much of the study area, the Tees Valley being a notable exception, the native population at least had no interest in obtaining them and may even have chosen to avoid them.

Otherwise the next largest assemblage is from Penrith Farm with 156 sherds after which sherd counts drop rapidly with 65 from Silloth and Milking Gap, 28 from Ewanrigg, 18 from Fingland, 5 from Dobcross Hall, a few from Waitby, Oughterby and Grey Hill and just one from Bousted Hill.603 This is all the pottery so far recovered from rural sites in Cumbria by Evans and illustrates the scarcity of ceramic evidence even from the Roman period. Although the pottery assemblage from Cumbria and indeed from the entire north-west is very small there is nevertheless a mixed selection of forms and types but the majority are locally produced and reveal little evidence of a desire for imported wares. At Milking Gap greywares appear to have been commonest and this is also the case at Penrith Farm. Greywares are likely to have been relatively locally made and only one sherd of South Gaulish Samian Ware (form Dr 37) from Penrith reveals the presence of any imported, romanised pottery whilst at Waitby and Ewanrigg there is some Black Burnished Ware (BB1 figs.12 and 13)604 and also Huntcliffe ware from east Yorkshire.605 The latter was brought over the Pennines but since it was basically a mass produced Iron Age form it cannot be said to reveal much evidence for romanisation.606 Other sites produced more locally-made wares, particularly greywares, with Samian present in very small amounts only at Fingland and some possible BB1 from Eller Beck.607 Evans notes that given the prevalence of BB1 at forts and vici it is of interest in that it does not appear to reach most rural sites. The only exception to this is the site at Stainmore which has already been marked out as somewhat anomalous for its position close to a main military route way.608 The lack of imported pottery on sites in the north-west could indicate difficulty of access to these goods. However, given the certainty of their availability at numerous military sites in the region, it seems more likely to represent at least a lack of interest if not perhaps an avoidance of Roman ceramic styles. This attitude towards available imported pottery contrasts strongly with evidence from Fairy Knowe in Southern Scotland where Samian and amphora sherds dominate the Roman

From the available ceramic evidence, Evans has suggested that there is little sign any of the pottery on these Cumbrian sites was present until at least the second century, whilst a number of sites have only third and fourth century assemblages.613 He also notes that this pattern, with a notable increase in pottery usage in the third and fourth centuries, is similar to that seen in west Yorkshire.614 Comparison of the assemblages from Cumbrian sites is difficult owing to the low quantities of data available but some statistical analysis has been carried out by Evans, the results of which mark the Cumbrian assemblages out from those aceramic or virtually aceramic sites on the east of the Pennines with which they might otherwise be considered comparable.615 The tendency for rural Romano-British sites in the northeast to have comparatively high numbers of jars, often over 50% of the pottery assemblage, and lower amounts of dishes and bowls has been discussed above. They usually also have occasional mortaria. This tendency to prefer jars is a rather archaic practice and is also seen on sites in the north-west (41% of vessel functions in the North West assemblages excluding that at Stainmore where the Samian collection is missing), the only exception being Penrith Farm which appears to follow a more Romanised pottery tradition.616 However the striking difference comes when comparing numbers of mortaria on Cumbrian sites with those in both the north-

                                                            

602 Evans, J. (2001). There is no further information available on this site. 603 Evans, J. (unpublished) for references see Appendix A. 604 Black Burnished Wares are coarse textured hand-formed sandy wares with burnished surfaces, typically everted-rim jars with burnished lattice decoration, flat-rimmed bowls and plain dishes. A large range of forms were produced in the Pool Habour region and were distributed throughout Britain from the mid-2nd to 4th centuries AD. Forms include copies of Gallo-Belgic plates and bowls, cups, folded beakers, flagons and jugs, paterae/ candlesticks and ceramic table legs. But the main types produced and exported across the rest of Britain were jars, bowls and dishes. The transportation of BB1 into northern England appears to have been connected to military expansion although this is not to say that the spread of BB1 was directly connected to military transport networks. For further information see www.potsherd.uklinux.net/atlas/Ware/BB1 605 Evans, J. (2001) 606 Evans, J. (2001) 607 Evans, J. (2001) 608 Evans, J. (2001)

                                                            

609 31 sherds Samian – representing at least 19 vessels of 5 or more forms both plain and decorated; 125 sherds Amphora. Main, L. ‘Excavations of a timber round-house and broch at the Fairy Knowe, Buchlyvie, Stirlingshire.1975-8’. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 128. 1998. p.321 610 Main, L. (1998) p.329 611 Willis, S. ‘The Iron Age and Roman Pottery’ and ‘Objects of Fired Clay’ in Main, L. (1998b) pp.321-31 and 332-5 612 Main, L. (1998) p.330 613 Evans, J. (2001) 614 Evans, J. (unpublished) 615 Evans, J. (2001) 616 Evans, J. (2001)

61

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE east and the south of the country. 617 Mortaria levels on Cumbrian sites are unusually high with typically at least four on each site and making up 27% of the ceramic vessel functions on sites in the North West (excluding Stainmore),618 which presumably means that they were not used in any romanised way, where only one or perhaps two would be necessary. Evans concludes that, ‘these are clearly no index of romanisation and offer a complete contrast with the south-east where…..mortaria are slow to penetrate onto rural sites.’619 Rush has carried out studies of mortaria use in the south-east and notes that although here too ‘it should not be assumed that mortaria were necessarily used in the same way in Roman Britain as they were in continental Europe’,620 they often do not appear on native rural sites until the third century or later and sometimes not at all. Given that mortaria are slow to appear in the more romanised south-east it is notable that they are rather more common in the north-east but most striking are the large numbers in use relatively early on in the conservative north-west.621 These ‘contrast strongly with rural sites in east Yorkshire or west Yorkshire, the levels of mortaria on the Cumbrian sites being greatly in excess of anything found on urban or military sites’.622 The reason for the large numbers of mortaria on sites in the north-west remains something of a mystery, but Evans sensibly points out that ‘mortaria must have served a function which was little to do with Roman cuisine’ and that ‘Reece’s possibly ironic suggestion of yoghurt fermentation bowls certainly deserves some consideration.’623 Whatever their use, the numbers of mortaria on sites in north-western England, particularly when combined with the general lack of much if any other ceramic evidence, highlights the distinct difference between this region and any other in northern England.

pottery assemblages have very low sherd counts with three from Moss Brow Farm, Timperley Old Hall and one from Werneth Low.626 Thus those sites with any pottery in Lancashire and Cheshire reveal even smaller amounts than sites in Cumbria suggesting that the native population had a different approach to ceramic use. Such a small number of ceramics could indicate an even lesser interest in ceramic use than that seen in Cumbria and perhaps a firmer resistance to change but Matthews has suggested a different explanation for the nature of these assemblages. It is clear from the lack of pottery on most sites that much of the rural population in Lancashire and Cheshire did not take part in conspicuous consumption but the small amount of mass-produced romanised material that has been found reveals that people did have access to the markets where such goods could be obtained if desired. Given the extreme lack of ceramic finds from the Lancashire and Cheshire regions the presence of any romanising material culture at all should be seen as anomalous. Mass produced romanised goods made up a tiny proportion of the material culture available to these sites so the fact that some chose to possess such items, even in very small quantities is worthy of note.627 Matthews has also cited evidence for these items being retained even after they had ceased to be of use. The goods in question are not finewares but utilitarian vessels. A number of these appear to have been repaired using rivets which would not have allowed them to continue to be used for the purposes for which they were made and shows that their purpose on native sites is very unlikely to have been linked to their original function. Instead Matthews suggests that these romanised ceramic vessels, despite their utilitarian nature, may have been used for the purposes of display; presumably in interactions with peers.628 That romanised material may have been used for display purposes in Lancashire and Cheshire and, from the way in which it was kept and mended long after damage had rendered it unusable, was presumably highly prized, marks the area out from Cumbria.629 Here there were slightly larger assemblages, particularly in the later period, and there is more evidence of the presence of a few imported wares, but there is no indication that vessels were curated and used for display purposes.

Lancashire and Cheshire Lancashire and Cheshire, although also virtually aceramic during the Roman period, have pottery assemblages which indicate their population may have reacted in a slightly different way to the Roman presence. Matthews suggests that, whilst the traditional assumption is that this part of the north-west was a poor, undeveloped and thinly populated landscape, this was not the case: ‘recent palaeo-environmental work has shown that the army passed through an open landscape with areas of light woodland and arable fields. Arable fields presuppose farmers; farmers presuppose farms’.624 There are very few known rural sites from this area and the only known sites are undatable cropmarks which have provided no ceramic evidence.625 Those sites which do have any

From the paucity and minimal size of assemblages it appears that the desire to own and display romanised vessels was very far from common in Lancashire and Cheshire but nonetheless it may hint at a different cultural

                                                            

                                                            

626

Evans, J. (2001) and for references see Appendix C. Matthews, K. J. (1997) p.129 628 Matthews, K. J. (1997) p.130 629 A parallel for this practice has been seen at Fairy Knowe in lowland Scotland where Willis has noted that several items of Samian from the site have been re-used. Vessels have been deliberately trimmed down and a number of sherds have worn edges suggesting their use as polishers in the production of metalwork. In these cases the original purpose had changed, just as the items from Lancashire became unusable, but the desire to retain the original object in some form is an interesting parallel strengthening the suggestion that Roman pottery could be considered valuable to some members of the native population Main, L. (1998) p.327

617

627

Mortaria were probably used to crush small quantities of food such as herbs. 618 Evans, J. (2001) 619 Evans, J. (unpublished) 620 Rush, P. (1997) p.59 621 For further information see ceramics table in Appendix C. 622 Evans, J. (unpublished) 623 Evans, J. (unpublished) 624 Matthews, K. J. ‘Immaterial culture: invisible peasants and consumer subcultures in north-west Britannia’ in TRAC 96, Oxbow Books, Oxbow. 1997. p.120 625 Evans, J. (2001)

62

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS approach to romanised material; perhaps a more hierarchical society where there was some value to be gained from display. To suggest that the indigenous populations of Lancashire and Cheshire were of a different regional identity to those of Cumbria would be to base too much on too little evidence but there is perhaps no harm in pointing out the possibility.

seen at least to some extent in Northumbria.632 That County Durham remained aceramic must indicate the continuance of an aceramic tradition and a lack of interest in change which marks this population out from its neighbours.

Discussion

The presence of pre-conquest imported material is an indicator of high status. All the sites in Northern England with pre-conquest pottery except for Rudston which is outside of the study area, are within relatively easy transportation reach of the coast or navigable waterways, which would allow them access to international trade and thus to imported wares.633 It is important to note that with the exception of Rudston, which is in the southern part of east Yorkshire and relatively close to areas with considerable pre-conquest continental trade, all the other sites with pre-conquest pottery, including Stanwick, are in the Tees Valley. Catcote is on the coast, Thorpe Thewles is roughly half way between Catcote and Stanwick, and Melsonby, if a settlement in its own right, is a mile south-east of the Stanwick fortifications. The Tees Valley has already been noted for its regional native ceramic tradition. It now appears that this region also had continental contacts: three of the only five sites in the north-east which have so far revealed evidence for the presence of pre-conquest imported pottery are sited in the Tees Valley; the other two being outside of the study area at North Ferriby and Rudston in east Yorkshire.634 The particular ceramic tradition of the Tees Valley marks the area out from the rest of the north-east as an area of significant social, political and economic importance.

Pre-conquest imports

North-east England Iron Age pottery forms Overall there seems to be a common tradition in the forms of ceramics found in the area from the Humber to the Tees Valley. The differences come in the form of slight variations in form and decoration such as finger tipping and the use of beaded rims rather than the use of entirely different vessels. Evans comments that ‘within this region there are hints in the distributions of various types of a possible division into two or three sub-areas, centred on the Wolds and the Hull Valley, the Vale of Pickering and the North Yorkshire Moors and the Tees Valley….and this is in contrast to the break to the north and west with aceramic sites in County Durham, the Pennines and Cumbria, and to the south of the Humber……The general lack of Lincolnshire stamped and rouletted material in southern east Yorkshire is remarkable, and testifies to a very ‘hard’ boundary in material culture along the Humber’.630 The distinctive tradition of pottery decoration found in the Tees Valley was clearly influenced by pottery styles from further south, particularly that of east Yorkshire, but developed in a way which would suggest a population with a preference for different stylistic traditions to those of the people of the Moors and east Yorkshire.631 The Tees Valley contains a number of the richest Iron Age sites in the north-east, including Stanwick, Thorpe Thewles and Catcote. A pottery tradition centred in the Tees Valley but not found outside it would suggest that the influence of this tradition was limited to the Tees Valley. This in turn indicates that the people living in this area, although keen to mark themselves out as a cultural unit, may not have held sway outside the Tees Valley, at least not in terms of the extent of their pottery production.

The exceptional site of Stanwick is now accepted by some as the stronghold of the pro-Roman Iron Age queen Cartimandua, ruler of the Brigantes.635 Evans tends to agree with Higham636 that the core of Brigantian territory may have run along the west of the Vale of York but suggests that on pottery evidence, ‘it would seem that, whatever their political relationships, the ‘core’ area of the Brigantes (to which, perhaps, ought to be added the lower Tees Valley) has a ceramic tradition very close to and probably derived from that of the Parisi, but with some subtle differences’. 637 He also points out that during the Iron Age pottery use in west Yorkshire was very slight which would not fit particularly well with the strong tradition already identified in the Tees Valley and the northern part of the Vale.638

Although Iron Age pottery studies alone do not give sufficient evidence for the presence of boundaries between differing traditions, there are some patterns of use that are worthy of note here. Firstly, notable for its absence rather than its presence, the lack of a ceramic tradition at all in County Durham, the Pennines and Cumbria, is of interest. Perhaps most interesting of all is the aceramic nature of County Durham in the Iron Age given that there were strong pottery producing industries to the south, in the Tees Valley, and that ceramics were

The terms ‘Brigantes’ and ‘territory’ are used here with caution given the number of identities any inhabitant of the Tees Valley could have held. The individuals may

                                                             632

Main, L. (1998) p.328 Stead, I. M. Rudston Roman Villa. Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Hull. 1980 634 Evans, J. (1995b) pp.53-6 635 Haselgrove. C. C. (1990c) 636 Evans, J. (1995a) p.59, Higham, N. ‘Brigantia revisited’ in Northern History 23, 1987. pp.1-19 637 Evans, J. (1995a) p.59 638 Evans, J. (unpublished) 633

                                                             630 631

Evans, J. (1995a) p.53 Evans, J. (1995a) p.59

63

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE nature of relations with Rome and in particular the potential for profit for British rulers but the ultimate power of Rome. ‘Kings could be “given” to peoples, taken away from them, replaced, or kept on ice. Individuals could be raised to prominence, or simply removed from political life’.641 Braund also stresses the possibility for both upward and downward movement of a ruler stating that, ‘kings’ relations with Roman emperors could and did fluctuate through their reigns’.642 A friendly relationship would have involved active political contact with Rome and Creighton argues that, ‘Britain, through the institution of friendly kings, became an intrinsic part of the Roman world’.643 The character of a friendly kingdom appears to have involved a high degree of interaction between kingdoms and Rome and the active creation of ‘Romanised’ Iron Age kingdoms tied to the heart of the Roman state and actively involved in developing their own kingdoms within the wider Roman world.644 It seems unlikely that the Tees Valley area was so closely connected to Rome and the Empire in the late pre-conquest period. Braund states that Cartimandua may have inherited her power and Roman citizenship, which would indicate an established relationship with Rome, or that she may have received it during her reign indicating developing relations during her reign.645 The diplomatic gift, if that is indeed what it was, and the general lack of very much evidence for strong ties to Rome at Stanwick and in the Tees Valley area may indicate that the ruler of the Brigantes, presumably Cartimandua at this time, was in the process of building a friendship with Rome in the late preconquest period which was curtailed by the actions of Venutius and finally the invasion of the area in the 70’s AD. This is speculative and it is possible that the area was more closely tied to Rome but appears a plausible explanation for the apparently developing, rather than fully developed, relationship between the friendly kingdom of the Tees Valley area and Rome in the period preceding the invasion of northern England.

have held a geographic identity however this may not have been directly bound up with a specific name. On the basis of the pottery evidence, it may be plausible to add the western side of the Vale of York to the territory attributed to the Brigantes. However from the preconquest pottery evidence it seems far more reasonable to place at least the heartland, if not the whole territory of the Brigantes, if the term can be applied, in the Tees Valley. This is because, on current archaeological evidence, both imported wares and the local ceramic traditions noted above are restricted almost entirely to the large, impressive and exceptional sites in this area. A heartland focused on the large river valley of the Tees giving access to the sea (via what is still a heavily used harbour at modern Hartlepool very near Catcote and thence to both local and more wide ranging trade) would certainly be desirable for a community with a strong political and economic basis. Indeed in a hierarchical Iron Age society it would not be unreasonable to see Catcote, Thorpe Thewles and possibly Melsonby as secondary settlements to the main centre at Stanwick. This would also explain the presence of imported materials at these sites when they are not seen on any other site north of the southern Wolds while the Samian at Thorpe Thewles is likely to have been received from Stanwick rather than obtained independently by the settlement itself. Although relatively inexpensive as a gift it seems likely that the Samian ware found at Stanwick reached the site though some form of diplomatic contact, presumably via a Roman official, a theory that carries with it implications for the level of romanisation, or rather lack of it, at the site. Given that there is no Samian ware at any sites north of North Ferriby, and the assemblage at the latter is of an entirely different character to that at Stanwick, there is no reason to assume that the assemblage from Stanwick entered the north via North Ferriby. Indeed it would seem rather easier, assuming the route was known to the Romans, to have carried it by sea up to the mouth of the Tees (at Hartlepool) and then along the navigable stretch of the Tees as far as possible. This would bring the assemblage directly into the Tees Valley without a long journey by road through territory occupied by at least one other native group or groups, by no means all of whom may have been friendly towards Rome.639

Post-conquest pottery It is possible that although localised production continued throughout the region in the early Roman period there was a change in supply mechanisms. At Holme House calcite gritted wares went up to 25% of the assemblage after the conquest where they had been virtually absent before.646 This would indicate the opening up of a new source of tempering material to potters in this area. After the conquest some native pottery industries may no longer have able to access the same sources of material they had been using in the past, or alternatively may have had access to new and more preferable materials, and this in turn had an impact on the type of ceramics

The presence of a possible diplomatic gift at the oppidum site of Stanwick and the literary evidence discussed in chapter 2 suggests that the Tees Valley could have been inhabited by the Brigantes and that these people, or at least their queen, were in a friendly relationship with Rome. Creighton believes that it is highly likely Caesar remained in diplomatic contact with the dynasts of Britain and at some stage after this it seems possible that the king or queen of the Brigantes may have entered into such a relationship.640 He goes on to explain the varied

                                                             641

Creighton, J. (2000) p.58 Braund, D. (1996) p.86 643 Creighton, J. (2000) p.217 644 Creighton, J. (2000) p.217 645 Braund, D. (1996) p.125 646 Evans, J. (1995a) p.61

                                                            

642

639 For a discussion of the means by which kingdoms became connected with Rome and the degree of variation within the term ‘friendly kingdom’ see Braund, D (1996). Creighton, J. (2000) p.58 640 Creighton, J. (2000) p.58

64

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS they were producing although not necessarily on form and decoration.647

unusual urban/rural dichotomy in the functional use of vessels, but to emphasise the gulf between those patterns in parts of the region. The continued use of ‘native’ vessels on rural sites suggest a continuity of the traditional pattern of cultural norms, despite the availability of new, often technically superior, ‘romanised’, or in many ways ‘Belgicised’ ones in urban areas’.653 This is certainly evidence of inertia and a lack of interest in adoption of new pottery, presumably because pottery itself was of no use to these aceramic settlements. The lack of development may also be interpreted as a form of avoidance of new ideas associated with the Roman presence, but it is certainly evidence for cultural inertia and conservatism.

If the Roman presence had some impact on the materials available to native potters, it does not seem to have had an impact on methods of production until the third century with the arrival of Knapton and Hutcliffe wares. It would also appear that where romanised techniques such as the use of the wheel were being used early on, goods produced in this way did not enter the countryside and thus did not reach the majority of the indigenous population.648 An example of this is the comparison of the assemblage from Hawling Road with the small romanised town of Shiptonthorpe only 3km away.649 The sites are outside of this study area but are worthy of mention here as a good example of the disassociation of the native and Roman trading networks. The pottery assemblage from Shiptonthorpe is dominated by wheel thrown greywares, a type associated with Roman settlements. These wares are barely found at Hawling Road in the second century although they seem to have reached it in the third and fourth centuries. This indicates that romanised towns were not well linked into the native trading network, at least in east Yorkshire, and the native population preferred to avoid this new ceramic style. If it was not trading with the local population Shiptonthorpe must have been relying on passing trade from the YorkBrough and Brough-Malton roads which it lies next to.650 There is a lack of evidence to prove whether this double layer economy, with Roman trade being carried out along the roads and native trade remaining in the countryside, was also to be found elsewhere in the north-east but it is likely that this was the case in a good part of the area.

North-west England Lack of pottery has been regarded as evidence of poverty but as has been suggested elsewhere in this discussion pottery was a relatively cheap and readily available material, and it is likely that the native population of sites in the north-west could have obtained it easily enough had they wished to. Although evidence of material wealth is lacking in the north-west there are indications that whilst some arable farming was practiced as evidence by the presence of quern stones, the economy of the area in both the Iron Age and Roman periods may have centred on cattle herding, an industry which would leave scant evidence in the archaeological record. At any rate it is likely that the native population of the north-west would have been quite prosperous enough to invest in ownership of ceramics had this been desirable. Evans agrees that lack of pottery is not necessarily to be taken as evidence of poverty: ‘The lack of ceramics on rural sites north of the Mersey coupled with the lack of coinage, has often been seen as reflecting poverty, and sometimes the exactions of the Roman military. However, the lack of material goods is simply a continuity from the later Iron Age. It is not an artefact of the Roman invasion. What is absent is any cultural change consequent upon the Roman conquest. It was never a requirement of Roman imperialism that subject peoples become ‘Roman’- they might be encouraged to do so, but all the Empire required was an absence of hostile military action and the payment of taxes’.654 Thus the lack of pottery evidence from the north-west does not indicate that the people there were too poor to become romanised had they wanted to, rather that the facility was available and they were able to make use of it if they wished but they did not choose to do so.

The rural pottery assemblages from the post-conquest period in the north-east suggest a strong degree of conservatism with very little change between the late Iron Age and the early second century. Fabrics may have changed but forms and styles did not. Evans comments, ‘in terms of fabric supply the conquest seems to change the sources, but not the tradition’.651 In fact as the general trend indicates a decrease in jars and an increase in bowls and dishes as well as an increased variety of functions the north-east seems, if anything, to have gone the other way with a decrease in bowls and an increase in jars. The clear difference between ceramic preferences on native sites and those on more romanised ones can be seen by comparison to military sites such as Catterick where there is a far more normal trend of a decrease in jars and an increase in bowls.652 Indeed sites with a strong military presence such as York and Carlisle start off life with an even more romanised appearance. Evans comments, ‘the point of this comparison is not merely to show the

Matthews comments that much of the north-west, with the possible exception of a few sites in Lancashire and Cheshire, was probably not interested in the international style of material culture ‘since they were not excluded from the social transactions which would have brought them into contact with these desirable goods but, nevertheless, chose not to acquire them’.655 Evans suggests that it might have been the irritatingly close

                                                             647

Evans, J. (1995a) p.61 Evans, J. (1995a) p.61 649 Millett, M. (ed.) Shiptonthorpe, East Yorkshire; Archaeological Studies of a Romano-British Roadside Settlement. Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Leeds. 2006. 650 Evans, J. (1995a) p.62 651 Evans, J. (1995a) p.62 652 Evans, J. (1995a) p.63 and see pottery reports in chapters 7-10 of Wilson, P.R. (2002) 648

                                                             653

Evans, J. (1995a) p.64 Evans, J. (unpublished) 655 Matthews, K. J. (1997) p.128 654

65

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE describes the vici and towns of the north-west as ‘alien islands planted in the region’.662 McCarthy also argues that there is little evidence for interaction between native settlements and Carlisle, although this may be to do with the far smaller body of evidence available from native sites in comparison with Carlisle.663 Meanwhile Hingley highlights the absence of evidence for any hierarchy in the settlement patterning of the area and of the failure of the area to develop a civil society, noting instead the apparently ‘native landscape’ which reveals no clear evidence for integration into a Romanised system of government and control.664 He further suggests that, ‘the character and extent of the military area was actually itself a consequence of the absence of a pre-Roman elite – the presence of the army may have been required to control the native population’.665

proximity of the Roman army which encouraged the indigenous population of the north-west to maintain as much of their previous identity as possible.656 The same situation could perhaps be postulated for County Durham which also seems to have adhered resolutely to its Iron Age traditions whilst communities in the Tees Valley gave at least the appearance of adopting some more romanised materials. With regard to the north-west at least, Evans comments that ‘it is difficult to see how the region was seriously economically impoverished, especially in the Iron Age. The lack of Roman material culture from most upland sites, must imply a considerable disinterest by the inhabitants of the region in acquiring it’.657 Matthews suggests that this lack of interest may have been caused by a lack of space for the indigenous population to display aspects of their wealth. Thus rather than being prevented from acquiring Roman material they chose not to take part in the culture of display associated with more romanised areas because it was of no use to them. Instead he suggests that they may have concentrated on aspects of display that are more difficult to pick out in the archaeological record such as livestock control, the economic possibilities of which have been mentioned above.658

With such easy access to Roman materials it becomes even clearer that the people of the north-west made a deliberate choice not to take part in a romanised culture.666 The towns and vici of the north-west do not give any indication that the native population was becoming in any way romanised. These sites were planted onto the landscape by the occupying powers and remained as Roman islands in the native landscape: ‘in the area north of the Mersey in the north-west there is precious little evidence of economic interaction in the Romano-British period, local societies apparently continued to function much as they had in the Iron Age’.667

Given the presence of the large military and urban centre at Carlisle it would be natural to expect to find evidence of at least a degree of interaction between this large site and the native population.659 Its survival into the postRoman period at least indicates that Carlisle did not depend entirely on its military background for survival, thus it must have had a relatively large civilian community many of whom would have been of native extraction. In reality there is little evidence of interaction between the military and urban centre of Carlisle and its hinterland. Almost all the ceramics in the pottery assemblages excavated to date were imported into the region or produced on site within the vicus: ‘there is precious little evidence of trade or interaction with local rural sites, just as there is little evidence from the rural sites that they had any serious level of interaction with the vici’.660 This dislocation of Carlisle from the rural economy into which it was placed is paralleled by the lack of evidence for interaction between the small romanised town of Shiptonthorpe and its local area but on a far greater scale.661 The lack of evidence for any interaction between the rural settlements of the northwest and the major centre at Carlisle is further evidence of the way in which the native population continued to live as they always had and avoided all contact with the highly romanised town right in their midst. Evans

One possible sign of interaction between native and Roman sites is the adoption of mortaria on native sites. Several are not locally made, however they unlikely to have been obtained via more ‘romanised’ trading networks.668 Nonetheless the adoption of the vessel, although not its original purpose, must be evidence for some degree of interaction however slight. Thus it appears that where a new vessel was considered useful, albeit for another function, the population were happy to adopt it without taking on any of the ‘romanised’ ideas or purposes that may have come with it. What they do not appear to have done was adopt Roman vessel styles for which they could not see a useful, new purpose. The failure of native settlements to develop into romanised centres in the north-west is paralleled east of the Pennines in west Yorkshire, the Durham plateau and the North Yorkshire Moors, again indicating a deliberate choice to avoid romanisation and retain native traditions.

                                                            

                                                            

662

Evans, J. (unpublished) McCarthy, M. in Wilson, P. (ed.) (2003) p.151 664 Hingley, R. in Todd, M. (ed.) (2004). p.338. The apparently egalitarian nature of society as evidenced by settlement patterning in the north-west is discussed in Chapter 4. 665 Hingley, R. in Todd, M. (2004) p.328 666 There is some debate about the extent to which roman artefacts could really have been absent from north-west England but to date evidence of greater interaction is lacking. For references see Hingley, R. in Todd, M. (2004) p.328 667 Evans, J. (unpublished) 668 For a discussion of the lack of evidence for the involvement of native sites in the monetary economy see Chapter 5 below.

656

663

Evans, J. (unpublished) 657 Evans, J. (unpublished) 658 Matthews, K. J. (1997) p.128 659 Castle Street and Blackfriars street have been excavated and published: McCarthy, M. A Roman, Anglian and Medieval Settlement at Blackfriars Street. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Research Series 4, 1990; Taylor, J. The Roman Pottery from Castle Street, Carlisle: Excavations 1981-2. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Archaeological and Antiquarian Society, 5(iv). 1991 660 Evans, J. (unpublished) 661 Evans, J. (1995a) p.61 and see discussion above p.58

66

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS  Lancashire and Cheshire – limited number of settlements appear to have used a few romanised vessels for display purposes.  Indicates a slightly more hierarchical society to that found in Cumbria.

It is only the Tees Valley and east Yorkshire that reveal evidence for change and some degree of romanisation, thus marking the populations of these latter areas out from the rest as being perhaps more amenable to change or less affected by the presence of their Roman overlords. An explanation for this may be that their societies had been hierarchical prior to the conquest where those of the north-west, the North Yorks Moors and the Durham plateau may have been more egalitarian.

General findings  Different attitudes to ceramic use across the north in the Iron Age and Roman periods ranging from different preferences in form and decoration to total rejection of ceramic tradition.  Varied patterns of ceramic use indicate different groups of people with different attitudes to pottery usage rather than one homogenous unit.  No evidence from ceramics for exchanges of pottery or ideas between smaller regions may indicate independent local identities.  Clear variations in ceramic usage between certain areas could indicate the expression of local identities on a small scale – not intended to be widely visible but within settlements and smaller social units.  Regional variations indicate presence of a number of different cultural groups.  Possible regions identified from attitudes to pottery: East Yorkshire, west Yorkshire (virtually aceramic), Tees Valley (strong pottery tradition), North Yorks Moors (extreme conservatism), County Durham (aceramic), Cumbria (aceramic iron age, lack of romanisation, peculiar level of mortaria usage), Lancashire and Cheshire (may have used some pottery for display uses).  No evidence in pottery assemblages for the presence of one large community incorporating the majority of northern Britain (the Brigantes). Instead ceramics indicate the presence of a number of communities with differing preferences.

Summary Discussion of the pottery groups from north-east and north-west England has indicated a number of regional characteristics in terms of ceramic traditions covering both the Iron Age and Roman periods. On the basis of the northern pottery assemblages a number of different regional traditions can be highlighted. These in turn may indicate the presence of different cultural groups. North-east  Two areas with strong pottery traditions: east Yorkshire and the Tees Valley (N. edge of North Yorks Moors, N. Vale of York.)  Tees Valley material draws on East Yorks tradition but shows some regional variation. Form and decorative style suggest variations formed by cultural choice rather than geographical effects of distance.  Central and southern Durham – aceramic in Iron Age and Roman periods. o It is notable that the aceramic Durham area borders the Tees Valley; highlighting a different cultural tradition.  North Yorks Moors – seem to have upheld largely Iron Age existence using locally produced handmade ceramics without any external influence until as late as the fourth century.  West Yorkshire almost aceramic during Iron Age and Roman periods.  Vale of York – lack of large assemblages indicates difference from east Yorkshire but impossible to determine any cultural affinity with west Yorkshire.

METALWORK FROM NORTHERN ENGLAND Many different types of metalwork have been recovered from sites in northern England. The three categories of metalwork discussed here are general ironwork, decorative metalwork, and finds from hoards. These categories are not mutually exclusive; brooches described as decorative metalwork may have been recovered from hoards, but they provide a sensible way in which to discuss and draw information from the material.

North-west  Aceramic during the Iron Age  Clearly different attitudes to several north-eastern areas. Perhaps more in common with the Durham plateau but the Pennine massif makes strong social, political or economic links unlikely  Mortaria usage during the Roman period suggests adoption of style but not original purpose.  Cumbria appears to have retained Iron Age character and may have deliberately avoided any contact with Romanised ceramic traditions.  Lack of evidence from pottery for interaction between indigenous rural settlements and Roman sites.  Lack of imported ceramics. Pottery adopted only slowly.

Iron was not the only metal to be produced during the Iron Age. Many items were still cast in bronze and precious metals continued to be worked into high status items for use by the elite. 669 The majority of the Iron Age metal artefacts from northern England have been discovered in what have been interpreted as votive contexts, particularly in wet places such as rivers, lochs

                                                             669

For further information on Iron Age metalwork see Cunliffe, B. Iron Age Communities in Britain. Routledge, London. (4th ed.) 2005. pp.493503.

67

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE and marshes.670 However Hingley has suggested that much more of the general ironwork from settlements and elsewhere may have been deliberately deposited for what might loosely be termed ‘ritual’ or ‘religious’ motives and that the number of objects simply lost was quite small.671 Evidence for metalwork from burial contexts is virtually absent; clearly marking the area of study out from the Arras tradition burials of east Yorkshire.672

evidence is notable.678 It is also likely that metal will have been recycled, limiting the number of objects deposited and thus available to the archaeological record.679 Allason-Jones notes that ‘iron tools and implements found in general in native contexts are conspicuous by their absence’.680 Her article is now several years old but the situation has not changed to any great extent.681 With the exception of a few well known published sites such as Milking Gap and Silloth,682 where what little data there is has been provided below there is little new site information. The comments given here are therefore largely a matter of review and discussion of what others have written. References to sites and numbers of finds have been given where available but it is recognised that this section must rely largely on secondary information which weakens the argument. Nonetheless it was considered important to include a discussion of some trends in general ironwork previously noted from northern England.

Although gold, silver and bronze were worked throughout the Iron Age it was the innovative techniques involved in iron production that mark this period out from what had gone before. Precious metalworking is thought to have been a professional occupation due to the skills required and the value of the tools and products involved. Some of the processes involved in iron working are also likely to have been undertaken by professional individuals.673 Small quantities of iron were produced in the north from around 600 BC using iron ore deposits outcropping in County Durham, north-east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire.674 By the late Iron Age small scale smelting industries are likely to have existed in areas where iron ore was relatively easily obtainable. It is also likely that most large communities produced their own ironwork and some bronze.675 Unfortunately it is very difficult to date Iron Age tools as they continued in a largely unaltered form into the Romano-British period. Iron objects can thus give a terminus post quem for archaeological contexts but cannot give a terminus ante quem more accurate than the end of the Roman period.676

Iron was used by both the native and Roman populations; particularly in military contexts. Possible evidence for the isolation of native traditions from Roman techniques is the lack of Roman ironwork on native sites. In northern England, independent Roman and native traditions appear to have existed side by side: Hutcheson has identified certain smithing practices on Roman objects, such as pattern welding, which are not found in native objects.683 It would also appear that the iron obtained by the Roman army was more efficiently smelted than iron used by native smiths, thus indicating that not only was their iron smithed in different ways it was also received from different sources. ‘There are therefore at least two smithing traditions operating in this region during the Roman period, one used by the army and at least one other used by local smiths’.684

GENERAL IRONWORK Very few iron artefacts of any sort have been recovered from northern England.677 The acidic soil conditions in the area are likely to have contributed to the lack of survival of objects, however the extent of the absence of

One particularly common use of iron in the Roman period was for making nails. Nails are an almost ubiquitous find on native Romano-British settlements in southern Britain as well as in more urban or romanised contexts. They are often used as an example of how even native, non-Roman sites, which show few if any other leanings towards the occupying regime, were prepared to adopt new ideas when they were useful to them. Nails have also been found north of the study area with a large number of iron objects, including nails, being discovered at the native site of Fairy Knowe.685 Evans has noted that when

                                                            

670 Manning also discusses the dominance of wet place hoards. Manning, W. ‘Ironwork hoards in Iron Age and Roman Britain’ in Britannia 3, 1972. pp.224-250 671 Hingley, R. ‘The Deposition of Iron Objects in Britain: Contextual Analysis and the Significance of Iron’ in Britannia 2006. p.213 672 The area is outside of the region of study. For further information see: Cunliffe, B. (2005) p.214, Stead; I. M. The Arras Culture. Yorkshire Philosophical Society, York. 1979; Stead, I. M. Iron Age cemeteries in East Yorkshire: excavations at Burton Fleming, Rudston, Garton-on-the Wolds, and Kirkburn. English Heritage, London. 1991 673 Cunliffe, B. (2005) p.493-4 674 Challis and Harding (1975) p.16 For a detailed account of the process of iron smithing and smelting see De Roche, C. D. ‘Studying Iron Age production’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, Oxford. 1997. p.10-13. Dungworth has also investigated Iron Age copper metallurgy noting that the conquest does not appear to have had any impact and that, ‘the end of the Iron Age and the early years of the Roman occupation may have more to unite them as a single period than to separate them by a historical date’ Dungworth, D. ‘The production of copper alloys in Iron Age Britain’ in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 1996. p.410 675 Challis and Harding (1975) p.16 676 Challis and Harding (1975) p.17 677 Allason-Jones, L. Pers. Comm.

                                                             678

Allason-Jones, L. Pers. Comm. Hingley, R. (1997a) p.14 notes the lack of hoards from before the 3rd Century BC and that this need not reflect a lack of access to iron but simply a tradition of re-use rather than hoarding. 680 Allason-Jones, L. ‘Roman and native interaction in Northumberland’ in Maxfield, V. A. and Dobson, M. J. (eds.) Roman Frontier Studies 1989- proceedings of the XVth international conference of Roman frontier studies. University of Exeter Press, Exeter. 1991. p.1 681 Allason-Jones, L. Pers. Comm. 682 See note 633 683 Hutcheson, A. R. J. ‘Native or Roman? Ironwork Hoards in Northern Britain’ in TRAC 96. Oxbow, Oxford. 1997. p.67 684 Hutcheson, A. R. J. (1997) p.70 685 Main, L. (1998) p.365 679

68

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS transfer of technological information.’689 Artefacts themselves were traded but the methods used to produce them were not. A possible reason for the lack of evidence of Roman methods on native sites is that the Roman methods, which were probably cheaper and more efficient, were kept from native peoples for strategic reasons. In addition the native people, who may have seen iron production as something of a magical process, may not have wished to adopt any new ideas. Hutcheson suggests that ‘both sides had reason to resist a greater integration of ideas and a transmission of technological information. The Roman army did not want to strengthen a potential aggressor and the indigenous population did not want their belief system challenged by a more ‘practical and rational’ metaphysical system.’690 Hutcheson’s theory is possible but requires further evidence. Whatever the explanation there is no clear evidence for romanisation of native iron working techniques in northern England. The indigenous population continued to follow traditional practices and avoided any attempt at innovation in the Roman style.

looking at the Iron Age and Roman metalwork from northern England ‘most striking is the absence of ironwork- most lowland basic rural sites would produce large numbers of nails, but they are rare on north-western sites’.686 Nails are usually found in large numbers on almost any Roman site yet in the north-west only 6 were found at Milking Gap, 25 at Penrith, 7 at Silloth and none from any other site (except one at Bewcastle which appears to have produced nails in the late Roman period but was not occupied in the late Iron Age or early Roman periods).687 Although the lack of preservation of iron in northern England may be a result of the acidity of the soil conditions, Allason-Jones has also noted the lack of nails. She believes that despite the poor conditions for preservation nails were not use for construction in the region of study; this is certainly a possible sign of conservatism in construction methods right across the region of study.688 Discussion The lack of even the most basic and utilitarian forms of ironwork serves as a further indication of the unique character of north-west England. Iron was scarce in the north-west and little or no attempt seems to have been made to obtain either ore or finished products from outside the area. Equally there is little evidence for production within the area until the late Roman period. It is possible that the native population deliberately avoided iron but they may also have re-cycled that which they did have and thus the lack of iron cannot be seen as certain evidence that it was not in use. Recycling may explain the apparent lack of basic ironwork from northern England but the apparent absence of nails in construction is of interest.

DECORATIVE METALWORK Iron and the other metals available in the Iron Age were used for decorative metalwork and many of the finest known pre-historic metalwork artefacts are from this period. These include decorative horse harness, brooches, shield bosses and occasionally decorative items of weaponry and armour.691 The artistic skills deployed on these pieces can be particularly helpful in defining different regional tastes and identifying metalworking ‘schools’. Whilst general ironwork seems to have been lacking in the north-west, decorative metalwork most certainly was not. Looking at artefactual evidence from across the north of Britain as a whole, MacGregor comments that during the Bronze and early Iron Age periods there is little evidence for the presence of decorative metalwork and highly decorative pieces are likely to have been brought in but, ‘the sheer quantity of decorative metalwork produced in the North towards the end of this period and, more particularly, in the following one becomes all the more of a startling contrast.’692 Although there is a clear increase in the amount of decorative metalwork produced in the Roman period, it is important to note that it was popular during the late Iron Age and therefore cannot be tied to the Roman presence. MacGregor also argues that whilst native metalwork was certainly influenced by contact with incoming ideas and styles it was not produced ‘on commission’ for the Romans but was created by the native population for the native population. Hunter supports this idea stating that, ‘in this uncertain

The evidence for two independent smithing techniques in northern England indicates that native iron workers, who used a number of highly sophisticated methods of their own, were not influenced by Roman techniques throughout the duration of the military occupation. Hutcheson comments that, ‘at the edge of the Roman empire “romanisation” apparently did not extend to the

                                                             686

Evans, J. E. (unpublished.) Milking Gap: Kilbride-Jones H.E. ‘The Excavation of a native settlement at Milking Gap, Northumberland’ in Archaeologia Aeliana 15, 1938. pp.303-50, Penrith: Higham, N. et al. ‘The Excavation of two Romano-British Farm Sites in North Cumbria’ Britannia 14, 1983. pp.45-72, Silloth: ‘The Excavation of two Romano-British Farm Sites in North Cumbria’ Britannia 14, 1983. pp.45-72. Grey Hill, Bewcastle was a native site near the fort which appears to have been the site of a moderate scale ironworking industry producing nails. It is given a terminus ante quem by a broken Stibbington reeded mortarium dated to the first half of the fourth century. Although the site was in use before this time it is unlikely to predate the late Roman period by very much and there is certainly no evidence for occupation or ironworking in the late Iron Age or early Roman periods. For more information on the site see Wooliscroft, D. J., Nevell, M. D., and Swain, S. A. M. ‘The Roman site on Grey Hill, Bewcastle, Cumbria’, Jones, B. C. and Wiseman, W. G. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 89. 1989. pp.69-75 688 Lindsay Allason-Jones Pers. Comm. 687

                                                             689

Hutcheson, A. R. J. (1997) p.71 Hutcheson, A. R. J. (1997) p.72 Cunliffe gives a good discussion of the most significant pieces from across Britain. Cunliffe, B. (2005) p.513-531 692 MacGregor, M. Early Celtic Art in North Britain: a study of decorative metalwork from the third century to B.C. to the third century A.D. Volume 1. Leicester University Press, Leicester. 1976. p.177-8 690 691

69

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE situation conditions were ripe for the development of art styles drawing on past traditions but also being new, distinctive and local’.693 MacGregor suggests that three regional links were created which may have influenced the styles of metalwork produced in different parts of northern England: ‘While an artistic link was being forged over-land between East-Anglia and the Midlands on the one hand and the Pennine and Lowland-Scots provinces on the other, an equally strong one was being created, perhaps by sea, between the former area and the north-eastern province’.694

evidence for any form of direct influence is the possible role of Roman jewellery in the development of the spiral snake armlet, collar and strap bracelet.698 Where the conquest played a very significant role was in the channels of communication it opened up. MacGregor argues, ‘indirectly, its importance can scarcely be overemphasised, for the Roman Invasion fostered the interchange of ideas, both by intent and by accident – that is by the intentional opening up of the country and by the accidental rallying of those inhabitants of Britain to whom the Celtic traditions were most dear’.699

Iron Age and Roman decorative metalwork

MacGregor indicates that one effect of the conquest could have been to unite the most pro-Celtic and perhaps antiRoman elements of the British population.700 There can be little doubt that these were to be found in northern England and Wales where a constant military presence led to inevitable friction between the native population and the occupying forces. A natural reaction to the invasion and the sudden influx of new ideas would have been to adopt an approach of extreme conservatism avoiding all new ideas in a determined effort to preserve their traditional cultural values and way of life; ‘traditions die hard and often, in adversity, linger the longest’.701 The possibility of finding an anti-Roman statement in decorative metalwork has been explored and some evidence for its existence may be seen in the evidence from brooches.

Iron Age and Roman decorative metalwork is discussed here as one unit because little firm distinction can be made between the decorative traditions of the two periods. Hunter has identified two regional metalworking traditions in the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Roman Iron Age of northern Britain. These are a ‘massive’ metalwork tradition in North East Scotland between the Firths of Moray and Firth, and a Central British School from the Forth to the Humber.695 The first tradition is beyond the scope of this work. The second covers the entire area of study and beyond to the north. It contains diverse material, which Hunter sees as understandable given the size of the area involved, but he argues that the material is stylistically closely related and can be treated as one unit.696

Brooches formed part of an individual’s overall appearance during the late Iron Age and Roman periods. They were intended to be seen and thus could be used to make specific statements about gender, age and group membership depending on where, how and what particular type of brooch is worn.702 Jundi and Hill comment that, ‘sociology would suggest that people may have become particularly concerned about their own appearances in a time of anxiety and risk such as the marked social changes of the first centuries BC and AD.’703 If brooches were worn as statements then the archaeological record of brooches from the north of England may give some indication of the attitudes of the native population during the late Iron Age and in the years following the conquest.

There is also evidence for contact with Ireland in the metalwork from northern England. Pieces travelled from Ireland to the north and some northern pieces found their way to Ireland but the use of similar decorative motifs show contact between the two areas far more clearly. MacGregor highlights particularly the similarity between coils on Irish dished plates and details of the moustache coils of masks and of a scabbard from the Stanwick hoard (figs. 17 and 18).697 Despite its proximity to the Irish Sea province it would appear that decorative motifs from Ireland were adopted on metalwork not in the north-west, as might be expected, but in the north-east. Meanwhile the north-west is not entirely lacking in evidence of contact with Ireland: engraving on bone from north-west England, lowland Scotland and Ireland has revealed a clear unity of ideas between the three areas revealing that the north-west was definitely in touch with Ireland (figs. 15 and 16) but preferred to use Irish motifs on bone rather than metal.

There are relatively few brooches known from early and middle Iron Age contexts, only 360, and these are from the south where an explosion in numbers seems to have occurred in the late Iron Age and continued into the early Roman period.704 In central and northern Britain, brooches continued to be used until the time of the conquest when there is a sudden marked increase in the

The Roman influence on decorative metalworking in northern Britain cannot be clearly defined. No Roman styles, either in the form of artefact types or artistic details, were adopted into the artistic canon. The best

                                                             698

MacGregor, M. Volume 1 (1976) p.186 MacGregor, M. Volume 1 (1976) p.186 700 MacGregor, M. Volume 1 (1976) p.185-6 701 MacGregor, M. Volume 1 (1976) p.189 702 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. ‘Brooches and Identities in First Century AD Britain: more than meets the eye?’ in TRAC 97. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 1998. p.125 703 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.126 704 Haselgrove, C. ‘Iron Age brooch deposition and chronology’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, Oxford. 1997. pp.51-72 699

                                                             693

Hunter, F. (2007) p.289 MacGregor, M. Volume 1 (1976) p.181 695 Previously MacGregor had identified three schools in Hunter’s ‘Central’ tradition but his recent work has revised this information. For further information on MacGregor’s three schools see MacGregor, M. Volume 1 (1976) p.184 696 Hunter, F. (2007) p.291 697 MacGregor Volume 1 (1976) p.185 694

70

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS

Fig.15. Bobbin like object from Victoria Cave, Settle.705

Fig.16. Comb from East Lothian.706

Fig.17. Bronze horse mask from the Stanwick hoard.708

Fig.18. Bronze detail of scabbard from Stanwick excavations.707

                                                             705

After MacGregor, M. (1976) fig.44 After MacGregor, M. (1976) fig.27 707 After Wheeler, M. (1954) plate XXVI 708 After MacGregor, M. (1962) p.51 706

71

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE numbers found on sites. It would appear that this was not simply a result of the increased amount of material culture available to the native people of the north at this time but was a specific phenomenon connected with personal appearance and the desire to make a statement. Jundi and Hill point out that there was not just an increase in brooch numbers but also changes in their design and the contexts from which they were recovered.709 More brooches seem to be casual losses andthe fact that an increasing number of brooches were lost accidentally indicates that people possessed sufficient numbers that they could support the loss. The brooches entering the archaeological record by means of casual loss also give some indication of the types of brooches being worn. These are very different to their predecessors; in particular, they are much more distinctive. Wearing a brooch could now be used as an easy way for an individual to reveal details about himself or herself. Overall brooches became more elaborate and more visible; they were clearly acting as more than just fasteners for clothing, a task that could have been done with a far simpler clasp.710

Fig. 19. Example of a Dragonesque brooch.715 had some specific significance for the native population of northern England.716

There is some evidence for regionalisms in certain brooch styles from pre-conquest southern Britain and local styles are marked by minor technical details.711 Here concentrations of brooch types in certain regions may give some indication of the presence of populations with particular political or social identities these areas. Unlike the southern trend, the large increase in the use of brooches in the north did not happen until after the conquest.712 Brooches from northern England cannot therefore give information on the situation of the north in the late Iron Age but they are a valuable source of information on the stance of the native peoples in the Roman period. In particular Dragonesque brooches are a Romano-British type found particularly in northern England.713 Analysis of the occurrence of this type of brooch in the archaeological record from northern England may indicate that these brooches were used by individuals to make particular statements about their identity after the conquest and during the period of Roman occupation.

Although some examples exist from before this time the particular flourishing of the Dragonesque brooch was from AD 40-60 onwards and this fits with the development of other highly visible brooches further south.717 They are found in reasonable numbers from the Humber to Southern Scotland and have been recovered from all types of site in civilian, military and rural native contexts and Jundi and Hill note a surprising number from cave contexts.718 To date, 65 brooches have been recovered from Britain of which 55 are from northern Britain and of these 32 are from the region of study. These numbers, although not large represent sufficient numbers of finds from which to draw some theoretical conclusions.719 The Dragonesque brooch is ‘visually very distinctive, [and] apparently predominantly made and worn in a particular part of Britain’.720 Flat, elaborately decorated, and highly coloured with enamelling, it was very definitely intended to be seen. The design was based on a late La Tène idea, the broken-back scroll, and there are close links between these brooches and the ornamental devices used on other late La Tène pieces, particularly horse trappings and weapons from roughly the same region.721 It is thus clear that Dragonesque brooches were not directly Iron Age in form or function yet they used old traditional decorative motifs and designs in a brooch that was created only after the Roman conquest of southern Britain. The use of such distinctively old ideas

The Dragonesque brooch (fig.19) was created in the Roman period but drew on pre-existing motifs and ornamental designs. It also harked back to the Iron Age in form.714 Thus the brooch used traditional decorative motifs and designs from northern England but in the new form of highly visible brooches. Whilst earlier developments in brooch design were restricted to southern Britain, the Dragonesque brooch seems to have been a particularly northern type: it is uncommon in the south, and this in itself is interesting, suggesting that it

                                                             715

                                                            

After MacGregor, M. (1976) p.128 See map in Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.133 717 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.132 718 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.132 719 For further information Dragonesque brooch finds in northern England see Appendix C. 720 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.131 721 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.131

709

716

Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.127 710 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.129 711 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.129 712 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.131 713 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.125 and for find spots see Appendix C. 714 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.129

72

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS in a new and highly visible design was clearly intended to make a statement about its wearer. Such a style of brooch worn by the native people of northern Britain who may not have been in favour of the Roman presence and, in many cases, appear to have avoided almost all contact with it until the late fourth century, may have served as clear visual indication that the bearer’s allegiance was to the past and, possibly, of their anti-Roman stance.722

each was in contact with Ireland yet Irish metalworking devices were adopted in the north-east but not in the north-west. Instead the north-west appears to have preferred its own decorative metalworking schemes but contact is proven by the use of Irish decorative ideas in the north-western bone engraving techniques, something not seen east of the Pennines.727 The inclusion of different elements of Irish decorative artwork on different materials either side of the Pennines, metalwork on the east and bone engraving on the west, demonstrates that the native populations of these areas had differing artistic tastes in the decoration of their metalwork in the late Iron Age. Each had its own native metalworking school and each adopted distinct elements of the other decorative traditions with which they came into contact. This preference for different artistic designs, which would clearly mark out individuals from each area, indicates the presence of two communities, one each side of the Pennines, with their own particular preferences. These areas may have been further subdivided into more specific communities, one suggestion for how this could be done has already been discussed in the pottery section, but this information is not available from the metalwork evidence which can only support the existence of two clearly different cultural traditions divided by the Pennine massif.728

Jundi and Hill comment: ‘what is interesting about Dragonesque brooches is that they were worn both by those living beyond, and, more commonly by those well within, the northern frontier of the province. Equally, the nature and range of contexts from which these brooches come suggests they were worn by a wide cross section of people’.723 Unlike brooch forms in the south the Dragonesque brooch does not appear to have signified allegiance to a particular community, instead they seem to have been a common statement by all levels of the population from all regions and communities in northern England making it clear that their allegiance lay with their Iron Age heritage. Although not definitely mutually exclusive positions it seems unlikely that people so strongly pro-Celtic would have also been in favour of the Roman presence. ‘Here is an object that may have been explicitly connected with expressing a district identity as non-Roman and possibly crossing pre-existing ‘tribal’ boundaries’.724

The adoption of decorative ideas from Ireland into the artistic traditions of northern England reveals interesting differences between the areas east and west of the Pennines.726 Each had its own metalworking tradition and

It was the communication routes that opened up after the conquest which were the main way in which the Roman presence influenced native metalwork styles.729 Pieces of metalwork could now travel easily to northern Britain through long distance regular trading contacts from the continent and vice-versa and it was in this way that an exchange of ideas took place. New decorative motifs were adopted but these came from the decorative traditions of Gaul and there can be some debate as to how original these new artistic elements actually were. Although the specific designs were new they were all drawn from the La Tène tradition, and this same traditional style underpinned the central metalworking school. In this way, whilst it can be argued that new ideas were adopted after the conquest, it becomes clear that these ideas were not Roman and indeed they were really only further variants of the decorative tradition already in use in the north. Hunter notes that all those using northern decorative metalwork were accessing the same ‘Celtic’ art objects and there does not appear to have been a difference between those used in Roman and native contexts.730 It is thus difficult if not impossible to argue that there is any degree of romanisation behind developments in decorative metalwork in northern England during the post-conquest period. Native metalworkers took advantage of the lines of communication provided by the conquest and adopted new motifs from the Gallo-Roman world that were based on styles they already approved of but they did not adopt

                                                            

                                                            

For a discussion of Dragonesque brooches on non-native sites see p.68 below 723 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.133 724 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.134 see also Appendix C. 725 For further information see Appendix C 726 MacGregor (1976) p.185

MacGregor (1976) p.185 The pottery record from the north supports the idea of differences between the material cultures of the north-east and north-west of the study area. 729 MacGregor (1976) p.186 730 Hunter, F. (1997) p. 292

Although Dragonesque brooches have been found on both sides of the Pennines considerably more have been recovered from the north-west than the north-east.725 It has become apparent that there was a degree of conservatism towards the Roman presence bordering on open resistance to contact with any Roman material culture in the north-west of England. The north-east, although still conservative in many cases, does appear to have been more receptive to the Roman presence and there may have been less anti-Roman sentiment on the east of the Pennines. If the Dragonesque brooch, with its archaising style and Iron Age roots, was indeed a general, cross-community symbol of anti-Roman sentiment in the north then the fact that more have been recovered from the north-west than from the north-east may indicate, once more, the presence of a greater anti-Roman sentiment amongst the people living on the west of the Pennines. Discussion Iron Age and Roman decorative metalwork

722

727 728

73

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE wholly new traditions.731 A particularly good example of the adoption of new ideas combined with traditional concepts to form what may be an anti-Roman statement is the development of the Dragonesque brooch discussed above.

artistic forms, and may therefore be similar evidence for resistance in the form of cultural retardation. If Dragonesque brooches did indeed represent a nonverbal anti-Roman message, as seems possible, then their presence could be expected on rural native sites, in vici and even in some more urbanised contexts but their presence in forts must be explained. One possibility is that the soldiers bought these brooches as a decorative form of native art without understanding their particular significance. In the period immediately following the conquest of the north the military sites would have been garrisoned by foreign troops rather than more local auxiliary troops who would have been more likely to understand the significance of such brooches. AllasonJones has suggested that the colourful Dragonesque brooches may have been created by local craftspeople to sell to visiting soldiers as a form of ancient ‘tourist trade’.739 However this suggestion in itself does not explain the numbers found outside of these contexts.

As mentioned above MacGregor has suggested that traditions linger longest in adversity.732 The desire to express an Iron Age identity, which, on brooches, appears to have been a post-conquest reaction to the Roman presence, may well represent this theory in practice. The people of the north, and particularly of the north-west, may not have been in favour of a continuous Roman military presence and certainly appear to have shunned Roman technology in many other ways. Jundi and Hill suggest that the daily dress of locals, soldiers, administrators and craftspeople in northern England may have been fairly similar, varied only through the use of accessories, fasteners and brooches.733 To the native population the Dragonesque brooch may have provided a visible, non-verbal, means of displaying their rejection of ‘romanised’ culture in the same way that a ribbon or badge can convey allegiance to one political party or campaign in the twenty first century.

It is important to note that a number of Dragonesque brooches have been found in military contexts. If Dragonesque brooches held some form of significance as a symbol of resistance this does not mean that the soldiers were in some way anti-Roman. The presence of these brooches on fort sites indicates that the traditional ‘Celtic’ design appealed to different communities and had different meanings depending on their origin. Hunter notes that ‘the same material could be perceived differently by different observers’.740 To the native population, brooches may have embodied some form of native identity and may have been used as an implicit sign of resistance to change. On fort sites brooches need have carried no such meaning. Their traditional Celtic design would have been familiar to soldiers who came, originally, from other ‘Celtic’ parts of the Empire. Hunter notes that Britannia’s garrison was from the north-west provinces and they were arguably sympathetic in taste to the native population of northern England.741 Dragonesque brooches on forts can therefore be explained not in terms of resistance, but simply because their artistic style appealed to the soldiers of the frontier. Hunter argues that at ‘we lump objects together as “Celtic art”, but how you viewed them at the time would depend on who you were’.742

Resistance is not a single concept and Hingley has discussed the variety of forms which opposition could take.734 Overt forms of opposition, such as revolt, are not difficult to identify. However more subtle forms ‘can vary from mild disobedience among slaves, servants or tenants, to sabotage of industrial production by workers, to drawing upon ancestral ways of life in a society that is swiftly changing’.735 The use of the Dragonesque brooch may be considered as evidence for the latter form of opposition to change. Whether or not the evidence for the retention of traditional art and ways of life is proof of resistance is uncertain but what does appear clear is that its survival was, ‘to some extent a matter of choice’.736 Hingley suggests that the widespread failure to abandon the traditional roundhouse by all levels of society may be further evidence for a rejection of Roman ideas and a deliberate attempt to draw on more traditional values. He argues that the decision of what sort of house to live in does not appear to have been based entirely on social status or wealth and that, ‘it is possible such “cultural retardation” is actually a statement of resistance in itself’.737 As such this retardation and ‘refusals to accept new materials may reflect positive acts of resistance to changes imposed from outside. Seen from this perspective, the round-houses of Roman Britain could be statements of alternative values and identity’.738 If this is the case then on a smaller scale the Dragonesque brooch certainly represents a choice to retain, in this case, earlier

Thus it can be seen that Dragonesque brooches in and of themselves were not symbols of resistance. Instead different meanings and significance were attached to them by the different groups to whom their design appealed. Dragonesque brooches could therefore have acted as a mutually recognised symbol of anti-Roman feeling among native people on both sides of the Pennines but especially to the west, and also proved attractive to frontier troops from the north-western provinces by virtue of their ‘Celtic’ design and

                                                             731

MacGregor (1976) p.186 (p.212) MacGregor (1976) p.189 733 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. (1998) p.134 734 Hingley, R. (1997b) pp.81-100 735 Hingley, R. (1997b) p.88 736 Hingley, R. (1997b) p.95 737 Hingley, R. (1997b) p.93 738 Hingley, R. (1997b) p.96 732

                                                             739

Allason-Jones, L. (1991) p.3 Hunter, F. (2007) p.293 741 Hunter, F. (2007) p.292 742 Hunter, F. (2007) p.292 740

74

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS decoration. Brooches are thus part of a decorative metalwork tradition in northern England that started, ‘as an expression of local identity which was adopted within a Romano-British frontier milieu and interpreted in different ways by people of different backgrounds’.743 That, for the native population, Dragonesque brooches took on the form of an implicit yet visible symbol of resistance as suggested by Jundi and Hill seems at least plausible among a native population already noted for its conservatism.

found in northern England and analysis of hoards from northern Britain has revealed some interesting information about different regional attitudes towards metal artefacts and their deposition.747 Metalwork hoards in the north are generally made up of fine quality, although not necessarily precious, items. It will never be possible to know the extent to which ownership of these objects was restricted to high status individuals but Hunter believes that they were more common than the few survivals suggest and that there is good reason to doubt the conventional view that only high status individuals would have owned such items.748

METALWORK HOARDS Hoards are a very valuable source of information for metalwork studies, giving information about the particular types and forms of artefact that were deposited in each area. Hoards can also give some clues to the way in which items of metalwork, particularly fine quality artefacts, were viewed and treated by different communities. Before discussing information derived from the metalwork hoards of northern England it is important to note that the known hoards form only a fraction of what is likely to have been deposited in the Iron Age and Roman periods. 744

The nature of the metalwork hoards from northern England leads to one further problem, that of accurate dating. In most cases there is a lack of other closely datable material and metalwork objects themselves did not tend to change radically in shape of design between the Iron Age and Roman periods. This means that hoards cannot be looked upon for information regarding any change over time in the nature of their contents. The metalwork from northern England and southern Scotland must then be treated as one single group dated to between the second century BC and the second century AD or even later.749 Valuable information can, however, be gained from a spatial assessment of the nature of objects deposited in different regions of the north.

Hoards were deposited for a number of reasons and not just in a votive context. Precious items could be buried for safe keeping in which case there was a definite intent to recover them again in the future. They could also be deposited in votive contexts but again these were not always intended to be permanent.745 Precious metal was expensive and serious consideration must have gone into its burial if it was not intended to be recovered at a later date. Thus the intention behind the deposition of any precious metalwork hoard must be considered and a permanent votive offering should not be the automatic assumption. More utilitarian and cheaper metal artefacts need not necessarily be considered in the same way since they would have been much easier to replace. However what is worthless to one person may be precious to another. The possible status of the depositor should therefore also be borne in mind before making any judgements about their attitude towards the material they were burying.

Known Iron Age hoards Within northern Britain, Hunter has identified three regional patterns in the evidence from metalwork hoards. The blocks identified are southern Scotland, north-east Scotland and northern England. Within these regions there are also more local variations. The area of relevance to this study is northern England although contact with, and possible influence over or from traditions in southern Scotland is not unlikely given the proximity of the two regions.750

There are some contexts in which it is likely that metalwork deposits no matter what their value were not intended to be recovered. Wet places are a good example of this. It is true that wells remained good hiding places even into the modern era and other wet places can be trawled but, for the most part, artefacts found in wet contexts were probably not intended to be recovered.746 Wet sites are the source of many of the metalwork hoards

The metalwork hoards from northern England are concentrated on the west of the Pennines.751 The eastern side of the country and much of Northumberland are largely empty of hoards with the exception of a concentration of extremely rich assemblages such as the Stanwick hoard in the Tees Valley area. The lack of hoards in east Yorkshire may be due to the presence of the Arras culture where hoarding does not seem to have been practiced, but it is harder to explain the evidence from further north.752 There is a strong tradition of metalwork hoarding in southern Scotland and many aspects of southern Scottish settlements are mirrored in Northumberland. It is thus difficult to explain the

                                                            

                                                             747

See Appendix C. Hunter, F. ‘Iron Age hoarding in Scotland and northern England’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, Oxford. 1997. p.108 749 Hunter, F. (1997) p.110 750 Hunter, F. (1997) p.110 751 Hunter, F. (1997) p.111 see also map Hunter, F. (1997) p.110 752 Stead, I. M. (1979); Stead, I. M. (1991)

743

Hunter, F. (2007) p.294 744 For further information on the creation of treasure trove laws and the potential bias created by the increased searching of specific areas after the discovery of a hoard see Johns, C. ‘Romano-British precious-metal hoards: comments on Martin Millet’s paper.’ in TRAC 94. Oxbow, Oxford. 1994. p.110 745 Johns, C. (1994) p.111 746 Johns, C. (1994) p.114

748

75

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE pattern of deposition.757 Generally all the hoards have been found in what would have been thought of as significant natural sites, most of these are also liminal locations such as wet sites, hills and beaches and thus the deposition of hoards could have signified the presence of a political or cultural boundary. The large number of weapons found in hoards from the north-west, many of which are in liminal locations, may represent a symbolic statement by the native inhabitants about their determination to fight for their lands; a determination which may be reflected in their clear preference for traditional items both before and after the conquest.

apparently hard boundary in terms of attitudes towards metalwork hoarding between the two areas.753 The absence of metalwork from County Durham is also difficult to explain given its proximity to the rich Tees valley hoards but this area has already been noted for its lack of pottery evidence. It seems that the Durham plateau north of the Tees watershed was inhabited by a people who largely rejected durable goods in both the Iron Age and Roman periods. This is not to say that they did not have a material culture but it may have been made up of primarily non-durable artefacts such as objects made from wood, which are rarely preserved in the archaeological record.

Roman hoards Analysis of the contents of known metalwork hoards has revealed a range of sizes and types of goods, particularly personal ornaments and elements of horse harness. This is similar to the range of items found in southern Scottish hoards but, perhaps surprisingly, the late Iron Age and Roman hoards from southern Scotland contain a range of imported and exotic goods both from southern England and from abroad while those from northern England, which experienced a military presence after the conquest, contain far fewer exotic items. The hoards from northern England and, by virtue of the spatial concentration of hoards, north-western England in particular, also contain a much higher number of weapons than any others in northern Britain.754

Although native metalwork cannot be dated as pre or post conquest, Roman vessels are much easier to identify and place in a chronological context. There are 23 known hoards of Roman vessels in northern England of which around 50% have been found in similar liminal contexts to native pieces.758 However it is difficult to know whether these vessels were deposited by native or Roman hands since vessels had a role in the religious activities of both peoples. Examples of definite Roman vessel hoards are those in the infilled wells at Newstead and the vessel hoard found with a parade helmet under the parade ground at Ribchester.759 The iconography and inscriptions on a number of Roman vessels deposited in northern England makes their ritual context almost certain; however it is not clear who was responsible for their deposition. An example of the dual contexts associated with many vessels can be found in the most commonly deposited vessels i.e. paterae and wine strainers. Both of these were associated with wine, which was highly prized by Iron Age societies and was also used for libations in Roman religion. Thus these objects could have been deposited either by Roman people who associated them with libations to the gods, or by native people presenting something they prized highly to a deity.760 Hunter comments that, ‘interpretation, therefore, is difficult. The habit was at home in both Iron Age and Roman votive practices: in most cases the donor, whether ‘Roman’ or ‘native’, or some shade in between, remains elusive’.761

The few hoards from the north-east are found in relatively close association to each other. The two largest of these contained material of mainly or even wholly Roman origin although it is generally accepted that they were deposited prior to the conquest. The Stanwick755 and Fremington Hagg hoards contained several almost complete sets of horse harness and some fragments of armour which were Roman in origin yet were deposited before the occupation of the north (figs. 20 and 21).756 The presence of two such large finds of imported metalwork in an area which has already been identified on the basis of its pottery assemblages as having a notably cosmopolitan attitude should perhaps come as no surprise. Rather it should serve as further evidence to support the suggestion that the area within the Tees watershed and centred on Stanwick was inhabited by a particular group of individuals with a pro-Roman outlook at variance with much of the rest of northern England.

The geographical distribution of these hoards is markedly different to that of the known and probable Iron Age hoards.762 Concentrations of Roman vessel hoards have been found around Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland and also near York, both areas devoid of Iron Age hoards and strongly associated with the Roman military presence after the conquest.763 That the Roman vessels have been found in strongly militarised areas does not mean that they were definitely deposited by non-native hands but may indicate deposition by those whom Hunter has called

The contexts in which metalwork hoards have been discovered in northern Britain are varied. Although the most common wet locations are not the only source of these votive depositions with beaches, hills and even settlement sites also being used. A small number of hoards have also been found on older burial sites, such as bronze age cairns. Finds from rivers are surprisingly few but this is probably due to a lack of dredging work on the major northern rivers rather than representing an actual

                                                             757

Hunter, F. (1997) p.114 Hunter, F. (1997) p.118. For a table summarising sites and finds see Hunter, F. (1997) p.127 759 For further information see Hunter, F. (1997) p.117 760 Hunter, F. (1997) p.118 761 Hunter, F. (1997) p.118 762 For further details see Appendix C 763 Hunter, F. (1997) p.118 758

                                                             753

Hunter, F. (1997) p.111 Hunter, F. (1997) p.113 Haselgrove, C. C. (1990 a and b) 756 Hunter, F. (1997) p.113 754 755

76

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS

Fig. 20. Bridle bit from the Stanwick Hoard showing Roman stylistic influence.764

Fig.21. Mail of non-native; probably Roman manufacture from the Stanwick Hoard.765

                                                             764 765

After MacGregor, M. (1962) p.32 After MacGregor, M. (1962) p.53

77

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE presumably due to differing beliefs and differing social structure.’768

the ‘shade in between’. In this case perhaps native people who had come to live in the vici of the forts or in the outskirts of the town at York and had thus mixed some aspects of their own native traditions with others taken from the occupying forces, including the use of Roman vessels for their votive offerings.

The small scale hoards from the north-west, with their relative lack of variety, come from an area with relatively small settlements and little evidence for any degree of hierarchy. The number of small finds, such as brooches, indicates that all levels of society were involved in deposition and levels of wear on many items show that they were used prior to burial and not made specifically for that purpose. This indicates that hoards may have been deposited by small groups for whom shared beliefs and a shared religious identity may have linked relatively independent individual communities. On the east of the Pennines, the few known hoards are concentrated around the Stanwick area. In contrast to the small western assemblages the Stanwick and Fremington Hagg hoards are very large and valuable. Although it is still possible that the hoards were deposited as communal offerings, their extreme value indicates deposition by a small minority of high status individuals since such goods are unlikely to have been available to the community as a whole. Hunter has suggested that the horse harnesses in the Stanwick hoard could have been deposited at the same time by powerful individuals or groups and could have served as a way to link these individuals.769 The Tees Valley area stands out from the rest of the north-east as the only area with a possible hierarchy of sites stretching down from the primary site of Stanwick. The quality of the hoard at Stanwick in particular highlights the significance of this area and the difference in social and political standing between the population of this region and that of any others in northern England, particularly those in the north-west.

Discussion Taken together the number of weapons found in metalwork hoards from northern, and especially northwestern England, and the lack of exotic and imported goods when compared to southern Scotland would suggest a community largely opposed to new influences and sufficiently provoked to have taken up arms against the outside world. That the majority of hoards have been found to the west of the Pennines also indicates that it was perhaps these people who were most opposed to invasion. Meanwhile the large and somewhat anomalous assemblages including much Roman or continentally influenced material from the Tees valley may be further evidence for the presence of a community with a proRoman stance such as is assumed for the inhabitants of Stanwick and its surrounding territory. Giving meaning to votive offerings is a theoretical practice but the association of metalwork hoards with boundaries in northern England seems too common to be accidental. Hunter suggests that boundaries could have been seen as places where the otherworld could be contacted more easily.766 The presence of exotic objects is particularly notable in hoards from southern Scotland and it is possible that these represent valued contacts with the outside world. Assuming the objects deposited were of value to the owner, then a piece which represented external connections in a society which valued such national and international links would be of great significance to its owner. That there are far fewer imported pieces in hoards from northern England indicates a population where local identity rather than international contact was of the greatest value to the native inhabitants. The presence of weapons may indicate a ritual action to counter the advance of Roman influence.767 That this determination to resist change was strongest on the west of the Pennines is suggested by the prevalence of hoards in this area.

Summary One point that arises from each of the elements discussed is the existence of apparent regional differences in the metalwork finds, which are similar in terms of east-west variations to those suggested on the basis of the ceramic analysis. These in turn indicate the presence of different communities in the north of England with clear variations between the communities of the north-west and northeast. Although there will have been a range of identities within these communities, the patterning of artefacts may indicate that at least some individuals may have recognised a collective regional identity with specific patterns and preferences in the acquisition and deposition of materials. The Tees watershed acts as a further divide on the north-east of the country between metal using people to the south and apparently non-metal users to the north. The evidence from metalwork can be summarised as follows:

A very limited knowledge of how native religious rituals worked makes accurate interpretation of the evidence from hoards very difficult. The evidence from metalwork hoards cannot reveal why objects were deposited, how many people were present and how often deposition took place, or by whom, nor can they explain the significance of the objects to the owners. Differences in the types and ranges of material buried and in the numbers of known hoards from areas east and west of the Pennines do, however, suggest that, ‘peoples in different areas were clearly expressing their beliefs in different ways,

 Lack of general iron-work however this may be a result of poor preservation conditions in acidic soil.  Nails do not appear to have been adopted for use in construction across the region of study.

                                                            

                                                            

Hunter, F. (1997) p.121 767 Hunter, F. (1997) p.121

769

766

768

78

Hunter, F. (1997) p.120 Hunter, F. (1997) p.123

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS  Different metalworking schools and artistic traditions east and west of the Pennines.  Irish artistic elements used in native design. o Variations in materials used for Irish elements reveal cultural differences – on metalwork east of the country and in bone on the west.  Durham plateau to the north appears to have been as devoid of metalwork as it was of pottery. o Indicates rejection of durable materials or lack of communication with metalwork using societies and thus lack of access to such goods – wood and other perishable items may have been used instead of metal and ceramics – suggests insularity.  East of the Pennines far fewer hoards – known hoards, all from the Tees Valley area in the general vicinity of Stanwick. o Consist of imported Roman and romanised i.e. Roman influenced objects which indicate a pro-Roman community in favour of continental links. o Large and high quality and indicate a hierarchical society where certain individuals held great power and only the highest status individuals took part in votive deposition.  Tees Valley watershed forms division between proRoman society in the south and more shadowy community in the north.  West of Pennines – particularly high numbers of Dragonesque brooches indicate anti-Roman sentiment and the presence of a community with a strong allegiance to Iron Age traditions.  North-west hoards – emphasis on small scale deposition of mainly native objects with an emphasis on weaponry. o Indicates the inhabitants of this area wished to express and identity whereby they were willing to resist outside influences, by force of arms if necessary, although it is unlikely they had the opportunity. o Lack of imported objects in hoards indicates a focus on local identity and much smaller hoards suggest egalitarian social structure. o North-west may have been inhabited by small groups linked together by their beliefs and determination to preserve their traditional identity. ANIMAL BONE ASSEMBLAGES NORTHERN ENGLAND

Across the rest of the north, the bone assemblages are scarce, small, poorly preserved and consist entirely, or almost entirely, of animal bones; primarily those of cattle.771 This is likely to be due to soil acidity and poor preservation as discussed above.772 Iron Age bone assemblages are found on only a handful of sites in the north-east and, whilst bone assemblages from Roman urban and military sites are more helpful, rural sites in the Roman period are scarcely any better off than their Iron Age predecessors. Another problem with the assemblages is that the vast majority of native settlements which have produced enough bone for quantitative analyses lie in the lowland corridor linking the lower Tees Valley to the Vale of Mowbray. This corridor includes sites such as Thorpe Thewles and Stanwick which have already been noted, on the basis of pottery and metalwork assemblages, as somewhat unusual examples of settlement in the late Iron Age. The very uneven spatial distribution of known animal bone assemblages in northern England leads to the danger of these lowland sites being considered representative of the entire region, when the nature of more upland sites may have been very different.773 The lowland corridor had comparatively rich agricultural soils and lay close to major route ways running from the Vale of York up to the Firth of Forth. Huntley and Stallibrass point out that the landscape and agriculture may well have been very different in the uplands of the Pennines, Cheviots and Lake District or indeed other low lying areas such as the Vale of Eden or Solway Plain.774 The potential problems with the nature and distribution of the Iron Age bone assemblages from northern England must be borne in mind when undertaking any analysis of this material. In addition to their other problems bone assemblages are also very hard to date due to the largely aceramic nature of much of the north in the pre and post-Roman periods. This means that occupation on some sites could be dated to anywhere between the mid first-millennium BC and the end of the first millennium AD thus making it impossible to know if many sites were occupied before, during or after the Roman occupation.775 On the basis of this less than encouraging situation for the purposes of this project there would seem to be little to be gained from an investigation of the known animal bone assemblages of the north. There is, however, some interesting and potentially useful information to be gleaned from a relatively brief consideration of the

FROM

Bone assemblages of any kind are rare in the north and in the region of study only a few animal bone assemblages survive whilst, in common with much of the rest of Iron Age Britain, human burial practice remains obscure.770

                                                                                                 Cambridge. 2007. pp.263-268. For more recent discussion on the region see: Bevan, B. ‘Bounding the landscape: place and identity during the Yorkshire Wolds Iron Age’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age societies. Oxbow, Oxford. 1997. pp.181-191 and see Chapter 4 p.94 below. 771 For information on bone assemblages see Appendix C 772 See discussion p.45 773 Huntley, J. P. and Stallibrass, S. Plant and vertebrate remains from archaeological sites in northern England: data review and future directions. Research Report No.4. Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, Durham. 1995. p.122-3 774 Huntley, J. P. and Stallibrass, S. (1995) p.131 775 Huntley, J. P. and Stallibrass, S. (1995) p.122

                                                             770

The clear, regionally limited cultural traditions of the people of east Yorkshire mark them out as a very distinct group. The human bone assemblages from the area will not be considered further in this study suffice it to say that the human bone assemblages from east Yorkshire and the particular burial rituals practiced in this area clearly differentiate it from the rest of northern England. The subject is well summarised in Halkon, P. (ed.) Further light on the Parisi: recent discoveries in Iron Age and Roman east Yorkshire. East Riding Archaeological Society, Hull. 1999 and Bradley, R. The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. CUP,

79

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE interbreeding.779 The question of whether aurochsen continued to inhabit north-east England depends on whether they were able to tolerate the levels of clearance taking place in the late Iron Age. If they were present, however, interbreeding between such a large animal and Celtic shorthorn cattle could easily have produced the very large remains found at Thorpe Thewles. Without more Iron Age assemblages it is impossible to tell if this large type of cattle was restricted to Thorpe Thewles, in which case it could have been a gift from abroad, or whether it is more widespread, which would suggest the occurrence of interbreeding between shorthorns and surviving aurochsen.780

animal bones from the north all of which, like sites further to the south, are dominated by cattle bone. The cattle bone assemblages are the most helpful element of the vertebrate evidence and therefore Iron Age and Roman assemblages will be considered together before looking briefly at other vertebrate remains from these periods in northern England. CATTLE BONES Iron Age North-east

North-west Prior to the advent of the Roman Empire, cattle throughout Europe were all of the same breed, Celtic shorthorn, and were very similar in size and appearance. The few Iron Age bone assemblages from the north are all from major sites in the Tees Valley. The two largest collections come from Stanwick and Thorpe Thewles whilst there is also a small assemblage from Catcote.776 The bone assemblage from Thorpe Thewles reveals that prior to the Roman period the animals kept here were similar to those found across the rest of Europe. Over 8000 fragments of bone have been recovered from the Iron Age site at Thorpe Thewles. The majority of these are cattle bones followed by sheep and pig. There are also a few bones representing other species: these include horse, which was not eaten, dog, red deer and various fowl. The latter two indicate that the inhabitants of the site did not just rely on stock animals but varied their diet on occasion by hunting for wild animals.777 The cattle bones from Thorpe Thewles include several very large examples, some of which are comparable with the largest bones found on Romano-British sites.778 The presence of a new type of cattle is a feature of the Roman period assemblages from the north-east but it is possible that some animals were present in the Iron Age, perhaps arriving in the form of gifts. Thorpe Thewles lies in the same lowland corridor as the exceptional site at Stanwick and could have been in contact with the continent in the late Iron Age. Another, and perhaps more likely, suggestion for the presence of these particularly large specimens is that they are the result of prolonged interbreeding with native wild aurochsen which may have survived in the area at this time. Auroch were the wild ancestor of domestic cattle (Bos primigenius) and were found across Europe and Asia in the early post-glacial periods. They had dark coats and stood up to 1.8m high at the shoulder weighing up to 1 tonne. They generally inhabited open woodland and finally became extinct in the late medieval period as a result of hunting and

No Iron Age bone assemblages have been found in the north-west or in central England around the Pennines but Roman assemblages are very similar to those identified with Iron Age sites in the north-east indicating that change in the north-west occurred later if indeed it took place at all.781 The scarcity of available information inhibits the comparison of animal husbandry or livestock breeds between the Iron Age and Roman periods in this area. However it is interesting that the only Iron Age animal bone assemblages in the entirety of the north are found in the Tees Valley and it is this region, and indeed these sites, which have already been noted as being of particular interest with regard to the regionalism found in their pottery and metalwork assemblages. Roman period In addition to the traditional Celtic shorthorn another type of cattle was developed within the Empire. This type was slightly larger and can be identified in bone assemblages from its horncore shape. The origin of this new type of cattle is a matter for debate: they may have been imported from outside the Empire or bred from local stock.782 The new type of cattle is found earliest near the centre of the empire and appears to have radiated out over time. It is unlikely that Roman period bones attributed to the new type could be the result of local interbreeding with wild aurochsen as suggested for the very large Iron Age examples at Thorpe Thewles. This is due to the particular horncore shape of the new type and also the exceptionally large nature of the Thorpe Thewles bones, which are larger than the vast majority of the new Roman type and thus suggest that the Iron Age bones are the result of interbreeding with a wild species. By contrast the new Roman cattle are larger than the Celtic shorthorn but generally smaller than the examples from Thorpe Thewles. Bone assemblages from York suggest that the new type was present there by the second century and at

                                                            

                                                            

776

Stallibrass, S. ‘On the outside looking in: a view of animal bones in Roman Britain from the north-west Frontier’ in Mills, C. M. and Coles, G. (ed.) Life on the Edge: Human Settlement and Marginality. Oxbow Monograph 100, Oxford. 1998. p.54 777 Rackham, D. J. ‘The animal bone’ in Heslop, D. H. The Excavations of an Iron Age Settlement at Thorpe Thewles, Cleveland, 1980-82. Cleveland County Archaeology and the CBA, London. 1987. p.99 778 Huntley, J. P. and Stallibrass, S. (1995) p.126

779 Darvill, T. The concise Oxford dictionary of Archaeology. OUP, Oxford. 2002. p.30 780 Huntley, P. and Stallibrass, S. (1995) p.132-3 781 Stallibrass, S. (1998) p. 57 782 For more information please see Stallibrass, S. ‘Cattle, culture, status and soldiers in northern England’ in Fincham, G. Harrison, G. Holland, R. and Revell, L. (eds.) TRAC 99, Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2000. p.69

80

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS Chester-le-Street by the late third or early fourth century.783

this evidence points towards a more innovative approach to animal husbandry in the north-east indicating in turn a more conciliatory attitude towards the Roman presence and an interest, at least in some areas, in the innovations they brought with them. Richardson suggests that, ‘it is also possible that large and ‘foreign’ livestock became desirable objects that provided extra meat but also made a powerful socio-cultural statement’.790 Notably it is sites in the Tees Valley that provide evidence for the new type of cattle on indigenous settlements. As previously discussed these sites are also notable for their pottery and metalwork assemblages. The presence of imported goods would indicate that the inhabitants of these settlements were keen to adopt newly available resources. Huntley and Stallibrass highlight the different characteristics of this area and the likely variation between it and other regions, ‘Given the topographic and demographic differences within the north of England, and the concentration of material culture indicative of ‘romanisation’ in the south eastern, lowland, area, it is quite possible that major differences existed in local patterns of agriculture, wild resource exploitation and military supply systems within the region’.791 The animal bone assemblages suggest that this was a very different approach to that taken in the north-west.

There are known animal bone assemblages from the Roman occupation of both north-east and north-west England. Although these tend to be found in military and urban contexts rather than on purely indigenous sites, results indicate that there were still marked differences between attitudes to animal husbandry and butchery on either side of the Pennines. North-east The north-east Roman period bone assemblages generally contain larger bones than have been found in the northwest.784 It is feasible that the military sites here could have been receiving larger new type cattle from the south, but if this was the case then it cannot explain the evidence for larger bones at non-military sites in the north. In fact the bones from the assemblage at Catcote, a native civilian site, are generally larger than those from the military assemblages in the north-east.785 This indicates that the new type cattle were relatively widespread across both military and non-military sites in the north-east, and that they were not brought in from the south specifically for military use but were kept by native farmers in the area.786 A greater willingness to try out innovations and perhaps a more innovative approach in parts of the northeast, particularly in the Tees Valley, contrasts markedly with the conservatism bordering on resistance to new ideas which could be suggested on the basis of animal bone assemblages and other elements of this study from the north-west.

North-west The new breed of cattle is virtually absent from any bone assemblages in north-west England until the late Roman period.792 This may be due to the lack of bone assemblages from the third and fourth centuries in this area; however it would be sensible to expect bones of the new type of cattle to be found at a major military and civilian site such as Carlisle, and the lack of any new type bones from the fort at Annetwell Street in Carlisle is striking. Indeed Stallibrass points out that they are statistically indistinguishable from those at the nearby civilian site of the Lanes.793 It is likely that military sites accessed food resources from local communities and the lack of any bones from the new type of cattle within the bone assemblages from Carlisle therefore indicates that these new cattle were not present in the north-west.794 The remarkably slow uptake of the new cattle breed in the north-west is comparable with the slow adoption of pottery in this area. Stallibrass comments that, ‘in both instances, the road and river communication networks were established from the early Roman period onwards, and the ‘goods’ (pottery and larger cattle) were available in the north-east up to two centuries before they were being received in the north-west. It would appear that there were some factors inhibiting their distribution westwards: perhaps the lack of desire for such items

In York a small group of distinctive horncores indicating the presence of new-type cattle can be dated to the late second or early third century. The evidence suggests that the new type arrived later at Chester-le-Street with one example dating from the fourth century.787 Stallibrass points out that, although one example may not sound like a great deal on which to base an argument, of the forty horncores at Annetwell Street in Carlisle, a much larger and more significant military site than Chester-le-Street where new type animals could be expected, there are no examples.788 The discovery of a new type horncore from a relatively minor military site in the north-east suggests that the new type of cattle may well have been available relatively easily in the area. The presence of these new types brings the north-east animal bone assemblages into line in terms of content, although not in size and prevalence, with highly romanised areas of southern England including Chichester and Colchester.789 All of

                                                             783

Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.69 Stallibrass, S. (1998) p.56 785 Stallibrass, S. (1998) p.56 786 Stallibrass, S. (1998) p.57 787 Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.69 788 Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.70 789 Stallibrass, S. (1998) p.57. For individual reports see: Chichester – Levitan, B in Down, A. Chichester Excavations IV. Phillimore, Chichester 1998. pp.242-276, Colchester – Luff, R. Animal Bones from excavations in Colchester 1971-85. Colchester Archaeological Reports 12, Colchester. 1993 784

                                                            

790 Richardson, J. E. ‘Economy and Ritual: the Use of Animal Bone in the interpretation of the Iron Age to Roman Cultural Transition’ in TRAC 96. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 1997. p.84 791 Huntley, J. P. and Stallibrass, S. (1995) p.134 792 Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.69 793 Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.69, Stallibrass, S. (1998) p.55 794 Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.69

81

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE (inertia) or acquisition.’795

positive

resistance

against

that the meat was filleted before cooking. Other bones also reveal evidence of intensive butchery with long bones being split length and width ways.800 Meanwhile, native assemblages, such as they are, have a far greater quantity of metapodials, large bones found immediately above the toes. These bones have evidence of charring and breakage in the midshaft of the bones. This method of treatment has also been found on other bones such as mandibles.801 The concentration of bones treated in this way in the north-west, both in native and military contexts, may not indicate a specific regional pattern but would suggest that the indigenous people in this area were as conservative in the way they treated the carcasses of their animals as they were in their decision to continue rearing Celtic shorthorns.

their

It is possible that the new type of cattle were not found in the north-west because they were not suited to the wet conditions; however this cannot explain the lack of pottery uptake. Climatic conditions may have been a factor but they do not appear to have been entirely responsible for the cool reception of new ideas in the north-west. Stallibrass suggests that although skeletally there was little difference between the new type and traditional Celtic shorthorns they could very well have been very different in appearance and nature; with different coloured or textured coats, behavioural patterns, calving rates and milk quality. ‘Traditional conservative farmers may have regarded new types with suspicion, resentment, or disdain, whilst more entrepreneurial farmers might have welcomed new developments, particularly if they carried the kudos of Roman fashion’.796 This suggestion would fit the apparent uptake of new breeds on some sites on the eastern side of the Pennines which, whilst not romanised, appear to have shown a greater interest in the Empire. Richardson supports the idea suggesting that, ‘cattle can be economically valuable while simultaneously symbolising social and political power. It is possible that larger animals were seen to represent something foreign while the smaller Iron Age creatures embodied concepts of an indigenous nature.’797

Stallibrass makes an interesting comparison between animal bone assemblages from the north-west and those of some communities in north Wales and in south-west England, specifically the territories of the Durotriges and the Dobunni. ‘It is interesting to note that those [bone assemblages] from Exeter, in the south-west of the country, follow the pattern from the north-west rather than the rest of the south. It is tempting to suggest that the north and west of England were ‘marginal’ during the Roman occupation, compared to the lower lands of the east and south’.802 The south-west of Britain and north Wales are both noted for resistance to the Roman occupation and for their lack of clear romanisation. It would appear that marginal areas on the borders of Roman influence were generally rather more conservative than those experiencing greater influence and interaction. The north-west and north-east of England therefore suggest markedly different attitudes to the Roman presence which may reflect the degree to which they were considered peripheral by the occupying forces themselves; the north-west being by far the more marginal of the two.

There is another addition to the increasing body of evidence to suggest that the new types of cattle available within the Roman Empire were introduced to north-west England only on a very small scale and very late. Congenital traits also indicate this late uptake with evidence of new type cattle gene pools restricted to the east of the Pennines, and gene pools featuring some specific Celtic shorthorn genetic features not found outside of the west.798 The lack of mixing between the gene pools east and west of the Pennines again supports the suggestion that there was a lack of interaction and exchange between communities on either side of these hills. In this instance it would appear that individuals from cattle herds did not travel between these two regions although they may well have been moved within them. Moving from the animals to the people handling them, a study of the animal bone assemblages has yielded evidence of military and ‘native’ methods of butchery.799 Again the ‘native’ method, whilst not restricted to the north-west, is far more prevalent in this region, suggesting continuation of Iron Age practices and conservatism in butchery habits in the area.

OTHER VERTEBRATE REMAINS Although cattle are the most common bone type on sites in northern Britain other vertebrate remains have been found on most of the sites with a surviving bone assemblage. Unfortunately these assemblages do not provide clear evidence for regional traits as the cattle bones have done but as part of the very small bone assemblage from northern England they must be given consideration here. Fish Evidence from Iron Age assemblages indicates that neither riverine nor saltwater aquatic resources were routinely exploited despite the proximity of some sites, such as Catcote, Hartlepool, to the shore. ‘Thus a limited, somewhat opportunistic and rather low-key, exploitation

Military butchery techniques concentrate on scapulae, which are closely trimmed and processed. Holes in the blade for hanging are common and knife marks suggest

                                                             795

Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.69 Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.70 797 Richardson, J. E. (1997) p.83 798 Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.70 799 Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.68

                                                            

796

800

Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.68 Stallibrass, S. (2000) p.70 802 Stallibrass, S. (1998) p.70 801

82

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS of the well-stocked and ostensibly clean rivers of the region appears to be the case’.803 Although fish do not seem to have played an important role in the Iron Age diet they were a very popular feature of Roman menus, and it is interesting to note that there is no particular increase in the numbers of fish bones found in the Roman layers of sites, even in relatively romanised settlements such as York. Dobney suggests that the absence of a native fishing tradition could be the reason for the lack of evidence for fish consumption on northern sites in the Roman period. Whether or not this was the case it is clear that this major aspect of the Roman diet was not adopted by the native people of north Britain. Indeed their avoidance of fish may have been such that that they deprived the more romanised areas of this resource.804

the Iron Age other new breeds were adopted in northern England. Chicken bones have been found on a number of sites of differing status revealing that the population were not averse to all foreign imports. The discovery of a whole goat skeleton at Thorpe Thewles which had been buried intact rather than processed for meat may also indicate that goat was new to northern England in the late Iron Age, although it is not possible to prove this on the basis of the current evidence.806 There appears to have been something very specific about attitudes to cattle in the north which meant that the inhabitants did not wish to adopt the new type. This could further support the suggestion that cattle were seen as objects of status in which a change of type was not desirable. Whatever affected the attitude of the population towards the new type of cattle this would not appear to have been a factor for other useful species, which seem to have been adopted without reluctance.

Pig Pigs were not heavily exploited in the Iron Age: instead, there was a clear reliance on cattle throughout the whole of Britain. In contrast to this the Roman diet was heavily reliant on pork and, as with fish, it would be reasonable to expect an increase in the number of pig bones found in Roman period assemblages. However in common with much of northern Europe, the old ‘Celtic’ world, pig remains a relatively small part of the animal bone assemblages from northern Britain. There is one exception to this: the colonia at York. As a highly militarily influenced site without a large indigenous population, York is not considered in this book, but it is notable that whilst a society with more Roman tastes was present at York this element of the Roman diet, in common with fish, was not adopted by the native population.

Wild animals Iron Age animal bone assemblages from the north have revealed evidence for the use and exploitation of some wild species, particularly fur bearers such as beaver and wolf, on some sites.807 These animals were clearly still able to live in the area despite the level of clearance and development of field systems in the late Iron Age, and it is likely that their pelts continued to be valuable and may even have increased in value with the reduction in their habitat resulting in their increasing scarcity. Worked bone and antler both in the form of waste and finished products are common finds on all types of site in northern England in both the Iron Age and Roman periods. Analysis of Red deer antler has indicated that animals of varying sizes were present in the Iron Age and Roman periods including some very large types similar to those found in the post-glacial periods. It is not certain how far these very large animals were restricted in habitat area but, assuming they were not wide spread, it is quite possible that their particularly large antlers, preferable for some artefacts, were traded whole, trimmed or as blanks, over potentially very long distances.808

Horse Horse bones appear to be quite a common find on Iron Age sites in the north with an animal bone assemblage. This is interesting as horses were expensive to feed and were not useful except for their dung and meat until they were several years old. One possible explanation is that horses were captured from wild or feral stock when old enough to be of practical use, thus saving time and valuable fodder.805

Discussion Any conclusion drawn from the bone assemblages of northern England must be prefaced with an advisory statement as to the nature and difficulties of the evidence under consideration. Northern England lacks any large animal bone collections that can be the subject of comparative data analysis. This is due to the acidity of soils in the area which has created poor conditions for bone preservation. In addition the lack of pottery on many sites makes the few assemblages from both the late Iron Age and Roman periods very difficult to date with any degree of accuracy. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the only Iron Age assemblages are to be

New species: Chicken and goat Although the evidence from the Roman period indicates that there was reluctance, at least on the north-west of the country, to adopt new species, this does not appear to have been the case for all innovations. It has already been seen that in the Roman period mortaria were fairly widely adopted although they do not appear to have been used for their original purpose. There is also evidence that in

                                                            

803 Dobney, K. ‘A place at the table: the role of vertebrate zooarchaeology within a Roman research agenda for Britain’ in James, S. and Millet, M. (eds.) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. CBA research report 125, Council for British Archaeology, York. 2001. p.41 804 Dobney, K. (2001) p.42 805 Huntley, J. P. and Stallibrass, S. (1995) p.132

                                                             806

Huntley, J. P. and Stallibrass, S. (1995) p.132 Huntley, J. P. and Stallibrass, S. (1995) p.132 808 Huntley, J. P. and Stallibrass, S. (1995) p.155 807

83

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE  Continuing exploitation of wild species – particular pelts and large red deer antlers may have increased in worth with the destruction of their habitat. o Items may have become the subject of relatively long distance trade. o Wild or feral horses may have been captured once strong enough to work thus saving fodder although it would have taken time to break such animals in.  Indigenous diet did not change substantially even when access to Roman tastes was relatively easy – lack of any clear inclusion of fish and pig after the arrival of the Romans. o Unlikely to be explained by a lack of access – more likely deliberate avoidance or conservatism on the part of the native people.  Reluctance to accept new breeds in north-west not universal – chicken and possibly goat found on numerous sites of varying status.  Innovation on the east and conservatism on the west suggests two very different peoples with very different outlooks on life. o Entirely different mindsets suggested from the cattle bone assemblages in both areas - no indication of any kind of link, be it cultural, political or otherwise between those people living on the east of the Pennine massif and those dwelling on the west.

found in the Tees Valley area of the north-east, an area which cannot be considered comparable, at least in topographic terms, and indeed, in terms of the finds discussed so far, with much of the rest of northern England. This means that bone collections from the area cannot be considered as representative of the region as a whole and thus any trends noted cannot be applied outside of this area. Indeed the comparison of bone assemblages from the Tees Valley and those from Carlisle would indicate that the former area is quite unlike at least the north-west of the study area in terms of access to and adoption of new breeds of cattle. The suggestion is that traditions, attitudes and practices of animal husbandry may have been quite different between the north-east and north-west and perhaps in particular, between the Tees Valley and the rest of the area of study. Summary The evidence from the known animal bone assemblages can be summarized as follows: Cattle bone evidence  North-east: new type cattle indicates an interest in the innovations brought by the Romans. o Possible new types of cattle arrived in late Iron Age, perhaps as gifts, although suggestion that large type could be due to interbreeding between Celtic shorthorns and wild aurochs should be given serious consideration.  North-east farmers may have been interested in their cattle more for yield and quality of saleable product than for status. This could explain early interest in new type. o Indicates enterprising and innovative attitude to animal husbandry in the north-east.  North-west: conservatism and uniformity across the entire area with little geographical or temporal variation from the Iron Age until the late Roman period.  Gene pool evidence suggests a lack of economic interaction between north-west and north-east.  Land to west of Pennines likely to have been difficult for arable farming – stock rearing almost certainly among principle activities.  Livestock holdings may have been major indicator of wealth and standing.  New cattle may have looked very different to Celtic shorthorn and if cattle holdings were key part of native social structure and identity this difference in appearance may have led to resistance to changes.  Native butchery techniques found on indigenous and military sites in north-west – suggests indigenous people as conservative in treatment of carcasses as in preference for traditional Celtic shorthorn.

QUERNS, GLASS AND COINAGE There is a range of archaeological evidence from sites in northern England which has not yet been covered in this study. This is either because evidence is available from only part of the study area and is thus not helpful in indicating regional patterning beyond that part, or because it was only introduced in the Roman period and provides no information on the late Iron Age. The categories of evidence falling under these limitations are considered here. QUERNS The most common Iron Age stone artefacts are querns which were used to grind flour on the majority of settlement sites. Querns are an indicator of consumption rather than production of grain and since grain was used on almost all sites, even those far from areas of production, they cannot be used to indicate the agricultural methods in use by the local population. However the type of stone used in the quern stones and, to a certain extent the types of querns themselves can be used as an indicator of the economic status of a community.

Other bone evidence

Quern stones were pairs of shaped stones between which grain was crushed into flour. They were in use from the prehistoric period into modern times on a gradually increasing scale from hand operated units to modern flour mills. The earliest querns were non-rotating varieties where the top stone was pushed laterally backwards and

 Despite vast natural resource, available fish and shellfish not widely used in Iron Age or Roman periods even when sites in close proximity to water.

84

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS forwards over the bottom stone to ‘rub’ the grain into flour. These types were used from the Neolithic period onwards.809 The origin of rotating hand mills is unclear. It was a great technological advance and probably came into being in the Mediterranean countries but evidence is lacking. The earliest form of rotating quern in Britain is the so-called ‘bee-hive’ due to the conical shape of its lower stone and hemispherical upper stone. A wooden spindle supported the upper stone which often also contained a hopper mechanism for feeding grain into the grinding surface.810 The upper stone was turned by means of a horizontal handle in the side of the upper stone. The bee-hive quern was in use throughout Britain during the Iron Age and many examples have been found in northern Britain. A new, more refined type of rotary quern was introduced in the Roman period. This was derived from the bee-hive design but had a larger diameter; thus a larger grinding surface, and was also flat topped.

which dates back to 1980. It is certain that more querns will have been recovered since this time. Furthermore, surveys have only been carried out on querns from northeast Yorkshire and the Tees Valley.813 These surveys cover the majority of the north-east south of the Tyne but a similar analysis for the north-west, or indeed the Pennine massif, is so far lacking. Although the information is limited and not current the way in which it was collected, particularly that of the 1980 survey, whereby thorough and detailed on site surveys were carried out by the archaeologists and a geologist at each property, indicates that the data is still likely to be representative of the current state of knowledge, even though more querns will almost certainly now be known. In addition, assuming that this information is fairly reliable, it may also reflect a pattern similar to that which would be seen in the north-west if a survey were to take place. Querns are a fairly ubiquitous find on any Iron Age or Romano-British site but a clear concentration is found in southern Yorkshire around the Vale of York and the Wolds and Dales.814 Quern stones, due to their longevity, cannot all be assumed to have been in use at the same time and need not indicate the number of contemporary settlements in the area. Although querns are evidence of consumption rather than production the very large number of querns found in this area does indicate a different attitude towards grain use. This could be indicative of a preference in diet but it is more likely that grain was easier to produce in these lower lying areas than in some of the higher parts of the north. If the people living in the southern Wolds and Dales could easily produce large amounts of grain then it would naturally have formed a greater proportion of their diet than in areas where grain was harder to grow or had to be bought in. The topographic influence on agriculture and thus grain production is the probable reason for the concentration of querns in the south-eastern part of the study area. If this is the case then the numbers of querns found in this area need not indicate the presence of a native regional group but reliance on grain rather than on cattle, as suggested for north-western Britain, could have created a regional identity among the population of this area. Without cattle as evidence of status but with more useable arable land than anywhere else in the north, the population in this area must have relied on something else to indicate their position in society. Perhaps for these people land ownership and production capacity acted as evidence of wealth and social status.

The advantage of bee-hive querns was not their greater output but their ease of use where the top stone rather than the operator provided the pressure to grind grain. This allowed grinding to be carried out for a much longer period of time and a far greater quantity of grain could be processed. The advent of the bee-hive quern is seen as an indicator of the intensification of agriculture taking place in Britain during the middle and late Iron Age.811 Although this type seems to have been in use in the early Roman period, bee-hive querns appear to have continued in use at the same time. Many bee-hive querns and some earlier non-rotating saddle querns have been recovered from northern Britain along with a few new flat types which may be evidence for the romanising effect of the military presence. The latter are, however, so few in number that even if they do represent a romanising influence it cannot be considered as anything more than a localised event.812 It is possible that the tendency for older designs shows a conservative approach to technology but this cannot be assumed. Quern stones were often long lasting and there may have been no need to invest in a new style quern whilst the older type was still in working order. The great duration of the designs also makes it impossible to know whether a bee-hive quern was produced in the Iron Age or early Roman period. It is perhaps safest to ignore the possible significance of quern types in northern Britain and instead to focus on their geographical spread and lithology. The information on querns available to this study is affected by the age of much of the survey work, some of

The type of stone used for querns can be used to locate their point of manufacture. It is not possible to create an overall impression of the origin and distribution of different querns across northern England but, although limited to the north-east, the work that has been done is of use to this study. The number and quality of querns

                                                            

809 For more information see Curwen, C. E. ‘Querns’, Antiquity 9. 1935. pp.133-151 810 Curwen, C. E. (1935) p.134 811 Hayes, R. H., Hemingway, J. E. and Spratt, D. A. ‘The distribution and lithology of beehive querns in northeast Yorkshire’, Journal of Archaeological Science 7 (4). 1980. p.311 812 Gwilt, A., and Heslop, D. ‘Iron Age and Roman querns from the Tees Valley’ in Vyner, B. (ed.) Moorland Monuments: Studies in the Archaeology of north-east Yorkshire in honour of Raymond Hayes and Don Spratt. CBA research report 101, York. 1995. p.44

                                                             813

Hayes, R. H., Hemingway, J. E. and Spratt, D. A. (1980) pp.297-324, Gwilt, A. and Heslop, D. (1995) pp.38-45 814 For further information on quern find spots in NE England see Appendix C.

85

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Bransdale and Goathland.819 All three sites are on outcrops of rock suitable for milling purposes and in each case querns from these factories have been found in the vicinity but not a great distance beyond. Sandstone querns were fairly evenly distributed on the lower ground with querns in the Esk Valley and eastern Cleveland being mainly of this type. It is likely that these were produced at the Goathland factory. Crinoid grit querns were manufactured at Bransdale and Spaunton Moor and are found in the Tabular Hills and Vale of Pickering. These appear to have travelled up to 15km from their source although it is possible that, as the hardest rock type locally available, a few may also have been transported to Cleveland.820 Rocks made from Corallian in the Tabular Hills, a poor quality rock for milling purposes, were found on or immediately to the south of the outcrop but no further afield. Hayes et al. suggest that whereas factories existed which produced querns of the other rock types discussed here the production of Corallian querns may have been a ‘do-it-yourself-athome business’.821 Querns from the Pennines made from Millstone Grit and Yoredale Sandstone were found on the western edge of the North Yorks Moors, the closest place to their source. It is reasonable to suggest that Millstone Grit querns were part of an organised trade from the Pennine factories across the Vale of York with the numbers found decreasing as distance from source and transport costs increased. Despite the cost some Pennine querns have been found around Boulby on the coast near the mouth of the Tees and in Hutton Rudby, Cleveland. These stones had been transported up to 90km and must have required well developed social and economic contacts.822

found and the distance stones of differing qualities were carried from their source can give an indication of the economic status of the area. Querns were made at ‘factories’ and carried from these to their point of use. The further a stone had to be transported the more difficult it became to obtain; requiring both economic and social contacts and thus the source of querns may be used to indicate the economic and social status of the settlements at which they have been found. As large and heavy objects, querns were not easy to carry only the best quality stones, made from hard Pennine Yoredale Sandstone and, in particular, Millstone Grit were transported over long distances. The networking involved to gain these stones means that they are likely to have been accessible only to those most well connected members of society who may have identified themselves with different social and economic collective identities to those without access to such higher status objects. Those of the population without such economic and social connections would have used querns of lesser quality from factories nearer to home, even though these were more likely to wear out or break, because obtaining them would have been considerably easier and would have required far fewer long distance connections to obtain. Thus quernstone rock types may be one form of evidence for the presence of difference economic and social identities in north-east England. In north-east Yorkshire 120 bee-hive querns and bases have been identified, 82 of which are made from local rocks outcropping on the North Yorks Moors.815 A further nine were made from Corallian, a rock type found in the Tabular Hills to the south of the area. 24 querns originated in the Pennines, the majority made from Millstone Grit.816 Almost all of these quern stones have been found in areas that are used for agriculture in modern times. Very few have been recovered from moorland hills suggesting that grain was both produced and milled in the lower lying areas: ‘The widespread adoption of these querns is seen as reflecting an intensification of agriculture on the low ground and Tabular Hills [in the late Iron Age and early Roman period], and this is supported by evidence from excavations, field and aerial archaeology, place-name and palaeobotany studies’.817 This also correlates with the distribution of settlements in this area, very few of which have been found on the high, exposed and virtually uninhabitable high moorland.818

Hayes et al. state, ‘thus the excellent Millstone Grit querns were carried up to 90km from their origin, the satisfactory local Jurassic querns up to 20km, but the poor quality Corallian querns were not carried from the source area’.823 In the North Yorks Moors querns were not usually transported into or beyond the area served by another factory due to the high costs involved and the lack of any particular usefulness of one rock type over another. The slightly better quality of Crinoid Grit led to its transportation over longer distances. Querns of this type would not have been as expensive as those from the Pennines but would have cost more than querns produced in the local area and could thus have been used by moderately wealthy individuals in society. Meanwhile Millstone Grit, the most suitable rock type, was carried furthest of all but would have required fairly long distance trading contacts and the means to exchange for high quality goods. The Tees Valley has already been identified by this study as an area with a population possessing a particular social and economic identity. The presence of querns imported over medium and long distances with their attendant transport costs is a further

The rock types used for querns found in the North Yorks Moors are lithologically distinct and can be traced to their sources with a good degree of accuracy. This along with slight differences in quern styles has enabled the identification of three quern ‘factories’ in the area in addition to querns imported from the Pennine factories. The three factories identified are Spaunton Moor,

                                                            

                                                            

815

46 local unfossiliferous sandstones, 30 Crinoid Grit, 6 Moor Grit- all Middle Jurassic rocks from the North Yorks Moors massif. Hayes, R. H., Hemingway, J. E. and Spratt, D. A. (1980) p.297 816 20 Millstone Grit, 4 Yoredale Sandstone 817 Hayes, R. H., Hemingway, J. E. and Spratt, D. A. (1980) p.297 818 Settlement distribution in northern England is discussed in chapter 4

819

Hayes, R. H., Hemingway, J. E. and Spratt, D. A. (1980) p.304 Hayes, R. H., Hemingway, J. E. and Spratt, D. A. (1980) p.304 821 Hayes, R. H., Hemingway, J. E. and Spratt, D. A. (1980) p.311 822 Hayes, R. H., Hemingway, J. E. and Spratt, D. A. (1980) p.310-11 823 Hayes, R. H., Hemingway, J. E. and Spratt, D. A. (1980) p.310 820

86

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS indicator of the apparent economic and social connections and status of the population this area. Meanwhile the evidence that the population of the North Yorks Moors used medium quality locally produced quernstones may indicate lesser social and economic connections. The moderate economic and social status of this area, which is divided from the rest of the north-east by means of its geography, along with its apparent conservative approach to the Roman presence has already been highlighted.824

populations of the North Yorks Moors and the Tees Valley. This is further indicated by the lack of almost all archaeological finds from this area of the north-east: the aceramic nature of the area has been discussed above, in comparison with the conservative but nonetheless somewhat more economically advanced communities of the North Yorks Moors. The population may therefore have been involved in localised groups and identities but there is little evidence for the exchange of ideas or materials.

The Tees Valley querns reveal an interesting contrast to the North Yorks Moors. In the latter area suitable if not excellent rock types were available but in the Tees Valley the availability of suitable rock types varies considerably across the area. In Upper Teesdale the geology was relatively suitable although far from ideal with many localised outcrops of fine to medium sandstones; however very few querns have actually been recovered from this area suggesting that cereals were not as important here as in Lower Teesdale and other parts of northern England.825 Moving eastwards into middle Teesdale and lower land, millstone grits with very good grinding qualities were also available. Querns could thus be produced and obtained locally even though the rock types were not always most suitable, making them more accessible to the consumer. In contrast the lower Tees Valley is entirely lacking in suitable lithologies and the resident communities would have had no choice but to obtain their quernstones from external sources with the attendant transport costs thus involved.826 That the population chose to import Crinoid Grit querns from north Yorkshire and even some Pennine rocks rather than using nearer but less suitable sources is clear evidence of their extensive economic connections.

In complete contrast with Upper and, to some extent, Middle Teesdale, Lower Teesdale appears to have been well connected into the exchange mechanisms of the late Iron Age. This fact has been highlighted in discussions of pottery, bone and metalwork evidence but is further supported by the lithological evidence from the area. Having no suitable rock types, all querns had to be bought in. This would have instantly added greatly to their cost and yet they are regularly found in some numbers on sites in the lower Tees Valley. A range of quern types have been found in this area including long distance, expensive imports such as Millstone Grit querns at Thorpe Thewles.828 Gwilt and Heslop suggest that the presence of imported, expensive querns on some of the larger and more complex settlements in the Tees Valley indicates a greater range of economic and social relations over far longer distances for these high status settlements.829 It is of note that the best agricultural land in the Tees Valley is, perhaps unsurprisingly, in the lower Tees Valley and was thus mainly controlled by the large high status settlements in this area. These included Catcote, Thorpe Thewles and the exceptional site at Stanwick. Indeed Stanwick stands out even among the high status sites in the Tees Valley for having the greatest variety of types and forms of quern in the north-east.830 As an exceptionally high status site of great regional and perhaps national or even international importance this is not surprising, but further proof of the primacy of this settlement among other high status sites in the Tees Valley, which in their turn stand out from any others in the north-east.

An interesting contrast between the North Yorks Moors and Upper and Middle Teesdale is in the identification of quern factories. Three factories were identified in North Yorks Moors and, although costs would have been kept to a minimum through short distance transport, there would still have been exchange and contact requirements involved in obtaining querns from a production site. In Upper and Middle Teesdale, as on the Corallian in the Tabular Hills, there is no evidence for the presence of a factory. Instead querns appear to have been made and used on an individual basis by the local population.827 These querns would effectively have been free both in monetary terms and in terms of the social connections required to obtain them. Therefore they may be indicative of a population with a different economic and social identity to that of the population of the Tees Valley.

Summary The quern evidence from north-eastern England can be summarised as follows:  The querns from the north-east of England may indicate a hierarchy of lithology aligned to the economic and social connections and identities of the areas they derive from. From least to most connected these are: o Upper and Middle Tees Valley and on the Tabular Hills in north Yorkshire have homemade querns made from the local rock type no matter how unsuitable – indicative of a lack of interconnection between sites on a

Had it been possible for a quern factory to develop suitable rocks were available. However this did not happen, which suggests that the population of Upper and Middle Teesdale were less interconnected and did not possess, or desire, the exchange networks available to the

                                                            

                                                            

824

See pottery and metalwork discussions above Gwilt, A., and Heslop, D. (1995) p.43 826 Gwilt, A., and Heslop, D. (1995) p.38 827 Gwilt, A., and Heslop, D. (1995) p.42 825

828

Gwilt, A., and Heslop, D. (1995) p.43 Gwilt, A., and Heslop, D. (1995) p.44 830 Gwilt, A., and Heslop, D. (1995) p.44 829

87

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE preference to type. The wide range of shapes recovered reveals the use of glass vessels for varied functions including drinking, presentation of food and drink and preservation of food, drink, perfume and medicine.832

local level and lack of external connections with other North Eastern populations. o North Yorks Moors – quern factories using reasonably suitable rocks but again locally produced with some requirements for transportation and local networking but little evidence for wider political and social relations. o Lower Tees Valley – imported querns and had both the economic ability and the political and social connections to do so. Best stones from the North Yorks Moors and some from the Pennines (travelling up to 90km).  Largest sites in lower Tees Valley esp. Stanwick – could import numbers of querns from the best sources in the Pennines. Would have involved long distance social and political relations. o Stanwick revealed the greatest variety of lithological and morphological types in the north-east with a number of querns imported over great distances.  Predominance of bee-hive types across the entire north-east. Apparently little wrong with the Iron Age beehive quern and nothing markedly new in the Roman variety therefore native inhabitants of north-east saw no need for change.  Querns reveal some regional patterning in north-east England: o Upper and Middle Teesdale – little or no evidence for local connections or external connections with the rest of the North East. Lack of factories indicates lack of internal social or economic networks. This may indicate a lack of internal or external economic connections. o North Yorks Moors – more interconnected sites – factories but little evidence for external links with other communities. o Lower Tees Valley – long distance social and trading contacts – ability to exchange over long distances indicating both social and economic connections with populations at some distance.

Vessel glass is rare on northern sites of all types and has only been found on one native site, Dalton Parlours, in the far south of the study area.833 It seems likely that the reason for this absence is the active collection of all fragments for recycling, one element of which, bangle production is discussed below.834 Even on military sites, glass vessels are not numerous and their number and range of uses appears to have decreased during the period of occupation; glass vessels were increasingly used as individual drinking vessels and the other functions they had served declined.835 This is the case on all sites and even in the military and civilian centre at York considerably less vessel glass has been found in contexts related to the fourth century than to the first with an increasing emphasis on individual drinking vessels.836 In response to the apparent decline in the use of glass vessels towards the end of the Roman era on all sites, Cool has suggest that ‘it could be that large parts of the Romano-British population were returning to a cooking, eating and dining regime that had more in common with the late pre-Roman iron age norms than the early Roman ones’.837 Given the lack of vessel glass from native sites in northern England throughout the Roman period and the apparent decline in the use of glass even in military contexts, it is reasonable to suggest that vessel glass cannot be used as an indicator of the romanisation of the population. Rural native sites do not appear to have adopted the glass vessels at any time and even those elements of the population which were more heavily influenced by living in close contact with the military appear to have first taken up and later abandoned the use of glass vessels. Although glass vessels were not used in northern Britain until after the conquest and do not appear to have been adopted by the native population this is not to say that other objects of glass were not used by the native population in the north. Evidence for Iron Age glass production comes in the form of annular beads (fig. 22), which have been found in first century BC and first century AD contexts and appear to have been worn

GLASS OBJECTS Glass was barely used in northern Britain during the preRoman period. A few annular beads have been found in northern England and southern Scotland but bangles and vessels were not used until after the conquest, indeed vessel glass was almost unknown even on romanised sites in the south-east.831 The lack of glass from the majority of sites and in particular from the majority of native sites in both the Iron Age and Roman periods makes it difficult to use in relation to this study. However glass has been found in Roman period indigenous contexts in northern England and the possible significance of this is worthy of discussion.

                                                             832

Cool, H. E. M. and Baxter, M. J. (1999) p.74 Wrathmell, S. Dalton Parlours: Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa. Yorkshire Archaeology 3. Hull, 1990 834 For information on recycling of glass see Price, J. and Cottam, S. Romano-British Glass Vessels a handbook: Practical Handbook in Archaeology 14. Council for British Archaeology, York. 1998. p.5 and 7 835 Cool, H. E. M. and Baxter, M. J. (1999) p.81-2 836 York cups: 1st/2nd Century 6.40EVE’s, 4th Century 10.00 EVE’s Cool, H. E. M. and Baxter, M. J. (1999) p.80. EVE’s – Estimated Vessel Equivalents. Usually used for pottery as a measure of rims but in the case of glass a measure of EVE’s has been created based on the proportion of the profile of the form that the fragment represents. Cool, H. E. M. and Baxter, M. J. (1999) p.76 837 Cool, H. and Baxter, M. J. (1999) p.92 833

Immediately following the conquest, vessel glass entered Britain but adoption was not uniform and displays a clear

                                                            

831 Cool, H. E. M. and Baxter, M. J. ‘Peeling the onion; an approach to comparing vessel glass assemblages’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 12. 1999. p.74

88

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS The bangles display considerable variation of form and decoration. They are generally either ‘D’ shaped or triangular in section with rounded angles. The outside surface is always smooth and shiny although the inside varies. Bangles were made in one seamless piece by gathering a lump of molten glass on a pointed metal rod, pushing a second rod into the centre alongside the first and then spinning and manipulating the two rods to widen the aperture symmetrically. Decorative devices include clockwise and anti-clockwise twists, fine flattened monochrome trails with curving terminals, spirals and ‘eyes’.842

Fig. 22. Iron Age glass bead.

Both translucent and opaque glass was used and Price has suggested that the source of this glass was probably reused broken Roman vessel glass.843 Re-use of Roman glass would explain the advent of Romano-British bangle creation in the post-conquest period. Annular beads reveal the ability to form glass objects but the native glassworkers do not appear to have been able to produce glass in sufficient quantities to create larger objects. The Roman conquest provided them with access to glass objects which could be melted down and worked into a form which was desirable to the native population. With the clear glass in molten form the native glassworkers were able to draw on their own knowledge and skill to colour it and form decorative bangles for personal display, a factor which has already been highlighted as important to the native British population in the context of decorative brooches. Indeed the frequency of glass bangles on north-western sites has been noted by Evans who comments that this pattern strengthens the argument for a particular emphasis on personal display in the northwest of England.844

around the neck, perhaps as a form of charm.838 Most of these have been found to the south of the study area but a few have been recovered from sites in northern England and southern Scotland. Bangles were not produced until the post-conquest period but unlike production of vessel glass, which was never a native industry, the dating and early findspots of glass bangles suggests that they were a Roman-inspired development of an existing late Iron Age skill; that which had already produced annular beads.839 The capacity to produce glass, albeit of a far lesser quality than that required for vessel-glass, almost certainly existed in northern England in the late preRoman Iron Age. With access to vessel glass fragments it is likely that native glass workers then developed their skills to produce the glass bangles found on a reasonable number of sites during the Roman period. Whether bangle production was purely a development of native ideas once materials became available or whether the concept was introduced by, and copied from, the military is at present unclear, although Price suggests that the chronological link to the conquest would indicate the latter.840 It is thus possible that glass bangles represent evidence for romanisation among the native population of northern Britain. However use of the element, glass, but not in its original form, as a vessel, cannot be said to represent this since the glass was not being used for its intended Roman purpose. If the production and use of glass bangles by the British population is indeed an adopted Roman custom this distinguishes them from objects such as ‘Celtic’ art on metalwork, because glass bangles are previously unknown in either form, function or decoration and are therefore unique among the artefacts discussed in this study as potential evidence for romanisation.841 This possibility cannot be ignored but it seems more likely that the custom developed out of access to materials rather than being a direct result of a Roman stylistic influence and native copying process.

Distribution Three types of glass bangle have been found in northern Britain.845 Type 2 have a ‘D’ shaped section and are decorated with cords, spirals, eyes and occasionally opaque white spirals at the ends (figs. 23-5).846 These have been found throughout the north-east and southern Scotland but their concentration in east Yorkshire indicates a point of manufacture somewhere around York. As a major urban and military centre, York would have provided an excellent source of waste glass for recycling into bangles and from the concentration of finds in the area it seems likely that use as well as production of type 2 bangles was centred around central and east Yorkshire. Type 3 bangles are also found across northern Britain, in fact most recorded finds are from north of the Humber indicating a distinct northern preference for this type. Where type 2 bangles are concentrated in central and

                                                             838

Price, J. ‘Romano-British glass bangles from east Yorkshire’ in Price, J. and Wilson, P. R. (eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire: Studies in Honour of Mary Kitson Clark. British Archaeological Reports, British Series no.193, Oxford. 1998. p.341 839 Price, J. (1998) p.353 840 Price, J. (1998) p.354 841 Dragonesque brooches, discussed above, use previously unknown ‘celtic’ art and stylistic forms and are therefore not comparable even though they were developed in the Roman period.

                                                             842

Price, J. (1998) p.342 Price, J. (1998) p.342 Evans, J. (unpublished) 845 For information on finds see Appendix C 846 Stevens, R. B. K. ‘Romano British Glass Bangles’ in Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, Glasgow Archaeological Society, Glasgow. 1974. p.45 843 844

89

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Type 3A

Type 2A

Type 3F-J

Type 2B

Type 2C

Type 3I

Figs. 23-5. Type 2 Bangles.847

Figs. 26-8. Type 3 Bangles.

eastern Yorkshire with scattered finds elsewhere, type 3 bangles, which do not use cords or spirals in their decoration (figs. 26-8), reveal a marked concentration, suggestive of a production centre, in southern Scotland and Northumberland.848 Price also suggests that, although reported numbers are very limited, sufficient bangles have also been recovered from the north-west to suggest more than one focus of production.849

Type 1 is restricted solely to Northumberland and Southern Scotland and is very different in colour and design from types 2 and 3 which are found more widely in northern England.851 Although technically outside the study area, type 1 bangles merit brief discussion due to their restricted distribution; only one has been recovered from within the study area, at Housesteads, with no examples from further to the south. The makers of these bangles were at least as skilled as those producing types 2 and 3 but instead of using the decorative devices outlined above they were more interested in applying red, yellow and blue ‘enamels’ to glass in a manner more common to metalworking but with a technique that did not require metal edges to the enamelled fields.852 Indeed the link to metalworking traditions suggests that the two types of object were produced in the same place and Stevenson highlights the industrial sites of Traprain Law as a good candidate for the production site.853

A few fragments of type three bangles have been found in north-east England but type 2 bangles, which are the preferential type in the north-east, have only been recovered from the north-west at the highly militarised and anomalous site of Carlisle suggesting a preference for different decorative forms between the two areas, particularly in the use of type 2 bangles. 850 Northumberland and Southern Scotland, technically outside the study area for this work, were on the very edge of the empire and experienced very little Roman influence. It is interesting to note that the few bangles recovered from the north-west were virtually all connected with decorative traditions from beyond the frontier. Given the apparent lack of interest in incoming ideas in the north-west an identification with and preference for designs from areas outside the empire would make a good deal of sense.

The specific nature of type 1 bangles and their use in Northumberland and southern Scotland but not further to the south or west may indicate their use by a specific group. The lack of evidence for these bangles south of the river Tyne suggests that the individuals who wore type 1 bangles were not commonly found south of this point. The distribution of type 1 glass bangles alone is not clear enough evidence for a boundary but it may indicate the presence of different identities north and south of the Tyne. The presence of the Roman border between these two areas rather than a native boundary could be the explanation for the distribution of type 1 bangles noted here; however the presence of type 2 and 3 bangles on

                                                             847

Bead and all bangles after Stevenson R. B. K. (1976) p.47 Price, J. (1998) p.349 849 Price, J. (1998) p.349 850 From English Street, Carlisle. Stevens, R. B. K. ‘Romano British Glass Bangles’ in Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, Glasgow Archaeological Society, Glasgow. 1974. pp.45-54

                                                            

848

851 For further information on the distribution of type 1 bangles see Stevenson, R Stevenson, R. B. K. (1976) p.52 852 Stevenson, R. B. K. (1976) p.52 853 Stevenson, R. B. K. (1976) p.52

90

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS either side of the Wall mitigates against this explanation. It seems that objects could and did travel north and south of the northern border of the Roman Empire if there was a demand for their presence. Thus either type 1 bangles were not made available to the population outside of Northumberland and southern Scotland or they were not wanted outside this area.

NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE Coin use in the Iron Age Britain was the last part of the Celtic world to adopt coinage.854 Prior to this iron currency bars and ring money were used in place of a regular form of coinage.855 The first coins to enter Britain were imported from Belgica and central or southern Gaul. Imitations of these coins were then produced in many different areas of southern and eastern England. Eventually more independent minting took place using both celticised versions of the images on continental coins and more specific regional symbols.856

Summary The evidence from glass in northern England can be summarised as follows:  Evidence from glass is fragmentary due to the rarity of glass items on native sites.  Vessel glass does not appear to have been used in its original form – therefore does not indicate romanisation. However broken vessel glass was the source of material for glass bangle production.  Glass produced in the late Iron Age but its use in bangles seems to have been a post-conquest development. o Since the original glass forms, vessels, were not used on native sites for their original Roman purpose but only in a melted down and entirely different form it is hard to argue that the use of broken glass is evidence for romanisation.  Of the three types of bangle type 1 appears not to be found outside southern Scotland and Northumberland.  Lack of type 1 bangles south of the Tyne whilst types 2 and 3 are found both sides of the native and Roman border area. o Suggests that it was not the Roman border which created this divide but a choice either on the part of the northern population to restrict access to type 1 bangles or on the part of the population to the south not to use them.  Type 2 is quite common in north-east England in particular the central and southern parts of this area.  Type 2 bangles appear to have been avoided by native population in north-west England.  Type 3 is concentrated in southern Scotland, Northumberland and the north-west.  Presence of type 3 bangles (albeit very few) rather than type 2 indicates links between north-west England and populations beyond the border of the Empire.  Preference for specific bangle forms reveals evidence for regional variation in northern England. o North-east: few examples of type 3, clear preference for type 2. o North-west: avoidance of bangle types found in North East (type 2). o North-west: preference for stylistic elements found beyond rather than within the Roman Empire – not unexpected in an area which appears to have been particularly conservative in its approach to the Roman presence.

The use of coin in Iron Age Britain was ‘restricted almost entirely to the territory south-east of a line from the Severn to the Humber’.857 The core of coin use was based in territories north and south of the Thames and in Kent. Here the designs on coinage, initially adopted from Gaul and then adapted to suit native tastes, were becoming increasingly romanised by the end of the first century BC, indicating an enthusiastic reception of Roman culture and vibrant trade or at least frequent contact with the continent. In the more peripheral coin-using areas, separated from principal trade routes to the continent by the core zone, the designs on coinage do not look romanised and may indicate more resistance to romanisation. In these areas Celtic designs were retained until British coinage ceased to be used.858 It is these less romanised groups, the Corieltauvi in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, and the Iceni in Norfolk and parts of Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, who due to their geographical location, would have been most in contact with the even more conservative populations of northern England. There is an almost total absence of coinage on Iron Age sites in northern Britain.859 The majority have been found in the territory of the Parisi, which is not unexpected given the close proximity of the coin using Coritani across the Humber Estuary. Outside of this area the number of Iron Age coins found across the rest of Northern England can be counted on the fingers of one hand.860 The near complete absence of coinage from northern England indicates both a lack of any use of coinage in the area and the lack of influence from other coin using peoples. There are a limited number of ways in which

                                                            

854 De Jersey, P. Celtic Coinage in Britain. Shire Archaeology, Buckinghamshire. 1996. p.6 855 For examples of ring money see Van Arsdell, R. D. Celtic Coinage of Britain. Spink, London. 1989. p.61 856 For a detailed explanation of the introduction and development of coin usage in Britain see the standard work, succeeding Mack: Van Arsdell, R. D. (1989) 857 De Jersey, P. (1996) p.7 See also Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) pp.50-55 for maps of Iron Age coin distribution in southern England 858 De Jersey, P. (1996) p.8 859 For maps showing the distribution of the few coins that have been found see Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) pp.52-54 860 See Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.52-54

91

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE coins would not have been in use much after AD 60 although they are regularly deposited after this date. Van Arsdell believes that coins may have been used until the Boudiccan Revolt after which they would have been banned.864 Haselgrove suggests that minting ceased almost immediately after the Roman conquest but coins remained in use for perhaps a generation after this time.865 An outright ban on British coinage seems somewhat unlikely; there was little need for such a measure and the Romans were normally tolerant of local culture and customs that posed no threat. Reece has perhaps the most reasonable suggestion: coins were probably not banned but just not accepted in payment of taxes thus rendering them almost useless. Reece comments that ‘when the first tribute is levied, and some homely rural natives turn up with British coins in hand you just sneer at them; they soon learn.’866

coinage could have reached northern England. Although Iron Age coin was produced in gold and silver as well as bronze it was not used as part of the process of gift exchange.861 Gold and silver were exchanged, but in other forms, such as bullion, metalwork and currency bars and thus the lack of evidence for coins in northern England cannot be used as evidence for a lack of contact between people. Bronze, as the least valuable metal, appears to have been used for everyday coinage but only within the territory belonging to the ruler depicted on the coin. Coins were not used as trade items outside of specific territories because the image of a ruler on a coin indicated his control over that region. It has been suggested by a number of authors that the presence of coinages with individual designs and images may be a way to indicate the approximate extent of their area of control.862 However others challenge this notion and it is by no means established.863 In northern England where there are no coins this surely indicates that although the inhabitants of the area may have been in contact with their more southerly neighbours they acknowledged no form of southern control and were independent peoples.

Silver coin entered Britain to pay the salaries of the troops posted to the province and it was this medium in which the native population were required to pay their taxes.867 The troops were paid primarily in silver denarii. The soldiers had money to spend but the majority of items they wished to buy were valued only in fractions of denarii so they needed fractional coinage i.e. small change. During the latter years of Claudius’s reign and the early years of Nero’s virtually no bronze was struck and therefore none was delivered to Britain in the early period of occupation.868 As a result the soldiers appear to have produced their own versions of lower value coins now known as Claudian copies.869 These coins appear to have formed a ‘semi-official’ currency and were used by the soldiers to enable them to pay for small value goods such as ale and receive change. The copies were rarely good; they were smaller than the originals whilst the blanks were far less well prepared, but they were usually approximately the correct weight and appear to have been acceptable both to the Romans and to the native population.870 Kenyon comments, ‘the occurrence of these coins as scattered single finds on military, civil and native sites confirms their use and acceptance in exchange for goods and services’.871 Small value coinage therefore spread into the population through contact with the soldiers, but this only happened on sites which were in contact with military establishments. Claudian copies

The lack of evidence for coin use in northern Britain means that numismatic evidence does not provide any useful information about the region in the Iron Age period. In contrast to southern England, coins cannot be used to identify the presence of one community or many and the fact that coins were not part of gift exchange means they give no evidence about the nature of contact between northern and southern Britain. In addition, the absence of coinage in northern Britain means coinage cannot be used as an indicator of the degree of romanisation. Although there was no adoption of coinage either through direct contact with Rome or through contact with other coin using societies, this does not necessarily mean that the north was not romanised, merely that there is no numismatic evidence in support of this. The lack of material evidence means that coins cannot be used as evidence either for or against romanisation in northern England or as an indicator of the cultural makeup of society in the region. However when added to the body of artefacts discussed here, the lack of coin, even from around Stanwick where such an innovation would be perhaps most likely to occur, does perhaps provide a further indication of the conservative nature of northern Britain as a whole.

                                                             864

Van Arsdell, R. D. (1989) p.26 Haselgrove C. C. ‘The development of British Iron Age coinage’, Numismatic Chronicle 153. 1993. p.44 866 Reece, R. The Coinage of Roman Britain. Tempus, Gloucestershire. 2002. p.39 867 The method by which coinage was supplied to north-eastern Britain is well discussed in Brickstock, R. ‘Currency Circulation in the north east of Britannia’ , Ochoa, C. F. and Díaz, P. G. (eds.) Unidad y diversidad en el Arco Atlántico en época romana: III Coloquio Internacional de Arqueología en Gijón. BAR International Series 1371. 1995. pp.229-233 868 Reece, R. (2002) p.15 869 For detailed further information on the creation and circulation of Claudian copies see Kenyon, R. ‘The Claudian Coinage’ in Crummy, N. (ed.) Colchester Archaeological Report 4: The coins from the excavations in Colchester 1971-9. Colchester Archaeological Trust, Colchester. 1987. pp.24-41 870 Kenyon, R. (1987) p.25 871 Kenyon, R. (1987) p.26 865

Coinage in the Roman period Although the topic of when British coins ceased to be used as currency is still a matter for considerable debate, there does appear to be a general consensus that British

                                                             861

De Jersey, P. (1996) p.9 Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. (1990) p.50, Allen, D.F. Celtic Coins. Ordnance Survey, London. 1962. 863 Creighton notes that much gold coinage was found in votive contexts rather than in settlements and thus that that their find spots may not reflect circulation zones but the extent of communities which made propitiary metalwork deposits. Creighton, J. (2000) p.30 862

92

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS are much rarer finds in less romanised, more rural, areas which were not visited by the soldiers.

available to the population living near military sites yet did not move away from these points raises the question of who was using this coinage and what use they were putting it to. Coin was quickly adopted but appears to have been used only for the purpose of paying taxes in silver denominations as required by the Roman authorities. The mechanism of this tax payment may be used to explain the lack of movement of coinage away from romanised sites.

During the first generation of occupation there was no official bronze coinage; however after AD 64 Nero’s mints suddenly began to produce large amounts of bronze coinage and this arrived in Britain shortly afterwards.872 The Claudian copies were rendered unnecessary almost overnight: they were no longer needed and the new coins were of higher intrinsic value. Being worth more, the new coins were hoarded and are thus quite rare as site finds although they were probably quite plentiful at the time.873 The new Neronian issues appear to have been in use for a limited time, after which they were replaced by the Flavian coinage which became part of the currency for the next 200 years. Both Claudian copies and Neronian bronze issues were in use for relatively brief periods and if they are found on sites they can be used as strong evidence for occupation prior to the Flavian period (C. AD 70).874

In order to pay their taxes the native people took their produce to market and exchanged it for coin. Presumably this was then immediately used to pay taxes prior to returning home.880 The result of this process is that this coinage did not circulate beyond market sites and thus never reached native settlements. There were relatively few monetary transactions on any rural sites native or otherwise as evidenced by the paucity of coin on clearly romanised early Roman sites and later Romano-British villa sites. If there were no coins even on the major sites then the inference must be that high denomination coins were used primarily for the same specific purpose; that of paying taxes, by all levels of society. The fact that the native population used coins for one single and somewhat artificial purpose means that the presence or absence of Roman coins can give very little information about attitudes towards romanisation. Whilst the presence of coins on native sites shortly after the conquest would have indicated some degree of romanisation the period under discussion is too early for the lack of coinage observed on sites to indicate the opposite: this means that evidence from coins is of no use to this study.

Coins of Claudian and Neronian date are found on many sites in southern Britain and have proved helpful in dating the layers in which they have been found.875 Unfortunately the north of England was not conquered until the Flavian period and the majority of coins recovered from the north are Flavian or later types.876 Flavian coinage has been found in hoards from the 70’s AD until the reign of Postumus (260-8).877 This means these coins were in circulation throughout the intervening two centuries and provide less than certain dating evidence. Unworn coins are likely to have been deposited shortly after production and thus indicate an earlier date. Such unworn coins are as valuable in attempting to date a site or layer as any other single artefact, but once a coin shows any degree of wear it is almost impossible to tell how long it was in circulation prior to deposition and it cannot be used. Reece comments that, ‘once this evidence is taken on board then any attempt to divide the period up is shown to be unrealistic.’878 The result of this is that of the very few native sites in northern England that have produced coins none can be securely dated from the coin evidence alone because all the first century coin from the region is very worn and clearly residual in later second or third century layers.879

Summary As the native population of northern Britain do not appear to have used coins for any reason other than paying taxes in silver as was required they cannot be used as an indicator of the social, political or economic significance of a site. The artificial nature of the use of Roman coins in northern England; for one purpose and only at sites where this purpose could be carried out means that the numismatic data from northern England cannot be admitted as evidence in this work.  Iron Age – coinage not used in northern England o Cannot be used as evidence for presence of regional groups. o Lack of coins means numismatic evidence cannot be used for or against the argument for social organisation or romanisation.  Roman period – lack of coins from native sites  Coins used at market sites where goods exchanged for coinage to pay taxes o Lack of generalised coin use cannot, at this early stage, be used as evidence for lack of romanisation  Coins did not reach native sites and were used only for the ‘artificial’ purpose of paying taxes

In northern Britain, coinage was delivered directly to military establishments. It then moved into general circulation but native sites received practically nothing. Even the very major sites of the late Iron Age and early Roman period have virtually none. That coinage was

                                                             872

Reece, R. (2002) p.16 Reece explains that when coins containing more bullion yet worth the same value as a lesser quality coin are produced the better coins are quickly winkled out of circulation because their bullion content makes them worth more. Reece, R. (2002) p.16 874 Reece, R. (2002) p.42 875 Reece, R. (2002) p.43 876 Reece, R. (2002) p.43 877 Reece discusses the dating problems of Flavian coinage in some detail. Reece, R. (2002) p.43-5 878 Reece, R. (2002) p.43 879 Brickstock, R. pers. comm. 873

                                                            

880 This study will suggest that taxation in Northern England was not in the form of coin. This theory is discussed in Chapter 5 below p.104

93

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE are linked to production centres outside the Empire in Northumberland and southern Scotland rather than within it. The lack of evidence for conspicuous consumption or great personal wealth illustrated by finds from sites in the north-west has indicated a relatively non-hierarchical society with mass participation in events such as ritual deposition and no clear evidence for a strong political system with a particular leader or leaders. The numbers of weapons found in hoards, the widespread use of Dragonesque brooches and the apparently deliberate avoidance of all things Roman suggests that whilst this society may have been quite egalitarian there was nonetheless a clear sense of regional identity with more or less implicit statements of loyalty to Iron Age systems. An identification and contact with peoples living north of the limits of Roman Britannia during the occupation is not at all surprising and seems far more likely than any link with more romanised occupied territories to the east of the Pennines. This is demonstrated by the presence of type 3A glass bangles produced beyond the Roman frontier and found only here and in north-west England.

o General lack and artificial use of coins means numismatic data is of no use to the purposes of this work and need not be discussed further. OVERALL CONCLUSION TO ARTEFACTS AND MATERIALS CHAPTER Analysis of the artefact and material finds has revealed a number of recurring regional patterns in the data. In every case there is a marked difference between the finds from the north-east and those of the north-west: this indicates the presence of two distinctive and independent cultures with remarkably little in common except for their almost universal preference for the traditional roundhouse.881 The regional differences noted above have been described in relation to each individual data set. It is now possible to confirm several of these by combining patterns noted in other data analyses and thus to suggest the presence of several different native cultures in northern England. However when considering all of these conclusions it must be borne in mind that excavation is not consistent across the area of study. It is particularly the case that there is a relative lack of excavation in the north-west which impacts upon the consistency and accuracy of information available to this study. Lack of excavation may also explain the results noted in the modern County Durham area. Inconsistency of excavation in northern England must be kept in mind when considering all the findings of this study but whilst it may be one explanation for some of the findings observed there is still value in the conclusions noted here.

Whilst the north-west forms one unit with a nonromanised and apparently non-hierarchical society; although this may have been reflected in social or economic networks invisible in the material archaeological record, the evidence from the north-east points to the presence of several different regions. Not all are indicated by every data set but several seem strong enough to be discussed here as potentially different and independent cultural units. The two areas for which there is the strongest evidence are the Tees Valley and the County Durham area. The lack rather than the presence of any evidence for most artefact and material types marks out the Durham plateau and the upper and middle Tees valleys, most of modern County Durham, from the rest of the north-east. This area appears to have used no ceramic or metal artefacts throughout the Iron Age and Roman periods. In addition it has no clear evidence for glass artefacts and where querns were used these were of unsuitable local rocktypes and made by and for individuals. Absence of evidence cannot be used to identify the social and political characteristics of the native inhabitants of this area but they appear to have lived at subsistence level with no use of durable materials either for everyday articles or in display. Whether they were pro- or anti-Roman is impossible to determine but the difference in lifestyles between this area and the lower Tees basin immediately to the south could not be more marked. The complete contrast between the two strongly suggests the presence of two very different communities divided by the Tees Valley watershed.

There is a clear difference in the types, styles and numbers of items belonging to cultures dwelling to the north-east and north-west of the Pennines. With the exception of pottery, where a possible split denoted by the use of a few basic cooking vessels for display purposes in Lancashire and Cheshire differentiates this area from Cumbria, the north-western data cannot generally be divided into any smaller regions. Across all the artefacts and materials it is clear that this area was highly conservative and indeed may have actively avoided contact with and influence from the Roman presence. No imported pottery was used, and new breeds of cattle were not adopted, nor do cattle appear to have been traded across the Pennines indicating a lack of economic exchange between the two areas. Those few Roman ideas which are found, such as the particularly high numbers of mortaria, a few basic cooking vessels being used for display purposes, and evidence for keeping chickens, reveal that when an item was considered particularly useful it was adopted but often not for the purpose for which it was originally intended. Meanwhile, although the lack of general ironwork may be linked to poor preservation conditions there is a lack of evidence for the use of nails in construction across the area, decorative metalwork has revealed a preference for styles explicitly harking back to the Iron Age and glass products

The Tees Valley is remarkable for its collections of every type of artefact and material covered in this analysis. Most if not all of the artefact categories considered in this work have been found at all of the Tees Valley sites discussed here. Outside of east Yorkshire this was the only area to have a pottery producing industry in the Iron Age. The pottery was based on ideas from east Yorkshire but its regional differences to suit local tastes clearly indicate the presence of an industry in the Tees Valley.

                                                            

881 The possible significance of the roundhouse as a symbol of resistance is discussed above p.67

94

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND ARTEFACTS periods. Production was, however, highly localised and remained unaffected by other Iron Age or Roman forms and designs until very late in the Roman period when the area finally appears to have come into some sort of contact with the rest of the north. Quern stones from the area are locally produced but, with access to good stone, are useable. What is interesting from the lithological evidence is the exploitation of these good stones in the form of quern factories of which there appear to have been three across the area. Trade was localised with few querns moving outside the sphere of control of their local factory but nonetheless a cost in terms of economic and social connection was incurred in the production of these stones. The population must thus have had sufficient connections to be able to access and obtain them rather than choosing to make their own from the local rocktype, a solution which required neither local nor more long distance connections, as seen in Teesdale. Both of these types of evidence indicate at least a degree of local social and economic interaction amongst the inhabitants of the North Yorks Moors. In this relatively isolated, high and remote area it is unsurprising that industries were highly localised but the fact that the inhabitants seem to have been able to obtain goods produced outside their own family unit would indicate some ability to build economic and social connections; perhaps through trade in quernstones. The lack of evidence for any Roman influence, or for that matter any other native influence, on this area from the Iron Age until the late Roman period also indicates the possible regional individuality of this area. Separated from the rest of the north by their geographical location it appears that the native population of the North Yorks Moors had very little contact with the outside world and may well have formed a particular inward looking and independent cultural identity based on that separation. The Tees Valley area stands out from the rest of northern England for its probable pro-Roman stance, its wealth and its highly organised political, social and economic connections. The contrast between this area; the non-hierarchical and highly conservative society to the west; the shadowy people to the north, where lack of finds indicates no use for any durable forms of wealth or display; and what appears to have been a more isolated community to the south, is very marked. Certainly three of the areas discussed above; the Tees Valley, the County Durham area and the north-west, appear to have been inhabited by very different regional groups with distinctive and independent cultures. In addition to these the presence of a further native group on the North Yorks Moors, although supported by less evidence, is not an unreasonable suggestion. The individuals in these areas will have been part of a range of collective identities but the differences noted in the artefacts and materials from these areas indicate that one of these identities may have recognised a degree of geographic differentiation between themselves and communities from other areas.

The area is also remarkable for the presence of high quality Roman finewares imported into the area, most probably as gifts, in the late Iron Age. The exceptional site at Stanwick appears to have been the focus of this gift giving but the presence of imported pottery at a number of large sites close to the river Tees indicates that this route was a major channel of communication between this corner of northern England and the Roman Empire in the late pre-conquest period. In addition to pottery the presence of new types of cattle very soon after the occupation or possibly even before it, suggests openness to change and a willingness among the inhabitants of the Tees Valley to try new things if they promised greater yields. This eagerness to try out new ideas in the area of animal husbandry is in direct contrast to the mindset of the north-west where the evidence suggests that new ideas may have been of no interest or may even have been avoided unless considered useful in some context other than their original function. A possible pro-Roman stance in the Tees Valley is also indicated by the metalwork from this area. In contrast to the north-west hoards from the north-east, which are only known in the Tees Valley, are few in number, large, and very high status. All consist of Roman or highly romanised goods and may have been deposited by very wealthy individuals of particularly high status. The metalwork from this area indicates the presence of a hierarchical society with participation in at least some acts restricted to those at the top of the social pyramid who may have considered themselves to be part of a specific collective identity alongside any other regional, religious, economic and social identities. The status of sites in the Tees Valley is further indicated by the type of querns used. Since all querns had to be imported there are economic and social requirements associated with their presence. The longer the distance imported the more politically and economically connected the site and the higher its status. Given the evidence for imported pottery and very high status metal artefacts, it is perhaps not surprising that the largest sites in the Tees Valley, which include the highly important one at Stanwick, have quern stones imported from the furthest distances, including millstone grit from the Pennines. Indeed even smaller sites have stones imported from the North Yorkshire Moors; not a small distance. Another possible regional identity can be suggested for the native inhabitants of the North Yorkshire Moors. Only two aspects of the artefactual and material evidence indicate this area as having a distinctive regional identity but they are strong enough points to make it worthy of consideration. The pottery tradition of the North Yorks Moors is different from that of east Yorkshire to the south, west Yorkshire to the west and the Tees Valley to the north. The first and last had strong pottery producing industries in both the Iron Age and Roman periods whilst west Yorkshire does not appear to have used pottery until well into the Roman period. The people of the North Yorks Moors on the other hand seem to have had a pottery tradition through the Iron Age and Roman

Only one of these regions, the Tees Valley, was sufficiently hierarchical to have been understandable and approachable to visiting officials, ambassadors and the writers who relied up on their information. It seems that of northern England as a whole this is the area most likely

95

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE to have been under the control of the Brigantes, if they existed as a named group, and their ruler. Without the presence of other hierarchical societies in northern England, something the Roman mindset would have considered essential for maintaining control of territory, it may well have been assumed that the community dwelling in the Tees Valley controlled the entirety of northern England and/or that such control could be delegated to the area if suitably strong client relations could be developed. Analysis of the artefactual and material evidence from this area has revealed that this was not the case and indeed three or four individual identities have been defined. An investigation of the spatial distribution of Iron Age and Roman indigenous settlements may support the evidence for the areas indicated here and may also identify further possible divisions.

96

CHAPTER 4: SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION AND PATTERNING IN NORTHERN ENGLAND

indicated that some settlement sites previously dated to the Iron Age and Romano British period on the basis of their form may actually date to the third century.883 The possibility that sites categorised as Iron Age or Roman may not all be of this date must be borne in mind but until further evidence becomes available to indicate the dating of settlement forms across northern England this study will follow the current accepted dating for these sites; with the understanding that future work may reveal the need for differentiation between similar cropmark and earthwork forms across northern England. In particular that settlement forms considered to date to the late Iron Age or Roman periods may emerge later in some areas such as Cumbria.

PROBLEMS WITH THE SETTLEMENT RECORD The sites recorded here are as true a report as are available to this study but they cannot be considered a complete record or picture of late Iron Age and Roman settlement in northern England. There are a range of factors affecting the number of sites found and the way they are reported across the area of study. These must be taken into consideration when reviewing the known settlements and settlement patterning of northern England. Archaeology The primary difficulty with the settlement record is the variation in archaeological investigation across the area. The difficulties of Aerial Photography have already been discussed in detail but the relevant factors here are the differences in land-use across northern England. As a result, crop marks are far more likely to be observed in the north-east and on the Solway Plain. This results in a lack of continuity in the number of sites recorded across the area which affects the reliability of results. In addition variations in the type and intensity of fieldwork also impact upon the settlement record. Areas which are easier to excavate, such as lowlands, may be more attractive to investigation whilst large earthworks and monuments have attracted more excavation than smaller less imposing sites. In addition investigation can concentrate on areas where some settlement is already known, such as Glencoyne Park and in the Tees Valley.882 Such locally or regionally focused archaeology creates an excellent database for some areas but to this study these may appear as anomalies in the data with apparent concentrations of settlement actually representing greater fieldwork. Equally this fieldwork, whilst creating discontinuity in the available record, highlights the potential for the presence of far greater numbers of settlements across northern England than have so far been recognised. This in turn indicates that the findings of this chapter may be rendered invalid by additional fieldwork across the area.

Recording and access The information in this chapter is drawn from a number of sources. The main source of information has been the ADS which provides a searchable online database containing the NMR and information from many SMR’s and HER’s as well as more localised organisations such as National Park authorities. In addition other online resources relevant to individual counties such as the County Durham and Northumberland ‘Keys to the Past’ database were included to broaden the scope of the information available to this study. Although the internet is a very useful source not all SMR’s and, in particular, HER’s are represented and therefore the individual county units were also contacted to request information which may not yet be available online, 884 especially that for sites which have been the subject of recent investigation. Further records were obtained from Lancashire, Cumbria, Northumberland, North Yorkshire, Durham, Tees Archaeology and the Lake District National Trust.885 Although as much as possible has been done to include sites in county SMR’s and HER’s there is no guarantee that these records are up to date and there is likely to be a backlog of reports awaiting inclusion on county databases. This is an unavoidable difficulty but should be recognised as having a potential impact on the completeness of the settlement sites considered here. In an attempt to mitigate against the difficulties with keeping HER’s up to date this study has also consulted the Bournemouth Archaeological Investigations Project

A lack of excavation means that many sites are identified by the presence of earthworks or cropmarks alone. Inevitably there are some dangers to identifying such sites as settlements and to dating them. Without further investigation sites tend to be categorised as Iron Age or Romano-British settlements. In reality there is a lack of direct evidence for this and indeed work in Littendale has

883

Jones, B. ‘The North West and Marginality Their Fault or Ours? A Warning from the Cumbrian Evidence’ in Nevell, M. Living on the Edge of Empire. Manchester University, Manchester. 1999. pp. 90-95 884 As with County Durham where only a portion of the SMR has been included on AHDS 885 My grateful thanks are due to the county and organisation archaeologists who have very kindly given of their time and help in making me aware of sites which may not be found on the ADS and those which may not yet have been recorded onto SMR’s.

882 Glencoyne: Loaney, H. and Hoean, A. (2003) pp.51-65. Loaney, H. and Hoean, A. 2004 (pp.39-55). Tees Valley: Harding, D. W. (1979) pp.21-30, Still, L. and Vyner, B.E. (1986) pp.11-24

97

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Whilst any findings related to settlement patterns are open to question and are affected by difficulties in archaeological practice, subsequent recording and access, and new discoveries, there is still value in the discussion of known settlement density and patterning. Assessment of the spread of settlements may indicate the presence of variation in settlement density and patterning which may not be related to the problems discussed here or to geographical features within the area, such as mountainous or waterlogged ground, and may thus represent true variations in settlement patterning.

which aims to record all archaeological investigations including Grey Literature from 1982 and is currently up to date to 2006.886 The AIP is able to record excavations which have not yet been included in county SMR’s and HER’s and is therefore a useful source of information on recent excavations in the area of study. The existence and difficulty of accessing Grey literature is a problem affecting the process of recording settlement sites in northern England. This study includes sites in the public domain and available through the NMR, SMR’s, HER’s and specialist authorities however older Grey Literature, held by private archaeology companies, university archaeology departments, local archaeological societies and businesses has been largely unavailable. Although a search of Grey Literature has been carried out using the Bournemouth AIP database this only includes Grey literature from 1982 and even within this period the data may not be complete. This inevitably means that there may be an unknown number of settlement sites across northern England which have not been included in the data used for this work. This is a difficulty which cannot be overcome until the grey literature record is made more freely available. Projects to do this are underway with the publication of a grey literature archive on ADS; however it will be some time before a full record of grey literature is available.

METHODOLOGY A database of Iron Age and Roman native settlement sites was created using ADS, local units and the Bournemouth AIP service all of which are discussed above. New excavation is being undertaken all the time and this study recognises that there can never be a complete record of settlement in northern England. However the approach taken aims to record as large a data set as possible at the current time. Using the information available a database of sites was created listing name, position, type, level of investigation and references.887 This information was then plotted onto the OS map system using OS Memory Map (Map 2).888 Possible variations in the distribution and density of settlement were then observed from these maps. The areas which emerged from this assessment are initially defined here and are discussed in numerical order working, as far as possible from east to west across northern England (Map 3). The effects of variation in archaeological investigation and visibility and of geographical and topographical features are also assessed to establish the validity of any patterns noted. Possible conclusions have then been drawn in relation to those areas where the patterns noted cannot be explained by factors affecting the available data sets.

Although steps have been taken to include all of the Iron Age and Romano-British settlement sites in northern England for which there is information in the public domain it is important to highlight the fact that variations in the amount and quality of the evidence will inevitably affect the reliability of the findings in this chapter. The variation in the intensity and effectiveness of archaeological techniques employed in northern England mean that the current record cannot be regarded as complete, particularly in areas where landuse affects the visibility of sites on aerial photographic survey. As a result the conclusions reached here are open to change at any time. Indeed without doubt the findings of this work in relation to settlement patterns and densities will be affected by ongoing work to publish Grey Literature, update local and national records, excavate new sites and gain a deeper understanding of the dating of cropmarks and earthworks across northern England.

The areas noted are initially discussed in terms of their modern geographical setting. It is recognised that this is not ideal; however it appears to be the most sensible method of clearly identifying the extent and approximate observed borders of each regions. Thereafter each observed area will be referred to by regional number.889

886

http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/aip/aipintro.html. This project aims to improve access to details of excavations carried out since 1982 and, in particular, to enable access to Grey Literature such as reports of excavations carried out by companies for private individuals and companies in advance of building projects. The purpose of the project is to chronicle archaeological investigative work in both the planning and development control sector, and work undertaken purely within a research context. This incorporates pre-planning determination deskbased assessments; field evaluations; environmental assessments for which archaeological work was undertaken; and post-planning determination and non-planning related investigations such as open area excavations, watching briefs, recorded observations, the archaeological recording of standing buildings, test-pit programmes, and systematic surface collection programmes. Archaeological investigations that form part of research programmes are also included.

887

See Appendix A Memory-Map OS Edition Version 5.1.3, Build 716. Copyright (c) 2005, Memory-Map Inc 889 For details of the settlements used in this study see Appendix A 888

98

CHAPTER 4: SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION AND PATTERNING

Map 2. Distribution of Iron Age and Roman native settlements in northern England area. This is likely to have masked or destroyed archaeological remains whilst others may now be buried beneath later development. Nonetheless the lack of evidence from this area would indicate that whilst there may have been some settlement it is likely to have been rather limited.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNING IN NORTHERN ENGLAND Region 1 The northern Durham plateau, stretching roughly 15km north between the area discussed above and the river Tyne,890 is practically without settlement and it appearsthat the Tyne and its southern drainage basin acted as a distinct northern boundary to the area of dense settlement on the south Durham plateau. To the south the Tees-Wear watershed creates another boundary between the dense settlement on the south Durham plateau and a slightly different pattern to the south in the Tees Valley.

The particularly severe impact of later development on the archaeology of the area makes it difficult to assess the nature of this region. It is therefore possible that it could have been a part of region 2 from which the archaeology has now been masked by later development. Region 2

This area just below the northern border of this survey lacks evidence for native settlement. Although this could have been an empty region it seems more likely that the apparent absence of Iron Age and Roman settlement has more to do with the large scale later development of this

North of the watershed between the river Tees and the river Wear the south Durham area is characterised by relatively dense settlement. There are 36 settlements in this area of approximately 600km² averaging five per 10x10km square but with three particularly densely populated grid squares (NZ 10,30; 20,40; 3,3) situated on the Wear and its main tributaries containing between eight and ten settlements in each. However it must be

890

Beyond the Tyne the territory is attributed to the Votadini. See eg. Cunliffe, B. (2005) p.195-7 and 208-9

99

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

Map 3. Overall regions observed in this study (those thought least affected by variations in archaeology are shown in bold) archaeological preservation may have been directly affected by the substantial later development of this area.

borne in mind that this apparent settlement density may be due to the greater visibility of settlements on the arable lands of this region.

A further reason for suggesting differentiation from region 2 is based on variations in settlement type and development. These appear markedly different to any other in the north. Whereas the settlements on the Durham plateau were numerous but small in scale, those in the Tees Valley were large and include all the largest settlements known in northern England while new sites of considerable importance are emerging regularly. Good examples of these large settlements are the sites at Catcote (NZ 490,315) and Thorpe Thewles (NZ 390,240) whilst the area also includes the exceptional oppidum site of Stanwick (NZ 182,116), which could have supported many people and would have directly controlled a large part of the territory around it.891 Three other recently discovered sites in this region are also of remarkable character and importance. Stanwick is likely to have been the primary site during the Late Iron Age but recent discoveries of two Iron Age and Roman villages at Brotton give an important indication of settlement development in the pre-Roman Iron Age and Roman

Above and below this area the settlement pattern changes. The northern Durham plateau is discussed above and may have been a part of this region or may have acted as the northern boundary of the more densely settled area in southern Durham. To the south the Tees-Wear watershed appears to create another boundary between the relatively dense settlement of this region and the very different character of settlement in region 3. Region 3 In the Tees Valley, below the area of fairly concentrated settlement outlined above, the pattern changes. Here the settlement patterning is more varied with some relatively dense squares and others wholly or virtually empty. This area running from the river Swale at Catterick to the northern Tees watershed and out to the lowland near the mouth of the Tees is characterised by slightly less dense settlement on the lowland to the east and north of the North Yorks Moors. This land was rich and despite a similar potential for aerial photography as that of region 2 it appears to have been rather more sparsely populated, although field work continues to indicate new sites and

891 For detailed information on the settlements of Catcote and Thorpe Thewles see Long, C. Catcote Iron Age and Roman Farm. Cleveland County Archaeological Section, Middlesbrough. 1989 and Heslop, D. H. (1987)

100

CHAPTER 4: SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION AND PATTERNING periods.892 In addition a large village site at Sedgefield which developed after AD 150 and a settlement at Street House, Loftus, which has revealed both Iron Age and Roman occupation and a high status, possibly even royal, Anglo Saxon cemetery, indicate the continuity of high status settlement in the region long after the apparent decline of the Stanwick Oppidum.893 Indeed the village sites at Brotton and, in particular, the Roman period development of the village at Sedgefield, are evidence for levels of settlement development in the Iron Age which continued into the Roman period and are seen nowhere else in northern England.

the valleys where conditions were considerably better and the soil could support both crops and grazing stock. The majority of settlements, which have mainly been identified though aerial photographic surveys,894 are to be found on the northern edge of the moors in Kildale (NZ 60,00) and Westerdale (NZ 60,10). A number of querns representing evidence of consumption and therefore probable settlement are also found in Fangdale (SE 56, 94) to the west and in the northern and north-eastern valleys running down from the high ground at the top of the moors.895 The southern boundary of the area is not as definite. There is a gap in settlement running along the highest part of the North Yorks Moors and this probably divides the area from that to the south. However, given that settlers would naturally have avoided this terrain it is possible that settlement to the south, on the ground running down to the Vale of Pickering, may also be included in the region. If this is the case then the southern boundary of this area is marked by the appearance of the barrow cemeteries on the low ground of the Vale of Pickering known as the Carrs.896

The northern boundary of this area is suggested as the watershed between the tributaries draining into the Wear and those draining into the Tees. To the west it is marked where the land begins to rise towards the Pennines and to the east by the coast. The southern boundary of the area runs along the northern edge of the North Yorks Moors, again delineating the lowland from the rising ground. At the western edge of the North Yorks Moors the southern boundary of region 3 appears to continue westwards in a roughly straight line until it meets the western border at the edge of the Pennines. There is no geographical feature to indicate this division but below it settlement becomes virtually non-existent. A feature of some interest on this suggested border is the concentration of settlements around Catterick (SE 234,981). Catterick, well known as a Roman fort, town and river crossing, appears to have been of some importance throughout prehistoric times and may have been a crossing point for the river Swale throughout the Iron Age. From Catterick the Swale runs west towards the Pennines and it is possible that it formed the southern boundary of this area of settlement. Assuming the southern border of the Tees Valley area was an east-west line from the north of the North Yorks Moors across to the Swale where it changes course from flowing roughly east to flowing south-east and then along the Swale to the Pennines, then the concentration of settlements at Catterick, on what may have been a prehistoric site and river crossing, may mark the southern ‘gateway’ to this area.

The problem with accepting the more southerly boundary of the North Yorks Moors area is that archaeological sites of the southern slopes include a few barrows and cart burials, both of which have been associated with the population living to the south of the area and for whom an identity may be associated with the Parisi although this is an area of debate.897 It seems possible that this area on the descending southern slopes of the North Yorks Moors and the low ground of the Vale of Pickering may have been a zone of transition belonging to neither area in particular, and inhabited by native people some of whom identified themselves with those dwelling to the north and others who identified with people in the south. The area is hard to explain but the former hypothesis may be more likely and thus the highest point of the North Yorkshire Moors may mark the southern boundary of this area. Region 5 The very low lying area around the eastern Vale of York is not densely settled but nevertheless it is notable for containing considerably more evidence for settlement than the western part of the Vale (region 6). The region

Region 4 The rising ground around the North Yorks moors is generally lacking in settlement and marks a border around this area clearly separating it from territories to the north and west. The moors themselves are not devoid of settlement although they appear to have been sparsely populated. The tops of the hills were wet, cold, exposed and covered in peat. Deforestation of the area is thought to have taken place in the earlier Iron Age leading to leaching of the soils and the creation of peat. The ground was now marginal and it is no surprise that no evidence for settlement has yet emerged on the high ground of the Moors. Instead settlement seems to have concentrated in

894 Still, L., Vyner, B. E. and Bewley, R. (1989) pp.1-10, Riley, D. N. (1976) pp. 13-17; Riley, D. N. (1978) pp.21-4; Wilson, P.R. (1995) pp.69-78 895 Hayes, R. H., Hemingway, J. E. and Spratt, D. A. (1980) pp.297-324 896 Mytum, H. (1995) pp.31-37 897 Bevan has questioned a clear tribal identity for these people: Bevan,B. (1997). pp.181-191 In particular he questions the use of barrows as evidence for the presence and extent of a particular ‘tribal’ identity in this area: Bevan, B. ‘Land-Life-Death-Regeneration: interpreting a middle Iron Age landscape in eastern Yorkshire’ in Bevan, B. (ed.) Northern Exposure: interpretative devolution and the British Iron Age. Leicester Archaeology Monographs 4, Leicester 1999. p.124 However he does accept the limitation of ladder settlements, long distance dykes and square barrows to Yorkshire East of the Rivers Ouse and Derwent and Bradley discusses the anomalous nature of the Arras culture of East Yorkshire and stresses that this area does stand out although the identity of its inhabitants and the extent of their territory may not be as certain as has previously been thought. Bradley, R. (2007) pp.263-268. See Also Stead, I. M. (1991).

892

For references see Appendix A. Sedgefield is discussed in chapter 3 above p.54. Street House has not been fully published but some further information is available on: http://www.teesarchaeology.com/new/StreetHouseInDepthInfo.html

893

101

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE A reasonable number of querns have been found in this area.898 However their longevity, and dating difficulties mean that they are unlikely to have all been in use at the same time and therefore they cannot be used to indicate population size. In addition the vast majority had been removed from their original find spots and were identified when performing secondary uses as building materials and in garden features. For this reason, the recorded positions of querns do not indicate the site of their original Iron Age and early Roman use and they cannot be used to find patterns of settlement in the area. Querns do, however, give some evidence of land use. In East Yorkshire there are enclosures, field systems and trackways in great profusion.899 All of this evidence indicates an economy with at least a strong basis on pastoral farming although some arable production almost certainly took place. The area under discussion here has practically no trackways, enclosures or field systems and the numbers of querns indicate that it was used for large scale arable crop production. This variation may be due to differences in the potential for aerial photography; however the process is usually more effective on areas of arable landuse, which continues to be the case in this region, and should therefore be relatively successful. Since querns indicate consumption and not production it is not possible to tell whether the crops produced here were exported out of the area or used solely within it; however cereal crops must have made up a good part of the diet in this area. Evidence for land use cannot be used to indicate the presence of a specific community but a population whose lives were governed by the arable year are likely to have lived quite differently to one governed by the pastoral year.

remains prone to flooding even in modern times and therefore permanent settlement in the Iron Age and early Roman period is likely to have been limited to slightly higher and less waterlogged ground. Furthermore modern landuse tends towards pasture which adversely affects the visibility of cropmarks in the area. The settlements in the eastern part of the region are all on very low ground and are therefore likely to have been liable to flooding. It may be that these sites were not areas of permanent habitation and that they were only used in the summer for transhumance when water levels were sufficiently low to make the land accessible. The region is bounded by lack of settlement to the west and north-west and the southern edge of the Wolds in the north-east. To the east, the border of this area appears to lie on the river Derwent whilst that to the south is roughly delineated by the course of the river Aire. Region 6 Yorkshire west of the North Yorks Moors and the western Vale of York is almost entirely devoid of settlement evidence. The northern edge of the area is marked by the southern boundary of the Tees valley area and its southern edge is marked by the confluence of the rivers Swale and Ure. The region is clearly bounded east and west by the western edge of the North Yorks Moors and the eastern edge of the Pennines and creates a marked contrast between the apparently more densely settled areas to the north and south of the area. Almost the only settlement yet identified is on the higher ground in the far west of the area where a limited number of settlements stretch in a fairly linear pattern from Grassington Moor on fairly high ground on the eastern edge of the Pennines. The rivers Ure, Swale, Whiske and Nidd all run through this low lying area and it is likely that these rivers made the lower lying land at the east of the area too wet or prone to flooding for permanent habitation. In addition the area may also be affected by variations in archaeological visibility. The area contains both low and high ground and the former is affected by both later development and the lesser potential for aerial photography on pasture. Thus variation in the potential for site discovery may explain the presence of sites only in the higher, western area of this region.

Region 8 An apparently virtual void in settlement is to be found on the high land at the upper end of Wensleydale and in Swaledale where there are less than five settlements in seven 10x10km squares, many of which have no settlements at all. This area is linked to the uninhabited land of the north Pennines (region 11) with the Stainmore pass (NZ 80,10; 90,10), itself high and exposed, passing between the two. The more southerly uninhabited area described here is not as high as that to the north, with most peaks not much above 700m but the windy and exposed nature of the area would have made it difficult to settle. However it should also be noted that this area has not experienced the same level of archaeological investigation as the more lowland regions of the study area. It is therefore possible that the apparent lack of settlement in this area is a result of variation in fieldwork and that some settlement may indeed have existed here. It is certainly likely to have been used at least for summer pasturage and more detailed archaeological investigation may reveal greater evidence for settlement.

Region 7 To the south of the river Wharfe at the end of Wharfedale, Airedale and Rombalds Moor is a small area of higher land between 200 and 400 metres with a settlement pattern markedly different to that in the western Vale of York. No southern boundary is given for this area because it borders and may cross the southern edge of the region of study and thus the limit of settlements considered in this study. Settlements themselves remain few and far between but are not confined to one particular area although there are more to the east than to the west. The area is also remarkable for the particularly high numbers of querns, which indicate the presence of settlement even when no other evidence has been recorded, recovered from across the area.

It is possible that the land could have been used had population pressure reached extreme levels; thus pushing 898 899

102

See discussion in chapter 3 Bevan, B. (1999) p.126

CHAPTER 4: SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION AND PATTERNING density, to the high pasturage around Malham, Ingleborough (SD 742,738) and above and west of Grassington (SD 997,648) in the summer.

people to the limits of possible settlement but this does not currently appear to have been the case. The lack of settlement evidence on this high but not impossible land indicates that the Iron Age and early Roman population of the north did not reached a level where the population was too large for the available easily habitable land.

Region 10 A pattern of dense highland settlement similar to that described above is seen in and to the south of Wensleydale. It seems likely to the author that the inhabitants of this area may also have used these highland settlements in the summer and moved into the more sheltered valleys in the winter. If this was the case then the number of settlements is again likely to give a misleading indication of the population size, which was probably relatively small. The population of this area may have been connected with that of Grassington and Ingleborough or possibly upper Wharfedale. However it is more likely that these settlement patterns represent the presence of only a limited number of people who may not have had extensive communication with settlements outside of their valleys.

Region 9 The area of dense population around and to the east of Malham Tarn (SD 894,669) is bounded on the west by the edge of the Pennine scarp, on the north by the increasingly high and bleak lands of the central Pennines and on the east by the marshy and uninviting zone noted above. In the south the region is likely to include the area of land between the Pennine hills and the river Ribble, some of which is relatively low. This region, stretching from Grassington in the east to Ingleborough hillfort in the west, is characterised by a settlement density and similarly large numbers of enclosures; visible as earthworks on aerial photography and also identified through geophysical survey, seen nowhere else in northern England.900 The land around Malham Tarn and Grassington has been the subject of aerial investigation and a recent geophysical survey, and the land is very favourable to obtaining good aerial photographic results.901 The area stands out but rather than being anomalous the survey work carried out in this area means that the results obtained are likely to be indicative of settlement density across much of northern England, certainly on the higher ground. As such the data from this region is further evidence that the settlement density data available from northern England should be treated with caution and that the number of known sites may be only a fraction of the true figure. The area, particularly that around and just to the east of Malham tarn contains a great many settlements and enclosures and, given the relatively high, exposed nature of the whole region from here to Ingleborough this density is hard to explain if these settlements were permanent. A possible explanation for the incredibly dense settlement patterning observed at Malham is that the area was not inhabited all year round but was instead used for summer pasturage, although without further excavation this cannot be more than a suggestion. If this was the case then the apparent numbers of settlements can be explained by the need to rebuild temporary shelters on a relatively regular basis and, given the nature of transhumance, the likelihood that the pastoralists may have changed location each year according to the quality of grazing and availability of water at the time. Thus a very much smaller population than the numbers of settlements would at first suggest could very well have inhabited this area; moving from the lowland east of the Ribble and perhaps some of the other valleys bordering the area in the winter, where there is evidence for some settlement but not a high population

Region 11 The high north Pennines represent an almost complete void in terms of settlement in northern England and this comes as no surprise. This area stretches from the edge of the Whin Sill, later used as the line of Hadrian’s Wall, in the north to the Stainmore Pass in the south, and is bordered on the east by middle Weardale, Teesdale and on the west by the Vale of Eden. It contains some of the highest land in northern England with high peaks such as Cross Fell (NY 688,335) at 893m above sea level and very little ground under 500m. The only settlements in this area are clustered in the valley of upper Teesdale on the very slightly more protected land that this provided. The rest of the area is high, exposed and prone to early and long lasting snowfall. The soils are made up of poor quality peat which can support only rough grazing and the only animals which can be kept successfully on the hills are sheep. Such an unappealing area would have been used only if there was nowhere else to go and, given that none of the north-east appears to have been particularly densely populated let alone over populated, it is not at all unexpected to find a near total lack of evidence for human activity in this area. Having said this the difficult conditions in the area have also led to a lack of fieldwork and it is possible that further archaeological investigation will reveal hitherto unknown settlement sites. Region 12 In contrast to the total lack of settlement on the high land to the east and south and the sparse settlement to the west the Upper Eden Valley, an area of relatively low land surrounded by hills on all sides but the north, is relatively densely populated. Here settlement runs in a roughly linear pattern north-west from the upper end of the Eden valley to the confluence of the rivers Eden and Lowther to the east of what is now Penrith (NY 585,309). North of

900

St Joseph, J. K. (1977) p.125-61 St Joseph, J. K. (1977) p.125-61. There has been some recent geophysical survey but this is unpublished: Thompson, J. The Grassington Project 2000. University of Durham Undergraduate Thesis, 2000. (Unpublished) 901

103

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Given the hard boundary noted above it seems unlikely anyone living in the Middle Eden Valley considered themselves connected with people to the south. It is more likely that if such an association was considered desirable they may have identified in some ways with communities on and around the Solway Plain. Region 13 may indeed have been connected to region 14 but the lack of settlement in the area mitigates against this.

this area settlement falls from an average of 5 settlements per 10x10km square, to none. Settlements tend to cling to the edges of the valley, suggesting that the valley bottom may have been wet, with particular concentrations at the higher southern end. It would appear that the point at which the river Lowther turns east to flow across country and into the Eden marks a boundary for settlement in the Upper Eden valley. The point at which the Lowther meets the river Eamont and changes course to the east was of significance in the prehistoric and later periods. The Bronze Age monument Long Meg and her Daughters stands near here (NY 567,370) as did the Roman fort of Brougham (NY 558,280).902 Eamont Bridge (NY 537,274), itself a site of considerable historical significance in the Anglo-Saxon period, is the crossing point of the Lowther at this point and given the significance of the area in prehistoric times and the decision to place a Roman fort here after the conquest it is likely that the same site was used to cross the river in the prehistoric period and was thus the gateway to the populous area of the Upper Eden Valley. The area around Penrith therefore appears to mark the boundary of this native group and the gateway to their lands. It is of note that Eamont Bridge was also the site where a treaty was signed between the rulers of Northumbria and England in 927.903 It would appear that the land to the north of Eamont Bridge lay in Cumbria, under the control of the kings of Strathclyde, and remained independent of England until the 11th century. The confluence of the rivers Eamont and Lowther at Penrith marked a very distinct border even as late as the Anglo-Saxon period and appears to have done so in the late Iron Age. Given this it would be reasonable to see this point and the line followed by the river Lowther across the Eden Valley until it flows into the river Eden itself as a significant, hard and long lasting boundary between inhabitants to the north and to the south of this area.

Region 14 The Solway plain appears to be a relatively densely populated area on the low fertile land between the Solway Firth and the northern scarps of the Cumbrian fells, however this may be a result of the higher potential for aerial photography in this heavily cultivated area.904 The western border of this area runs along the coast whilst the eastern edge is formed by the almost unsettled area of the Middle Eden Valley. Numbers of settlements vary with fewer than 2 or 3 per 10x10km square on the lowest land at the edge of the Solway, the lowest being only 1 or 2 metres above current sea level (NY 238,559); and over ten in the south-west of the area where the land was less liable to flooding and thus more suitable for arable farming. The area stands out from any around it for its density of population and levels of land use. Particularly high numbers of enclosures indicate stock management although field systems make mixed and arable farming likely, particularly where the land was slightly higher and less liable to flooding. Given the massive barrier of the Cumbrian fells to the south it is likely that people living on the Solway plain looked to the north rather than to the south for trade and contact. It would certainly have been easier to go north over water than south over mountains. This would indicate stronger social and economic connections with the communities of southern Scotland which were outside of the Roman Empire. Both the archaeological evidence and the fact that the area appears to have belonged to Scotland at some point after the end of the Roman conquest lend some support this idea.905 Although a link between the inhabitants of the Solway plain area and those of lowland Scotland is likely the Solway Firth does appear to mark the northern border of the intensively used area described here.906

Region 13 The southern border of this area, between the Upper and Middle Eden Valley areas, has been discussed above. The Middle Eden Valley, bordered on the east and west by the edges of the Eden Valley and to the north by the Solway Plain area discussed below, was apparently empty although the land itself is of similar topography to that of the Solway plain. It is possible that this area was forested in the late Iron Age and early Roman periods and thus was not suitable for habitation when better land, on the Solway plain, was available. Alternatively the lack of settlement in the area could have been artificially created to provide a clear space between regions 12 and 14.

Region 15 Given the patterns noted for other areas of high ground it is no surprise that the Cumbrian Mountains appear to have been sparsely populated although again they have not been the subject of a great deal of archaeological investigation. Sheltered valleys with some good soil and access to water mean that settlement is not totally lacking but it appears to be strongly influenced by the geography and topography of the area. The western Cumbrian fells are devoid of settlement which is not surprising since they contain many of the highest peaks in the Lake

902

Waterhouse, J. The Stone Circles of Cumbria. Phillimore, Chichester. 1985. pp.99-102; Brougham: Birley, E, ‘Materials for the History of Roman Brougham’ in Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 32, 1932. pp.12439, Summerson, H. R. T. Brougham and Brough Castles. English Heritage, London. 1999 903 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D (the Worcester Manuscript) 926. Swanton, M. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Phoenix Press, London. 2000. p.107

904

For further information see Bewley, R. (1994) See discussion of region 13 above. To the north settlement is restricted to hillforts see Appendix A (first sites in list) 905 906

104

CHAPTER 4: SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION AND PATTERNING District and are still one of the wettest places in the country.

Region 16 The difference between the settled area north of the river Lune and the almost depopulated area to the south has been highlighted above. Assuming the river Lune did mark a boundary, the territory to the south is of a markedly different nature. The region is almost devoid of habitation with just a few settlements currently known around the edge of the area. This area, stretching from the Lune in the north to the mouth of the Ribble in the south may be bordered by the river Ribble on the east as it flows south through Ribblesdale and then south-west towards the coast, and by the coast on the west, however the use of the river as a border is not certain.

To the east and particularly the south of this area settlement increases with three or four settlements per 10x10km square. The nature of the settlements in this area is interesting. In the central valleys around Borrowdale (NY 262,171), Thirlmere (NY 319,165) and Ullswater (NY 433,206) a number of the settlements are hillforts but there are far fewer on the leading scarps of the hills to the south and west of the Furness Fells (NY 286,004), leading down towards Morecambe Bay and to the east and south of Lake Windermere.907 It is possible that these more southerly areas represent a different community to that in the fells themselves but the difference can also be explained in terms of geography. Given the limited amount of usable land in the fells protection of territory would have been more necessary and would thus have demanded defensive settlements. Once outside these steep, narrow valleys there was more available space and defensive settlements would have been less necessary so long as population pressure did not exceed the capacity of the land. Where hillforts exist on the southern fells they appear to have continued in use through the late Iron Age and may represent focal places for the population.908

The topography of the area is varied. There is very low ground in the west which would have been marshy and prone to flooding; not an area to be used for settlement if there was a choice in the matter. Meanwhile the central and northern areas contain some high ground. It is possible that the whole of this area east of the marshlands to Ribblesdale was heavily forested and may not have been considered suitable for settlement when other areas were available. However the void in settlement may also be due to the pastoral landuse of the area which inhibits the effectiveness of aerial survey combined with a lack of excavation in the area.

The western edge of this area is marked by the high western fells and the coast, to the north it is marked by the edge of the Lake District hills and it is interesting to note that there are practically no settlements on these northern facing slopes. The aspect of these slopes, with limited sunlight and colder temperatures would not have encouraged exploitation. It is also possible that if there was a difference in identity between those people dwelling on the Solway plain and those dwelling in and to the south of the Cumbrian Fells the northern scarps of the mountains could have acted as a border land; unsettled by either group. The eastern edge of Region 15 abuts the western edge of the Upper Eden Valley area discussed above. To the south the border appears to run roughly parallel with the river Lune where it turns westwards and enters the sea at the mouth of Morecambe Bay and delineates this area from that to the south. The Lune cuts cross the narrow stretch of land here between the coast and the western edge of the Pennines. It is suggested that the border includes the river Lune and the settlements clustered on the rising ground on its eastern and southern banks where they would have been removed from any flooding risk. To the north of it is the settled area on the hills leading up to the Cumbrian mountains, to the south the land is virtually empty and is marked out by the radically different settlement pattern of region 16.

Although not at all dense there is more settlement known south of the Ribble, and that to the east has been discussed above. It would therefore appear that whatever the reason for the apparent lack of settlement in Region 16 it was not continued, or settlement is more easily visible, south of the river. The people living south of the Ribble may thus have considered this river to form the northern extent of their territory. Summary Analysis of late Iron Age and early Roman native settlement distribution and patterning in northern England has indicated the presence of a number of different regions and regional characteristics. These are summarised as follows:  Population not higher than sustainable limit of land – little indication of population pressure – some apparently less densely occupied areas could have been used if necessary.  Number of possible different regions o Large barriers – Pennines, North Yorks Moors, Cumbrian Mountains have also created distinct regions with apparently little in common. o Those without habitation can generally be explained through topography or likely geographical factors although region 14 may be more artificial. o Much is also explained by modern factors affecting archaeology i.e. in the potential for aerial photographic survey and by the lack of excavation in more marginal areas.

907 See Appendix A for settlements in this area and references: Grid references: NY 2781 1757, NY 2759 3408, NY 2972 0328, NY 2999 1880, NY 3425 3364, NY 3755 5850, NY 4144 0104, NY 410 309, NY 4145 0103, NY 4373 0097. See also Hogg, A. Hill-forts of Britain . Mac Gibbon, London. 1975. pp.117 and 119; Hogg, A. British Hill-Forts: An Index. BAR British Series 62, 1979; Forde-Johnston, J. Hillforts of the Iron Age in England and Wales: a survey of the surface evidence. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool. 1976. 908 Eg. Skelmore Heads SD 274 751. See also Mc Carthy (2004) p.7

105

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE  Settlement patterns may indicate different systems of government: o Only hierarchical settlement pattern, suggesting hierarchical society is Region 3 (Tees Valley). Region also stands out for the particular development of settlement in the Roman period. o Otherwise no clear hierarchy of settlements in the period of study although it is possible hillforts may represent focal points on the Furness Fells and in the upper Eden Valley if still in use – indicates the presence of different networks such as those based on familial alliances.  Inhabitants of different regions, especially where divided by large barriers, may have had different geographical identities although they may have shared in other collective identities such as religion.  No evidence for confederacy from settlement patterning and uninhabited areas combined with barriers render this possibility unlikely.  Although many variations in settlement can be explained by a combination of both natural barriers to settlement such as mountains and wetlands, and modern factors affecting settlement visibility and fieldwork, there are still some regional patterns which are worthy of particular note. o These are: 2, 3, 4, 12, 14 and possibly 15

population of northern England were living within the limits of the accessible land without having to try and use less habitable areas. Out of the regions noted in this chapter a number may be explained by a combination of geography and archaeological visibility and traditions. The apparent settlement patterns from these areas do not give any real indication of the presence of different communities. Examples of these areas are, in particular, the sparsely settled regions 8, 11 and 16 and possibly also regions 1 and 6. However several areas do emerge with specific features which mark them out and indicate that they may have been inhabited by communities with differing identities. Region 2 is an area with good potential for aerial survey and no specific barriers to archaeology. It is marked out by an apparently empty region to the north and a particularly unique settlement pattern to the south, region 3 discussed below. Region 2 appears relatively densely settled but there is, as yet, no evidence for a hierarchy in settlement. Indeed those sites known to this point appear to be small and have revealed no evidence for variation in status. The nature of the settlement pattern in this area, where sites are quite numerous but well spaced, indicates possibly very localised links within and between family networks as the population do not appear to have chosen to live in larger communities. The inhabitants of this region may have recognised marriage networks and may have participated in more localised social hierarchies, although this does not mean that they could not also have retained some sort of larger regional identity and indeed other identities. However these are not reflected in the settlement pattern, which points towards a relatively isolated and possibly egalitarian society.

Conclusions Variation in the discovery of sites across northern England means that areas of dense and light settlement in the region may be a result of more ‘modern’ factors rather than being true patterns. This must be borne in mind but some important factors and regional differences still arise from the data in this chapter. This chapter has noted the possible significance of some geographical features. In particular the large physical barriers of the Pennines, the Cumbrian mountains and the North Yorks Moors may have acted to divide communities although this is not to say that communication did not take place. Indeed it would be sensible to assume that some trade and communication did take place between communities separated by these barriers and both may have taken some ‘ownership’ of the hills between them, certainly they are likely to have used them for grazing lands, but it is difficult to argue that these massive and difficult features were not seen by populations as features which helped to form their specific group identity. Indeed this study has noted that in region 4, the moors appear to have held a population who may have chosen to use their geographical surroundings to increase their insularity, and the settlement patterning may support this suggestion. The major hills and mountains of the region also give some indication of population pressure in northern England. The lack of settlement currently known from the most marginal lands of the study area indicates that the population of the region of study had not exceeded the sustainable yield of the land. The inhabitants of northern England do not, as yet, appear to have been forced onto more difficult areas such as the high, exposed hills and this indicates that the

Region 4 again consists of small settlements. In this region there are factors affecting the discovery of sites but an extensive programme of aerial survey has been carried out and there is little damage from later activity. In this area the settlements appear to be constricted within the rising slopes of the moors and there is a margin of unoccupied land between them and the lowlands. These would naturally attract settlement and yet do not appear to have been widely used if at all. Settlement sizes and forms in region 4 appear broadly similar to those of region 2 with no current evidence for hierarchy in settlements. Again the inhabitants of this area may have been part of social networks, perhaps linked by marriage and family, and are likely to have participated in a range of collective identities but there is no evidence for hierarchy of any sort in the settlement evidence. The same may be true of region 15. This is not certain but the settlement pattern is again influenced by the geography of the area and it is possible that the community of this area may have been similar to that suggested for region 2. That regions 2 and 4 are highly unlikely to be linked is suggested by the particular character of region 3, The Tees Valley area, which stands out from the entirety of northern England. This region has good potential for 106

CHAPTER 4: SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION AND PATTERNING continuity of high status settlement in the area. All of these findings indicate a community living in region 3 in both the Iron Age and Roman periods with a specific identity different from any other in northern England even if they shared in others. They appear to have been outward looking and involved in economic networks large enough to support the development of villages and industrial activity; in particular salt production, which could have been used for long distance trade supporting both economic and political connections. The level of development in this region evidenced by the range of large and important Iron Age settlement types, the presence of a settlement hierarchy, and the growing evidence for the continuity and development of villages and even villas into the Roman period indicate the important and ongoing social, economic and political status of the population living in this area. Such an area stands out from the rest of the region of study and this is likely to have been reflected in their collective identity.

aerial photography which has also been supported by fairly extensive excavation. Settlement is not as dense at that of region 2 but the difference is not major. What is particularly noticeable is the evidence for the presence of important settlement developments in this region during the Iron Age and Roman periods. Large sites include Thorpe Thewles and Catcote whilst the oppidum site at Stanwick is unique in northern England. In addition recent archaeology has revealed the presence of Iron Age villages with industrial activity at Brotton and the development of a fairly large Roman village at Sedgefield which may be a type site for similar developments in northern England. Such development of communities and large high status sites indicates a very different community. The patterning indicates that a developed settlement hierarchy based around Stanwick existed in the Iron Age. This evidence is supported by the work of Gill Ferrell who has investigated the development of hierarchies in the middle Tees Valley area and has suggested that identity may have been formed through independent units in the area choosing to combine forming the hierarchy focused on Stanwick that has been noted here.909

Regions 12, 13 and 14 are also of note here. Region 12 appears to have a distinct northern border on the River Eden and River Lowther at Penrith. Settlement in the area is concentrated at the southern end of the valley and on the higher ground away from land liable to flooding where the Eden runs through the centre of the valley. It is possible that the concentrations of settlement at the southern end of the valley may indicate the presence of some form of hierarchy however there is no certain evidence for this from the settlement sizing.

Meanwhile the development of the Roman town at Sedgefield and the possible high status site at Street House, Loftus, where there is evidence for continuity of status into the Anglo-Saxon period, reveal that the region continued to experience levels of social, political and economic development into the Roman period. The range of sites found together in region 3 mark this area out as one inhabited by a particular and unique community. Such development in the Iron Age indicates established political, economic and social networks and at least the economic networks in the region are likely to have been continued into the Roman period. The villages at Brotton and the oppidum site at Stanwick also strongly suggest that the communities of the Tees Valley were participating in long distance social and exchange networks well beyond the limits of the area in which these sites have been found. The continuity of several sites in the region such as Thorpe Thewles and the development of the Roman period site at Sedgefield all point towards the continuity of at least some elements of the community living in region 3 into the Roman period and perhaps, given the discovery of an Anglo-Saxon royal cemetery at Street House, even beyond. Another point to emphasise the continuity of the specific nature of region 3 is the development of villas in this region. The sites all developed too late for detailed consideration here but it is of particular note that several of the very few villas to have been identified in northern England have been found in region 3.910 These villas further indicate the

Region 14 is also an area of fairly dense settlement, particularly on the lowest land nearest the coast. This area has good potential for aerial photography which may explain the large numbers of settlements identified, however the area is bounded quite clearly and may represent a specific region. A point of particular interest is the vacant area between regions 12 and 14. There is no significant difference between region 13 and those of 12 and 14 and yet no settlements have been identified in this area despite a similar degree of visibility on aerial photography. The suggestion is that there was little or no settlement in the area and this is not easily explained through either natural or more modern factors. As a result it appears that region 13 may have been a form of artificial ‘empty’ zone between regions 12 and 14. If this is the case the settlement patterning across these three areas indicates that regions 12 and 14 may have been settled by communities with differing identities, although the structure of these communities is unclear and there is no reason to assume that no communication took place. It is possible that the communities of these regions may have had similar identities to those postulated for region 2. Whether or not this is the case, the settlement patterning

909

Ferrell, G. (1997) pp.231-236 Those known so far are Holme House Piercebridge: NZ 221 152 (www.barbicanra.co.uk), Ingleby Barwick: NZ 430 150 Still, D. A Roman Villa and Settlement at Ingleby Barwick, Stockton on Tees. University of Durham Archaeological Services Assessment and Evaluation Reports. 2006. (unpublished), Dalton on Tees: NZ 3008 0822 (Brown, J. Yorkshire Archaeological Society: Roman Antiquities Section Bulletin 16, 1999. pp.19-27) there is also a site which has been interpreted as a villa at Old Durham in region 2: NZ 280 410 (Wright, 910

R. P. and Gillam, J. P. ‘Second Report on Roman Buildings at Old Durham’ in Archaeologia Aeliana 29, 1951. pp.203-212). The presence of this site is somewhat anomalous but may represent later expansion north of either ideas or individuals from region 3.

107

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE strongly indicates a lack of hierarchy and the possibility of an egalitarian society for whom social status and identity does not appear to have been based on a hierarchical settlement pattern. The findings in this chapter cannot directly identify specific social groups and it would be unwise to suggest any regions with too much confidence, however the differences in settlement type and patterning indicate possible variations in the presence of social and political networks. These range from potentially highly localised social networks, to wider networks which although not apparently hierarchical may have maintained a less visible social structure, possibly based around marriage networks, and finally to the highly organised and developing social and political structure indicated by settlement patterns and types in the Tees Valley. Where the particular areas identified here link with those identified from variations in materials this may strengthen the suggestion of the presence of communities with differing identities. However it is recognised that identity could have existed on a number of levels local and regional, social, political, religious and economic and therefore members of communities could have held several different identities on varying scales. It is therefore unwise to suggest that the communities of any of the areas identified here lived lives totally isolated from those groups living around them. Despite this the particular differences discussed here are worthy of note and may indeed indicate the presence of social groups with differing identities on at least some levels. In particular, there is a marked difference between the northwest and north-east of England where the development seen in region 3 contrasts strongly with the lack of evidence for such development in the north-west; indeed it is possible that even the round house and enclosure settlement typically associated with the Iron Age and Roman periods may not have developed until the 3rd Century AD in parts of north-western England.911 These differences indicate the presence of communities with different identities living east and west of the Pennines even if no further distinctions can be proven. In addition there may well be differences of some form between the identities of the communities living in regions 2, 3, 4 in the north-east and regions 12, 14 and possibly 15 in the north-west. The individuals within these areas may have considered themselves to be part of a number of collective identities. However from the differences noted here it seems reasonable to suggest that in the regions highlighted in this conclusion the inhabitants may also have identified with a geographic or regional identity which helped to differentiate between themselves and communities living in other areas.

911

See introduction to this chapter and Jones, B. (1999) pp.90-95

108

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

terms of their use and development of materials and their response to Roman influence and Roman artefacts.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Analysis of the ancient sources containing mention of the Brigantes or any other Roman ‘tribe’ was carried out in order to assess the validity of these references as evidence for the presence of named native regional identities in northern Britain. Among the Roman authors only Ptolemy, in his Geography, indicates the existence of more than one native group in northern Britain. He names the Brigantes, Carvetii, Setantii, Parisi and Gabrantovices but without sufficient information as to their whereabouts to assign each to a definite space on any map. Among the other authors only the Brigantes are mentioned and here only Tacitus is sufficiently clear in his description to be speaking of a specific group rather than using the title as a generic term to describe most or all of the native population of northern Britain between the Humber and just south of the Forth.

This study has synthesised a wide body of evidence and the findings confirm previous observations of a paucity of evidence for romanisation, i.e. the adoption of imported and entirely new materials, artefacts and customs in northern England.912 With the sole exception of the Tees Valley area all other regions appear to have been affected either not at all or only very slightly and generally some considerable time after the conquest although whether this is through deliberate choice, disinterest, or lack of contact is uncertain. The possible use of Dragonesque brooches in native contexts as symbols of an allegiance to the traditional Iron Age ways of life and the continued use of native pottery forms are good examples of this continuity. Whilst there is little evidence for the adoption of Roman culture there is equally little for any forced changes to native British culture by the Roman authorities. Many settlements continued in use and there is no evidence to suggest a change of language was enforced although place-names may have been altered whilst remaining in the native language.913 Certainly the names of those sites which received recorded names were derived from Celtic roots whilst local deities such as Brigantia also appear to have been adopted into the Roman pantheon. The evidence that changes were not enforced upon the population indicates that any signs of romanisation i.e. the adoption of wholly new artefacts or customs on native sites may suggest an independent and deliberate decision on the part of the inhabitants to adopt elements of the new culture.

Although Tacitus does seem to be describing events affecting a specific group, the Brigantes, his description is of one event and two people, at a date that is uncertain but is likely to fall in the very late pre-conquest period. There is no information about the population before or after this period and thus their development and the nature of their society outside of what appears to have been a turbulent and thus abnormal period in their history is lacking. Furthermore it is important to bear in mind that Tacitus is unlikely to have had a clear understanding of the nature of social organisation in northern England and his concept of the term ‘tribe’ may not have borne a close resemblance to the reality of native identities in the late pre- and early post-conquest periods. In particular native identities are likely to have been far more complex and less fixed than a simple concept of regionally bounded societies and hierarchies enshrined in the term ‘tribe’, existing on a number of levels, at varying scales, and subject to change over time. The object of this book has been to investigate the evidence, if any, for a form or forms of regional identity based on the material cultural assemblages and settlement characteristics in the period of study.

If the inhabitants of northern England had been paying tax in silver coin in the conventional way then at least some small evidence for contact at the point of exchange, the purchase of romanised goods from a market town, is to be expected even from a conservative society with little interest in the new culture. This evidence need not necessarily be in the form of excess coin, since little early coinage has been discovered even from villa sites let alone native non-romanised settlements, but evidence for romanisation of any form is lacking in the case of a large number of sites in northern England and in particular those north of the Tees Valley and in the north-west. Such evidence would be the presence of Roman or romanised goods which could only have been purchased using Roman coinage. One explanation for this could be that once the inhabitants of these areas had exchanged coins obtained from the sale of their goods for the correct coinage to pay their taxes they had insufficient surplus to

Tacitus describes the Brigantes as controlling lands stretching from sea to sea and thus, of necessity, holding power over such other native groups as may have lived in the north, but the literary information alone is insufficient to bear out this assertion. In an attempt to go beyond the inadequate literary evidence an analysis of the pottery, metal, bone, querns and glass artefacts and materials from native sites in northern England was carried out. Each type of artefact revealed certain regional characteristics which, when drawn together, indicated the presence of several native groups with different characteristics in

912 913

109

Eg. Evans, J. (1995a and b); Hingley, R. (2004) and (1997b) See discussion in chapter 2

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE kind rather than coinage.917 Given the pattern of evidence from northern England, it is tempting to suggest that such a system was in operation in more peripheral areas in the period immediately following the conquest even though this is an inference which cannot be substantiated by clear proof. If this were the case it would mean that the native inhabitants were not part of a coin using society. Without access to coinage, the rural population could not have bought even small value items, and this would account for their absence from native sites. This therefore suggests that coinage was not generally adopted into the whole population as normally assumed but in northern England at least its use was confined to forts and urban areas.

buy new items. This is possible but it seems unlikely that no-one would have had enough surplus to buy the occasional small item at any time. Another explanation could be that these people were forcibly removed from their settlements shortly after the conquest: given the general Roman policy of non-intervention, however, there are no good grounds for asserting that any such removal occurred. Perhaps the most logical conclusion is that the inhabitants of these areas simply had no contact whatsoever with the Roman authorities, but this explanation too is not without its problems. If the native inhabitants of north-western and much of north-eastern England had no contact with Roman officials this either means they did not pay tax, an almost unique occurrence, or that they did not pay in the conventional way.

The information collated here is weakened in its reliability by a number of factors. The acidic soils across much of the area and later landuse have affected the survival and preservation of materials. This variation has been further exacerbated by differences in the nature and intensity of fieldwork across the region, which has affected the discovery and investigation of sites. As such the trends discussed here are open to debate and alteration by any new fieldwork. The weaknesses highlighted here must be born in mind when considering the findings of this study however, based on the data available at the current time, there is evidence to suggest a population with a variety of cultural identities living in different ways and with different values and social systems. The evidence has revealed only one potentially hierarchical system, in the Tees Valley (region 3). Many other inhabited areas are made up of small settlements indicating a potentially more egalitarian social system without a hierarchy or at least without one dependent on display and land ownership to reinforce status. The northwest of England, North Yorks Moors (region 4) and the area between the watershed of the Tees and the southern watershed of the river Tyne (region 2) are all examples of this. The artefactual evidence also indicates that members of the native populations of northern England did not regard many items in the same way. Use of pottery during the Iron Age varies from apparently aceramic societies (region 2 and the north-west) to those that produced their own regionally identifiable wares and, at an elite level, even used ceramics from the continent (region 3). During the Roman period new styles of pottery or the use of ceramics themselves were adopted but at different rates. Region 4 slowly adopted new styles of pottery into its existing locally produced forms, whilst the western Vale of York (region 6), which had been aceramic in the Iron Age, eventually adopted ceramic use but not until the third century. Use of metal items has a similarly varied pattern with highly romanised hoards from region 3, nothing in region 2 and the possible use of Dragonesque brooches as an overt symbol of loyalty to pre-Roman values, most especially in the north-west. In addition hoards from this area also indicate an egalitarian society where everyone may have had the ability to take part in

While there is no definite explanation as to why the native population of northern England, and particularly Cumbria, remained so distant from the Roman system, in comparison with post-conquest north Wales, where more work on the matter has been done, provides some interesting suggestions.914 Both areas have similar topography, settlement patterning and lack of evidence for clearly romanised goods on native sites and both remained under militarised control throughout the Roman period. In Wales, as in Cumbria, it seems highly unlikely that the native population simply moved, or were moved, away after the conquest. Both areas were in militarised regions and housed a large number of troops and it is therefore plausible that taxation in the form of supplies for the army was considered the most suitable form of payment. Hingley has suggested that, ‘in this area the Roman military may have taxed the population directly in kind and this could have prevented the development of surplus wealth by any local elite’.915 The findings of this study further support this theory, in particular with reference to northern England. As a result of taxation in kind, contact with towns, such as they were, would have been slight or virtually non-existent, since supplies were appropriated for the nearest fort or supply base. Those parts of the population paying taxation in a monetary form, on the other hand, were required to pay this at their civitas capital: this was a form of centre largely or completely absent from north Wales and northern England until at least the fourth century. The accepted view of Roman taxation in the early period is that it was the responsibility of the taxpayer to sell his produce and obtain coinage to change into silver coin for the purpose of paying his tax.916 There is no evidence for the payment of taxation in kind during the early period. The practice appears more frequently following the adoption of the Annona Militaris at some stage during the third century AD and it is fairly clear that in the third and fourth centuries AD taxes in peripheral areas were paid in

914

For further information see Arnold, C. J. Roman and Early Medieval Wales. Sutton, Stroud. 2000 915 Hingley, R. (2004) p.343. Mattingly also suggests that taxation may have been paid in kind in the early years Mattingly, D. (2006) p.496 916 Reece, R. (2002) p.39 and 115, Brickstock, R. (1995)

917 Casey, P. J. Roman Coinage in Britain. Shire, Princes Risborough. 1980. p.50, Brickstock, R. J. Coins and the frontier troops in the fourth century. (forthcoming) 2009

110

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ritual deposition and, from the contents of these hoards, where practical weapons and defence held a more important position than in the east where hoards contain items intended for display rather than use. Meanwhile bone and glass indicate at least an east/west split with evidence for faster adoption of new ideas in the Tees Valley than anywhere else, although this may have much to do with acidic soils and poor preservation outside of the area. Many apparently sparsely populated areas are associated with geographically difficult terrain. This evidence is affected by variation in fieldwork and settlement visibility on aerial photography; however more surprising is region 13, between the Eden Valley (region 12) and Solway Plain (region 14). Region 13 may possibly have been too wet for permanent settlement but if this was the case it would seem to indicate the presence of two native groups which considered themselves in some way regionally distinct, even if they may have been connected in other ways, and who maintained some form of borderland between themselves in the form of region 13. It is also possible that it was kept artificially empty to act as a border barrier between regions 12 and 14.

Age and Roman periods; the sole exception being the use of mortaria, but these occur in such numbers as to suggest that there was not an intention to use them for their original Roman purpose. In metalwork the north-east has evidence only from the Tees valley although it should be remembered that this may be a result of better preservation conditions in this area. The artefacts in the hoards from this area are heavily influenced by continental ideas and indicate a hierarchical society in which only the elite took part in deposition of artefacts. The metalwork from north-west England indicates an egalitarian society where most members of the population could take part in deposition. The artefacts from hoards are intended for use rather than display and would have been accessible to the majority of the population. In addition metalwork was locally made and much is Iron Age in nature throughout the pre- and postconquest periods; one particularly good example of this is the Dragonesque brooch. Designs again varied but whereas Irish elements were included on metalwork in the north-east this was not the case in the north-west: there, these are found on objects of bone rather than of metal. This may indicate a difference in the available materials but may also reveal a different approach to the adoption of new styles from that of the north-east which can also be identified in the absence of Roman influence upon the style and decoration of north-western metalwork. Animal bone, although scarce, follows the patterns seen in pottery and metalwork. The north-east sees the early adoption of new cattle breeds into the Tees Valley area shortly after the conquest. The ready adoption of new species indicates an innovative culture that was keen to adopt new ideas where these might be beneficial in some way. By contrast the traditional Celtic shorthorn cattle are retained on native sites in the north-west throughout the period of study. The conservatism and refusal to adopt new breeds seen in the north-west suggests that where metal and pottery appear to have been used as objects of status in the north-east cattle may have served this purpose in the north-west and the population may thus have resisted any change which might affect the appearance of their symbol of wealth and success.

Such divergent uses of artefacts, attitudes towards romanisation and varying patterns of settlement all indicate the presence of several native identities in northern England with regionally distinct characteristics in the late Iron Age and early Roman periods. These groups may have been connected in other ways and it is important to note that identities are both fluid over time and potentially overlapping in other, less visible ways, but they appear to display varying approaches to the Roman presence, from conservatism bordering on possibly deliberate avoidance to swift acculturation and through all points in between. The debate over the methods by which different native groups may be identified has been discussed in the introduction.918 Here it is relevant to restate that this work recognises that a grouping of artefacts does not, of necessity, represent the presence of a specific group. However, the author takes the line that it is reasonable to suppose some form of recognised distinction between two populations whose cultural assemblages exhibit marked differences even if they were connected by other, less visible, group identities.

Finally glass artefacts reveal an interesting preference for styles which fits with the patterning noted from other artefactual evidence. Type 2 bangles, a form produced in the north-east, possibly around York, are not found in the north-west. Meanwhile type 3 bangles, produced in the north-west and beyond the frontier, are not commonly found in the north-east. The glass evidence suggests stronger communication and contact between the inhabitants of the north-west and those people living beyond the Roman border than with the more romanised populations of the north-east, and the clear differences in approaches to a range of artefacts may add further strength to this argument. Presupposing the logic of identifying regional groups from their residual cultural

There are numerous marked distinctions in the artefactual collections from north-east and north-west England in both the late Iron Age and early Roman periods. During the late Iron Age north-east England had a range of cultures some of which were aceramic whilst others produced pottery. In addition the Tees Valley area was in receipt of imported Roman ceramics, which may have been part of a diplomatic gift. After the Roman conquest pottery was slowly adopted into most regions of the north-east although in some cases this took until the third century if it happened at all. In contrast much of the north-west remained aceramic throughout both the Iron

918

See introduction

111

North West England

Mixture of IA and Roman ceramic and aceramic – clear differences between 3 main areas (regions 2/ 3/ 4)

North East England

112

Possible difference region 16 (basic Roman vessels possibly curated and used for display)

Large numbers of mortaria- not serving original Roman purpose.

Aceramic in Iron Age and Roman periods.

Other than region 5 (a little like region 2) little other evidence.

Pottery

Region (as identified from settlement patterning)

Irish motifs on bone

Small but more widespread hoards inc. many weapons – indicates mass participation + anti-Roman feeling.

Irish motifs on metal IA motifs- High numbers of Dragonesque brooches – anti Roman.

Fewer Dragonesque brooches

Romanised/ large hoards

Metal from region 3 only

Metalwork

Lithology

Cattle bones indicate conservatism (retain Celtic Shorthorn) + importance of cattle as status symbols. Some late adoption of other new breeds.

Large areas Early introduction Quality of querns and of new breeds – distance transported innovative BUT fits apparent wealth bones only found of areas – poorest to in region 3 (also richest = 2, 4, 3 Parisi burial No info for other tradition but tribe regions not considered in this thesis)

Bone

Roman- preference appear to avoid type 2, only types found are type 3

Roman – preference for type 2

Glass

The majority if not all results are likely to be affected by variation in the nature and intensity of archaeological investigation. Where this may be a key factor it is noted.

Settlement pattern

TABLE OF ARTEFACT, MATERIAL AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNING COMBINED

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

No data

Aceramic Iron Age and Roman period

Iron Age ceramic tradition – based on East Yorkshire but with important regional differences. Also early imported Roman goods – trade and diplomatic gifts (Samian forms)

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Northumberlandonly mentioned here for apparent contact with NW – not considered in thesis as recognised territory of Selgovae and Votandini

113 Irish motifs used on metalwork

Large hoards inc. romanised and imported metalwork. Indicates only elite involved in deposition.

No metalwork

Early introduction of new species esp. new type of cattle. Possibly even LIA although unlikely. Indicates innovative society; owned cattle for profit not status. Expensive, good quality, imported stones esp. on high status sites- indicates regional wealth

Only poor, inexpensive, locally made stones

The individual regions

Type 1,2 and 3 (only area with type 1)

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of sites may be a result of good conditions for aerial photography.

Not numerous and fairly widespread. Large sites with hierarchy of settlements in size and wealth (prime site: Stanwick). Development continued after conquest with villas and small towns.

Small and quite densely packed. No evidence of hierarchy in size.

Probably a result of later development masking archaeology.

Lack of evidence. CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

114

Region 8

Region 7

Paucity of artefacts

Aceramic in Iron Age and most of Roman period. Some pottery in third century. Very slow adaptation to change

Paucity of Artefacts

Region 5

Region 6

Localised Iron Age ceramic industry. Forms unchanged until the later Roman period.

Region 4

Large numbers of quernstones recovered from this region.

Locally sourced good quality quernstones. Evidence of quern factories therefore some ability to trade.

Result likely to be affected by poor site visibility and lack of excavation.

General lack of settlement evidence. Few, unconnected, sites.

Result likely to be affected by poor site visibility and lack of excavation.

Sparse settlement pattern. Small sites. No evidence of hierarchy.

Result likely to be affected by poor site visibility.

Sparse settlement limited to western edge – higher, less waterlogged land.

Result may be affected by poor site visibility.

Some settlement. No evidence for settlement hierarchy.

Result may be affected by poor site visibility and lack of excavation.

Settlement restricted to sheltered valleys esp. northern edge. Ring of uninhabited land around North Yorks Moors cuts area off from surrounding territory. S. boundary unclear –possible zone of transition. ‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

115

Sole exception – large numbers of mortaria found on all sites. Use unclear – certainly not for original Roman purpose.

Region 13

Region 14

Aceramic in Iron Age and Roman periods.

Region 12

Particular popularity of Dragonesque brooches – Iron Age motifs on romanised item of jewellery probably used as statement of anti-Roman

Small hoards of poorer quality items. Numerous weapon burials. Lack of general ironwork.

Some late evidence for other new breeds (chicken and goat) – prepared to adopt

Celtic shorthorn found in Iron Age and Roman periods. No evidence for adoption of new breeds cattle – indicates cattle acted as symbol of social status.

Roman period – avoidance of type 2 (just 1 at Carlisle) – few bangles but all type 3 found outside of empire in southern Scotland but apparently avoided in the north-east. Indicates preference for items produced outside of empire.

Paucity of artefacts.

Region 11

Lack of finds – very few of any sort and nothing diagnostic. Indicates settlements not in permanent use.

Lack of finds – very few of any sort and nothing diagnostic. Indicates settlements not in permanent use.

Irish metalwork elements on bone items. Indicates contact with Ireland but clear difference with use of Irish motifs on metal in region 3

Region 10

Region 9

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Numbers of known settlements may be a result of good conditions for aerial photography.

Dense settlement. Small similarly sized sites. No evidence for hierarchy.

Result likely to be affected by lack of archaeological investigation. Relatively dense settlement. Similar site sizes with no apparent hierarchy. Clear northern boundary with region 13. No evidence for settlement.

Result likely to be affected by intensity of aerial survey work. General lack of settlement evidence. Few, unconnected, sites.

Result appears anomalous but may be indicative of the true level of settlement density across much of northern England; especially in higher areas such as the Pennines. Densely packed small sites. Indicates small population practicing transhumance similar to region 9.

Apparent very dense settlement on high land. Probably transhumance; summer settlements – often rebuilt with winter residence in valleys. Few settlements in valleys: indicates small population in reality.

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Region 16

Region 15

Aceramic in Iron Age. High numbers of mortaria. Some use of basic Roman ceramics apparently for display purposes – curated after breakage and no longer useable. Very few settlements make it difficult to assess implications of this if any.

feeling.

new ideas where useful.

Result may be affected by poor potential for aerial photography.

Known settlement may be affected by lack of excavation and poor potential for cropmark evidence. Almost no evidence for settlement except on very northern edge of this large region.

Sparse settlement in valleys – dictated by geography. Numerous hillforts – may indicate some need for defence.

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

116

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS assemblage,919 there is a strong indication that the populations living east and west of the Pennines in northern England had little in common and, in addition to identifying with other social, and religious identities on a range of scales, considered themselves as individuals to be part of at least two distinctive regional identities.

noted on aerial photography and has been dated by association rather than direct investigation.920 Given the factors affecting the survival and discovery of sites and archaeological assemblages in northern England it has been considered essential to include a wide range of artefacts and materials, and also to add some investigation of settlement diversity and patterning in order to give a broad picture of native society in late Iron Age and early Roman northern England. This work proceeds on the basis that differences in material cultural assemblages, which may in turn indicate the nature of settlement and society, can be used to indicate the presence of regional identities. Out of this synthesis several settled areas have emerged as apparently distinct in both archaeological assemblages and settlement patterning from those around them. It is these distinctive regions which will be discussed in this conclusion in relation to the suggestion that they may have been inhabited by populations who, at some point in the period of study, recognised some form of regional identity in addition to other potentially overlapping social, political and religious identities on a range of scales with which individuals may also have identified.

OVERALL CONCLUSION This study has sought to synthesise information on materials, artefacts and settlements from native sites in northern England. Ideally it would have been preferable to consult archaeological reports from all sites excavated in northern England in order to gather information on site finds; however recourse to these would have created a task beyond the scope of this work and would have required major narrowing of focus which would then have weakened the strength of the overall results. It was thus felt that the most successful approach would be to consult individual specialists in order to allow the widest possible coverage with the greatest degree of accuracy and understanding. It is understood that this may create difficulties in assessing the accuracy of the original information and, wherever possible, data has been checked against the original. However this approach allows a detailed coverage of a range of topics which, taken together, create a strong body of information from which to draw results and possible conclusions.

There appears to be no evidence for the presence of one all encompassing native group or regional identity in northern England during the late Iron Age and early Roman periods: on the contrary there are good grounds for asserting that entirely the opposite situation may have been the case. Use of settlement patterning and artefactual data has revealed several different regions which appear worthy of comment. The results are affected by variation in the quantity and nature of investigation but there is evidence to conclude that northwestern and north-eastern England were inhabited by peoples with entirely different regional identities.

The information presented here can never be a full record of finds and sites from northern England. In particular all conclusions are affected by variation in the nature and intensity of fieldwork across the area and by variation in soils, landuse and artefact preservation. It must thus be understood that there is, overall, a lack of fully excavated, published site information and many settlements from northern England have only been identified by aerial photography. This approach has been very effective in discovering previously unknown sites but is directly affected by landuse and development and therefore does not give uniform results across the region of study. In particular apparently empty areas of settlement may simply be a result of lack of visibility rather than representing true gaps in settlement. Variations in soils and landuse have also had a great impact on the survival of artefacts and materials where sites are known and excavated. In particular soil acidity has directly affected the survival of bone and metal whilst ploughing has affected the survival of friable materials such as pottery. These factors directly impact upon the reliability of any results discussed in this study and it is important to bear in mind that apparent variation may in fact be a result of outside factors rather than reflecting a true variation. In addition further fieldwork in the region of study may well change the picture of native, rural settlement in northern England, in particular the chronology of settlement, much of which has only been

These two large areas may be further broken down into smaller regions. The north-east can be split into three areas whilst a further three in the north-west are less well defined but may still indicate the presence of differing groups. Those areas which display the greatest potential evidence for regional identities are discussed in this conclusion. It is very difficult to attach a name to a region and indeed there is little evidence to prove that late pre- and early post- conquest populations of northern England identified with named regional groups even if they did acknowledge a regional identity. The concept of a tribal identity has been a matter for debate and it is unlikely that such units existed in northern England. As a result tribal names are likely to be an invalid concept. However names have been associated with northern England which may have had some significance to the Iron Age populations. Those names drawn from ancient literature which may have held some significance for the populations are discussed here in relation to the areas with which they may in some way have been associated.

920 919

These factors are discussed in detail in the introductions to chapters 3 and 4 above

See discussions in introduction and this chapter

117

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE One name in ancient literature has been indicated as having some significance in the north-east; the Gabrantovices.921 The name could belong to either region 2 or region 4. Previous suggestions have attempted to place the name anywhere between East Yorkshire and the Tyne which would include both regions. Ptolemy does, however, indicate that ‘Good Harbour’ was near the territory of the Parisi. There is now doubt over the association of this name with East Yorkshire, but if his information can be treated as in any way accurate and the name had any significance to the late Iron Age and early post-conquest population then it is possible that the ‘Gabrantovices’ can be associated with an area above but near East Yorkshire.922 Region 4 could easily have included at least one good harbour: that at Whitby, and would be a suitable suggestion for this regional identity if names may be associated with such identities.

Region 2 lies between the northern watershed of the Tees and the river Tyne. This area is notable in particular for an almost total lack of material evidence. The region appears aceramic in both the Iron Age and Roman periods and no metalwork, bone or glass artefacts have been recovered. Known settlements were small and quite densely packed with no evidence of hierarchy. This may be evidence that the land was not of a high enough quality to support large-scale settlements but the overall population is likely to have been fairly large. The land, accordingly, must have been productive so long as no one area was placed under the pressure of providing for too many people. Quern stones, made of poor quality local stone have been found. These indicate a population without the external connections to obtain suitable stones. The lack of other material goods may be further evidence of this. Even if the region did not have the means to produce pottery, basic coarse wares would have been relatively easy to obtain; requiring access to only limited, fairly localised, exchange networks and should have been accessible to the majority of the population. An alternative explanation for the lack of material culture in this region is that the population may have had no interest in owning these items or may even have chosen to avoid them. The region borders the most highly developed and apparently outward looking and innovative population in northern England and it is possible that the population of region 2 was consciously more conservative and did not desire pottery and metal even if they had sufficient surplus to obtain such items. If this was the case it is possible that the population deliberately avoided contact with other groups and maintained a traditional, conservative culture throughout the Iron Age and Roman periods.

Region 3, in the Tees Valley, could not be a greater contrast with region 2 and must have been inhabited by a population with very different cultural attitudes. The region had a strong Iron Age ceramic tradition drawing on ideas from East Yorkshire but with significant regional differences. In addition it is also the only part of northern England to have pottery assemblages including imported Roman goods, (Samian forms among them), in particular those from Stanwick, which may represent diplomatic gifts. Further evidence of contact with the continent prior to the Roman conquest is found in the high status metalwork hoards which also include imported goods. The population also appear to be highly innovative from the speed with which new cattle breeds are adopted and their avoidance of items which were used in the north-west as symbols of preference for the preRoman way of life such as type 3 glass bangles and Dragonesque brooches.

Region 4, on the North Yorks Moors appears to have been a fairly isolated area with a population who may have used the terrain to cut themselves off from the rest of northern England, although the evidence may be affected by poor visibility of sites on aerial photography. Evidence for the deliberate avoidance of new ideas can be seen in the pottery from the region. A localised ceramic industry existed in the area during the Iron Age and appears to have continued producing the same styles and forms of ceramics until the later Roman period. The population is different from that of region 2: it has both a ceramic industry and an ability to exchange querns made of the reasonably good quality stones on the Moors. The people do not, however, appear to have used this ability to trade as a method of developing contact with other areas. Habitation was limited by geography to the sheltered valleys and reveals no evidence either of settlement or social hierarchy. Apart from a southern boundary which is hard to define, region 4 appears cut off from neighbouring regions by a ring of uninhabited and yet reasonably good quality land. Quite why this was the case remains in doubt but the population of region 4, albeit not numerous, may have recognised an independent regional identity.

The inhabitants of Region 3, the core of the area traditionally attributed to the Brigantes, would appear to have been connected with strong exchange networks to access imported goods, not all of which are will have been diplomatic gifts. Further evidence of the wide social connections in this region can be found in the quern stones from the region. Owing to a lack of suitable stone all are imported from at least the North Yorks Moors and stones of the best available quality, transported from the central Pennines and requiring considerable involvement in exchange networks within northern England have been found on the very highest status sites. The range of known sites in this region appear to have created the only hierarchical system seen in northern England. The area has been reasonably well investigated however an unknown number of sites may remain undiscovered. Known sites are not numerous and are fairly widespread but many are very large and would have housed a number of families. There is also a clear hierarchy with the primary site at Stanwick and other major sites including Thorpe Thewles, Melsonby and Catcote. The hierarchical system observed from settlements and material 921 922

118

See discussion of Gabrantovices in chapter 2 See map 4

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Map 4. Suggested areas with regional identities in northern England and possible associated names. doubt as to the translation of Brigantes as ‘Hill people’:923 there is, however, a satisfactory explanation for this. At Stanwick, assumed to be the seat of government for the area, there is a prominent hill on the site with good views across the surrounding area.924 As an outstanding feature very close to Stanwick it seems quite possible that the name could have been taken from the presence of this hill. Whether or not a name may be associated in any way with a regional identity, Region 3 stands out from the rest of northern England and it seems very likely that the population of this area would have recognised some form of regional identity.

assemblages is also demonstrated in the high status metalwork hoards from this region which suggest that only the elite members of this society were involved in deposition. Region 3 stands out as a very unusual area with a culture very different from any other observed across the rest of northern England. As a result the population is likely to have recognised a form of distinct regional identity. The evidence reveals that region 3 was a highly anomalous area in comparison with the rest of northern England. It had the only hierarchical social and political system, with a wealthy and innovative population open to the concept of cultural change. The population of this region was clearly in contact with the Roman Empire for some time before the conquest of the north and appears to have welcomed new ideas and influences both before and after the conquest, with the development of villas and ‘small towns’ seen nowhere else in northern England. This region is the only one to reveal a population which actively welcomed contact, ideas and artefacts from the continent and it is the most likely to have been the object of diplomatic advances on the part of the Roman authorities. As such the Tees Valley stands out in contrast to the rest of northern England. If names may be notionally associated in some way with regions then this area is the most likely to have been inhabited by the best known regional group of northern England with whom the name of the Brigantes has been associated. The fact that the region is relatively low-lying could raise some

In the north-west artefactual evidence is less helpful in defining smaller regional identities. The material evidence tends to apply generally to the whole of the area west of the Pennines and there is little if any variation between regions. It is here that settlement patterns become useful in identifying possible boundaries between areas. The Upper Eden Valley (region 12) had a relatively dense settlement pattern and similar site sizes indicate no apparent hierarchy of settlement or society. What marks this area out is its distinct northern boundary. Known 923

See discussion of ‘tribal’ name in chapter 2. See also note 932 below (Isurium Brigantium) Henah Hill lies outside but immediately adjacent to the earthworks at Stanwick. The use of the hill has been questioned but it seems more likely to have been for cultivation than defence. See Haselgrove, C. C. et. al. ‘Stanwick, North Yorkshire parts 1, 2 and 3’, The Archaeological Journal 147. 1990. pp.72-79 924

119

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE likely, and that the area was favourable to the Roman presence. Given that the name of the Brigantes survived owing to their pro-Roman stance, it is possible that the Carvetii, the other commonly mentioned group, were also pro-Roman. If this was the case then a territory on the Solway Firth and the indication of a friendly native presence in the Roman name for Carlisle would make sense.

settlement in the valley runs in a linear pattern northwards to the meeting of the rivers Lowther and Eamont near what is now Penrith. At this point settlement virtually appears to cease despite the fact that the Eamont can be easily bridged at this point and the area has reasonable potential for aerial photographic survey. Indeed the bridging point appears to have formed a hard boundary to the territory of the Upper Eden Valley. The reason for this is unclear but the area was of considerable prehistoric significance. It later housed a Roman fort suggesting this site was the gateway to lands occupied by a populous and perhaps powerful group. The signing of an important treaty at the spot in AD 927 is further evidence that it continued to be a strategically significant area into late Anglo-Saxon times.925

On the assumption that names can be associated with regional identities and that the Carvetii have been correctly identified as the inhabitants of the Solway Plain area (region 14) then region 12 in the Upper Eden Valley is likely to have been inhabited by a population with a regional identity for which no associated name is yet known. If they were anti-Roman then the fort at Eamont Bridge is likely to have functioned at least in part as an expression of Roman containment and control.

Beyond the apparently uninhabited land of the Middle Eden Valley (region 13), perhaps a deliberately sustained border territory, lies a further densely populated area on the Solway Plain (region 14). If it were not for the empty region between them it would be reasonable to suggest that regions 14 and 12 were part of the same regional entity since both are reasonably densely populated and have small site sizes with no evidence for settlement hierarchy. In view of this void – is it too strong to say barrier? – it is likely that societies with different regional identities inhabited both regions even though they are likely to have been connected in other ways such as religious identity. Those of the Solway Plain would have seen a great deal more of the Roman presence given that one of the largest Roman sites in the north, Carlisle, is situated here; but native settlements have so far revealed no evidence for the presence of romanised goods although this may be the result of a lack of excavation. The evidence available at this point indicates a conservative, traditional outlook amongst the indigenous population.

There is no particular reason to attach Venutius to either the name Carvetii, whatever significance this term may or may not have had, or the Solway plain area. Aside from the region associated with the Brigantes there are several other distinct regions virtually any of which could provide a plausible home for an anti-Roman leader. This author believes that the frequent assumption of a link between Venutius and the name Carvetii, which is based on very little hard evidence, should be abandoned.929 If a suggestion has to be made he is more likely to come from the population of the Eden Valley where the evidence and the presence of a later Roman containment fort indicates an anti-Roman population which took some time to crush. Such a population may well have had an actively Roman leader in the period shortly before the Roman invasion; that his name was Venutius is a distinct possibility. Alternatively region 15, where a militaristic outlook appears to have been maintained up to the conquest, is another area where a late Iron Age antiRoman leader such as Venutius could have been influential.

The Carvetii are the only group other than the Brigantes regularly cited by modern authors as holding power in northern England.926 If this name has any link to a regional identity it could belong anywhere in northern England. In practice the only plausible options are regional identities indicated in the Upper Eden Valley and the Solway Plain area.927 If interpreted in its civilian context, as seems most likely, the epigraphic evidence referring to a large civilian centre – probably Carlisle – suggests the Solway Plain region is the more likely despite its findspot at Old Penrith.928 The early building works in the Solway area could indicate a pro-Roman stance in the population, with Carlisle acting as a form of base camp for the army before it tackled hostile forces in the Eden Valley. Alternatively it might suggest an antiRoman population, quelled quickly and permanently by the construction of a large military centre at Carlisle. The survival of a Celtic name, Lugovalos, in the name for Carlisle suggests that the former explanation is more

The final possible region is 15, which consists of the central and southern Lakeland. Settlement in the central Lakeland massif is governed by the geography of the area: of the hillforts in the region several sites appear to have been in use in the late pre-Roman period – the only region within the area of study for which this is the case. This indicates the presence of a society and perhaps a regional identity quite different from others in northern England.930 An associated name, if valid, is uncertain. According to Ptolemy, however, the Setantii lived somewhere in the north-west and possessed a town and a harbour. Ptolemy speaks of tribal names which may not be a valid concept but it is certainly plausible that the population living in the strongholds of central and southern Cumbria could have had a harbour situated somewhere around Morecambe Bay. They could therefore have had a regional identity associated with the

925

See p.104 See eg. Shotter, D. (2004) See discussion and references in chapter 2 928 See discussion of the evidence pp.43-45 above 926

929

See discussion chapter 2. and eg. Shotter, D. (2004) p.5 The continued use of hillforts in Northumberland, generally attributed to the Votadini, marks this area out in the same way.

927

930

120

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS name ‘Setantii’ alongside other less visible social, political and religious identities existing on different scales and subject to change over time.931

encroaching power of the Roman Empire a federation of previously more independent identities did emerge in the region of study. The name Brigantes is here notionally applied to an apparently more pro-Roman group however it should be acknowledged that if the term was of any relevance at all it could have had more than one meaning depending on the context in which it was applied. Thus it may have meant a regional identity for one group but also the term given to a federation either by those who created it or, and perhaps more likely, by the Roman authorities who were now facing it; given that the group associated here with the term Brigantes are those with whom they appear to have had the greatest contact. It is thus possible that, in the late pre-conquest period, the name Brigantes was applied to an emerging federation and took one or more context dependent meanings partly or even wholly different from that to which it may have initially applied. This study has revealed no evidence for such a federation and it is clear that northern England consisted of several different communities. However if, in the period immediately before the conquest of northern England such a federation did occur, it may explain the apparent association seen in the literature of all the communities of northern England with one name which this study has indicated cannot have represented a single social, political or regional identity.

After thorough analysis of the forms of evidence included in this work it has become clear that the argument for one regional identity in northern England is virtually untenable. There is no evidence to support the existence of such a group. Indeed far from this there is a large body of evidence to indicate the presence of several entirely different groups with a range of social, religious, political and regional identities of which evidence for the latter has been investigated here. Six areas where the populations may have associated themselves with some form of regional group identity have been noted here. Assuming the available names in ancient literature have any association with these regional identities ‘Brigantes’ may be attached to the Tees Valley area. ‘Gabrantovices’ may have some association with region 2 or region 4, with region 4 being the most likely; ‘Carvetii’ may be connected with region 14 and ‘Setantii’ with region 15. No names may be associated with the regional identities suggested in regions 2 and 12. For the other regions of northern England noted in chapter 4 there is insufficient definite evidence and the results are too far affected by a lack of data and variations in the nature and intensity of fieldwork to draw any valid results.

Further detailed archaeological investigation, and particularly excavation, is necessary in order to confirm the regions identified in this work and to address the many gaps in knowledge of settlement across much of the area. In particular additional excavation is needed to confirm the chronology of similar settlement forms across the region and assess how far previous assumptions of dating for late Iron Age and Roman native rural settlement are indeed valid.

Assuming that a group by the name of the Brigantes did indeed exist in northern England, it is now certain from the evidence available to this study that they were not in control of the entire region. This was divided into numerous apparently independent regions, perhaps associated with further names found in literature; the Carvetii, Gabrantovices and Setantii. There are certainly very clear differences between land east and west of the Pennines. Far from ruling northern England from sea to sea the Brigantes are most likely to have been a regional identity restricted to the hierarchical, romanised and entirely anomalous area of the Tees Valley.932 If the name Brigantes did at any time also represent a larger regional grouping then a possibility is federation whereby loosely-related groups coalesced when under pressure from other stronger political and social groups. The term Brigantes may thus have denoted, or been applied to, a number of different groups coming together under circumstances caused by external pressure rather than by any internal development. There is no evidence to indicate that this may have been the case in northern England, however it is possible that facing the 931

See discussion of Setantii chapter. 2 This suggestion does conflict with the Roman place-name evidence for Aldborough (Isurium Brigantium) which lies some distance south of region 3. The name may reflect a voluntary movement of population or some sort of ‘refocusing’ away from Stanwick as the Iron Age and late pre-conquest centre and towards the new Roman Civitas Capital at Isurium. Alternatively the name may simply reflect the presence of a further, far more localised, group of hill people with no link to region three, near to the new development at Aldborough. 932

121

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bewley, R. Prehistoric and Romano-British Settlement in the Solway Plain Cumbria. Oxbow Monograph 36, Oxbow, Oxford. 1994

Aalen, F. H. A. England’s Landscape: the North East. Harper Collins, London. 2006 Aldhouse-Green, M. and Webster, P. (eds.) Artefacts and Archaeology: Aspects of the Celtic and Roman World. University of Wales Press, Cardiff. 2002

Bewley, R. Prehistoric Settlements. Batsford, London. 1994 Bewley, R.H. ‘Survey and excavation at a crop-mark enclosure, Plasketlands,Cumbria’ in Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (new series) 93. 1993. pp.1-18

Allan, M. The Roman Route Across the Northern Lake District: Brougham to Moresby. Centre for North-West Regional Studies, University of Lancaster. 1994 Allason-Jones, L. ‘Roman and native interaction in Northumberland’ in Maxfield, V. A. and Dobson, M. J. (eds.) Roman Frontier Studies 1989- proceedings of the XVth international conference of Roman frontier studies. University of Exeter Press, Exeter. 1991. pp.1-5

Birley, A. R. ‘The Anavionenses’, BAR International Series 940. 2001. pp.15-24 Birley, A. R. Tacitus: Agricola and Germany. OUP, Oxford. 1999

Allason-Jones, L. ‘Sexing Small Finds’ in Rush, P. (ed.) Theoretical Roman Archaeology: second conference proceedings. Avebury, Aldershot. 1995. pp.22-32

Birley, A. R. ‘A New Tombstone from Vindolanda’, Britannia 29. 1998. pp.299-306

Armit, I. ‘Life after Hownam: the Iron Age in south-east Scotland’ in Bevan, B. (ed.) Northern Exposure: interpretative devolution and the British Iron Age. Leicester Archaeology Monographs 4, Leicester. 1999. pp.65-80

Birley, A. R. The Fasti of Roman Britain. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1981

Arnold, C. J. Roman and Early Medieval Wales. Sutton, Stroud. 2000

Birley, E, ‘Materials for the History of Roman Brougham’ in Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 32, 1932. pp.124-139

Birley, A. R ‘Petillius Cerialis and the conquest of Brigantia’, Britannia 4. 1973. pp.179-190

Benario, H. W. An introduction to Tacitus. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 1975

Bishop, M. C. et al. ‘A New Flavian Military Site at Roecliffe, North Yorkshire’ in Britannia 36, 2005. pp.135-223

Bendelow, V. C. ‘Soils, geology and climate in the Lake District National Park’ in Soils and Land use in the Lake District National Park: Proceedings of the North of England Soils Discussion Group 20. 1984. pp.1-12

Bishop, M. C. Finds from Roman Aldborough: A Catalogue of Small Finds from the Romano-British town of Isurium Brigantium. Oxbow Monograph 65, Oxford.1996

Berggren, J. L. and Jones, A. Ptolemy’s Geography: an annotated translation of the theoretical chapters. Princeton University Press, Oxford. 2000

Bradley, R. The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland. CUP, Cambridge. 2007

Bevan, B. ‘Land-Life-Death-Regeneration: interpreting a middle Iron Age landscape in eastern Yorkshire’ in Bevan, B. (ed.) Northern Exposure: interpretative devolution and the British Iron Age. Leicester Archaeology Monographs 4, Leicester 1999. pp.123-48

Branigan, K. Rome and the Brigantes: the impact of Roman on Northern England. University of Sheffield, Sheffield. 1980

Bevan,B. ‘Bounding the landscape: place and identity during the Yorkshire Wolds Iron Age’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age societies. Oxbow, Oxford. 1997. pp.181-191

Braund, D. ‘Observations on Cartimandua’, Britannia 15. 1984. pp.1-6 Braund, D. Ruling Roman Britain: Kings, queens, governors and Emperors from Julius Caesar to Augustus. Routledge, London. 1996

122

BIBLIOGRAPHY Collens, J. ‘Flying on the Edge: Aerial Photography and Early Settlement Patterns in Cheshire and Merseyside’ in Nevell, M. (ed.) Living on the Edge of Empire: models, Methodology and Marginality. Council for British Archaeology North West, University of Manchester and Chester Archaeology. 1999. pp.36-46

Braund, S. M. Juvenal and Perseus. Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, London. 2004 Brickstock, R. J. Coins and the frontier troops in the fourth century. (forthcoming) 2009 Brickstock, R. ‘Currency Circulation in the north east of Britannia’, Ochoa, C. F. and Díaz, P. G. (eds.) Unidad y diversidad en el Arco Atlántico en época romana: III Coloquio Internacional de Arqueología en Gijón. BARInternational Series 1371. 1995. pp.229-233

Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain: volume 1 inscriptions on stone. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1965-83 Cool, H. E. M. and Baxter, M. J. ‘Peeling the onion; an approach to comparing vessel glass assemblages’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 12. 1999. pp.72 – 100

Britnell, J. ‘Settlement and industry in north-east Wales’ in Burham, B. C. and Davies, J. L. (eds.) Conquest CoExistence and Change: Recent Work in Roman Wales. Trivium 25, Lampeter. 1990. pp.130-137

Creighton, J. Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain. CUP, Cambridge. 2000

Brown, I. Discovering a Welsh Landscape: Archaeology in the Clwydian Range. Windgather Press, Bollington. 2004

Crowther, C. and Didsbury, P. ‘Redcliffe and the Humber’ in Price, J. and Wilson, P. R. (eds.) Roman Yorkshire. BAR 193, Oxford. 1988. pp.3-20

Burnett, A. Interpreting the Past: Coins. British Museum Press, London. 1991

Cummins, W. A. ‘The Age of the Picts’. Sutton, Stroud. 1995

Burnham, H. A Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales: Clwyd and Powys. HMSO, London. 1995

Cunliffe, B. Peoples of Roman Britain: The Regni. Duckworth, London. 1973

Butlin, R. A. Historical Atlas of North Yorkshire. Westbury, West Yorkshire. 2003

Cunliffe, B. Iron Age Communities in Britain. Routledge, London. 2005

Cary, E. Dio Cassius Roman History Books 71-80. Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, London. 1927

Cunliffe, B. Book of Iron Age Britain. Batsford, London. 1995

Cary, E. Dio’s Roman History, Volume 7. Heinemann, London. 1924

Curwen, E. C. ‘More about Querns’, Antiquity 15:57. 1941. pp.15-32

Casey, P. J. Roman Coinage in Britain. Shire, Princes Risborough. 1980

Curwen, E. C. ‘Querns’, Antiquity 11:42. 1937. pp.133151

Challis, A. J. and Harding, D. W. ‘The materials used and some technological factors’ in Challis, A. J. and Harding, D. W. Later Prehistory from the Trent to the Tyne parts i and ii, BAR British Series 20. Oxford. 1975

Dark, P. The Environment of Britain in the First Millennium AD. Duckworth, London. 2000 Darvill, T. The concise Oxford Archaeology. OUP, Oxford. 2002

Church, A. J. and Brodribb, W. J. The Complete Works of Tacitus. Modern Library, New York. 1942

dictionary

of

Darvill, T. Prehistoric Britain. Batsford, London.1987

Clack, P. A. G. and Gosling, P. F. Archaeology in the North: Report of the Northern Archaeological Society. Northern Archaeological Survey, Gateshead. 1976

Davidson, A. The coastal archaeology of Wales. CBA Research Report 131, York. 2002 De Jersey, P. Celtic Coinage in Britain. Shire Archaeology, Buckinghamshire. 1996

Clack, P. A. G. and Gosling, P. F. Archaeology in the North: Gazetteer 1975. Northern Archaeological Survey, Durham. 1975

Dent, J. S. ‘The Impact of Roman Rule on Native Society in the Territory of the Parisi’, Britannia 14. 1983. pp.3544

Clark, M. K. ‘Iron Age Sites in the Vale of Pickering’ Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 30. 1931. pp.157-172

DeRoche, C. D. ‘Studying Iron Age production’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, Oxford. 1997. pp.19-25

Clarke, C. ‘An Island Nation: Re-reading Tacitus’ Agricola’ in Journal of Roman Studies 91. 2001. pp.94112 123

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE the ‘Stanwick’, North Yorkshire, hoard of 1843’, Durham Archaeological Journal 14-15. 1999. pp.1-2

Diaz-Andreu, M. et al. The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion. Routledge, London. 2005

Forcey, C. ‘Beyond “Romanization”: Technologies of Power in Roman Britain’ in Meadows, K., Lemke, C., Heron, J. (eds). TRAC 1996. Oxbow, Oxford. 1997. pp.51-21

Dobney, K. ‘A place at the table: the role of vertebrate zooarchaeology within Roman research agenda for Britain’ in James, S. and Millett, M. (eds.) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. CBA research report 125, York. 2001. pp.36-46

Forde-Johnston, J. Hillforts of the Iron Age in England and Wales: a survey of the surface evidence. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool. 1976

Dungworth, D. ‘The production of copper alloys in Iron Age Britain’ in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 1996. pp.399-421

Fowler. P. J. The Farming of Prehistoric Britain. CUP, Cambridge. 1983 Freeman, P. ‘ “Romanization – Imperialism” – What are we talking about?’ in Meadows, K., Lemke, C., Heron, J. (eds). TRAC 1996. Oxbow, Oxford. 1997. pp.8-13

Dunnet, R. Peoples of Roman Britain: The Trinovantes. Duckworth, London. 1975 Dyer, J. Ancient Britain. Batsford, London. 1990

Freeman, P. ‘Romanisation’ and Roman Material Culture’ in Journal of Roman Archaeology 6. 1993. pp.448-445

Eden, P. T. Seneca: Apocolocyntosis. CUP, Cambridge. 1984 Edwards, D. N. ‘The archaeology of religion’ in DiazAndeu, M. et al. The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion. Routledge, London. 2005. pp.110-128

Fryer, G. A Natural History of the Lakes, Tarns and Streams of the Lake District. Freshwater Biological Association, Cumbria. 1991 Gardner, A. An Archaeology of Identity: Soldiers and Society in late Roman Britain. Left Coast Press, California. 2007

Evans, J. ‘Romanisation’, pottery and the rural economy in the North West (unpublished) Evans, J. This small harvest: pottery from ‘Highland zone’ sites in north Wales and the North-West. 2001 (unpublished)

Grahame, M. ‘Redefining Romanization: material culture and the question of social continuity in Roman Britain’ in Forcey, C. Hawthorne, J. and Witcher, R. (eds.) TRAC 97. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 1998. pp.1-10

Evans, J. ‘Roman finds assemblages, towards an integrated approach’ in Rush, P. (ed.) Theoretical Roman Archaeology: second conference proceedings. Avebury, Aldershot. 1995a. pp.33-58

Grayston, P. Walking Roman roads in Lonsdale and the Eden Valley. Centre for North-West regional studies, University of Lancaster. 2002

Evans, J. ‘Later Iron Age and ‘native’ pottery in the north east’ in Vyner, B. Moorland Monuments: Studies in the Archaeology of North-East Yorkshire in Honour of Raymond Hayes and Don Spratt. CBA Research Report no.101, York. 1995b. pp.46-68

Greene, K. Archaeology: an Introduction. Routledge, London. 1996

Evans, J. G. The Environment of Early Man in the British Isles. Elk, London. 1975

Gwilt, A. and Heslop, D. ‘Iron Age and Roman querns from the Tees Valley’ in Vyner, B. Moorland Monuments: Studies in the Archaeology of North-East Yorkshire in Honour of Raymond Hayes and Don Spratt. CBA Research Report no.101, York. 1995. pp.38-45

Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph, Oxford. 1997

Fairless, K. Aspects of the Archaeology of the Brigantes. University of Durham PhD Thesis. 1989 (unpublished) Feacham, R. The North Britons: The Prehistory of a Border People. Hutchinson, London. 1965

Halkon, P. Further Light on the Parisi: Recent Discoveries in Iron Age and Roman East Yorkshire. East Riding Archaeological Society, Hull. 1999

Ferrell, G. ‘Space and Society in the Iron Age of northeast England’ in Gwilt, A. And Haselgrove, C. (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow, Oxford. 1997. pp.228-39

Halkon, P. (ed.) New Light on the Parisi: Recent Discoveries in Iron Age and Roman East Yorkshire. East Riding Archaeological Society and the University of Hull, Hull. 1989

Fitts, R. L. Haselgrove, C. C. et al. ‘Melsonby revisited: survey and excavation 1992-5 at the site of discovery of

124

BIBLIOGRAPHY Haselgrove, C. C. et al. ‘Stanwick-Oppidum (Stanwick revealed as Cartimandua’s capital)’, Current Archaeology 119. 1990c. pp.380-385

Hawthorne, J. ‘Pottery and Paradigms in the Early Western Empire’ in Forcey, C. Hawthorne, J. and Witcher, R. (eds.) TRAC 97. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 1998. pp.160-169

Haselgrove, C.C. et al. ‘Excavations in The Tofts, Stanwick, North Yorkshire’, University of Durham and University of Newcastle Upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 1989. 1990

Hanson, W. S. ‘Forces of Change and Methods of Control’ in Mattingly, D. (ed). Dialogues in Roman Imperialism. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 23, Portsmouth. 1997. pp.67-80

Haselgrove, C.C. et al. ‘Excavations in the Tofts Field, Stanwick, North Yorkshire’, University of Durham and University of Newcastle Upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 1988. 1989

Hanson, W. S. ‘Dealing with Barbarians: the Romanization of Britain’ in Vyner, B. (ed.) Building on the past: papers celebrating 150 years of the Royal Archaeological Institute. Royal Archaeological Institute, London. 1994. pp.149-63

Haselgrove, C. C. ‘Excavation at West House Coxhoe’ in Archaeologia Aeliana10,1982. pp.5-51

Hanson, W. S. and Campbell, D. B. ‘The Brigantes: From Clientage to Conquest’ Britannia 17. 1986. pp.73-89

Hayes, R. H. North-East Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers. Roman Antiquities Section, Yorkshire Archaeological Society. 1988

Harding, D. W. The Iron Age in Northern Britain: Celts and Romans, natives and invaders. Routledge, London. 2004

Hayes, R. H., Hemingway, J. E. and Spratt, D. A. ‘The distribution and lithology of beehive querns in northeast Yorkshire’, Journal of Archaeological Science 7: 4.1980. pp.297-324

Harding, D. W. ‘Air survey in the Tyne-Tees Region 1969-79’ in Higham, N. J. (ed.) The Changing Past. University of Manchester, Manchester. 1979. pp.21-30 Hartley, B. and Fitts, L. Peoples of Roman Britain: The Brigantes. Sutton, Gloucester. 1988

Hermet, F. La Graufesenque (Condatomago) I. Vases Sigilles. Librairie Ernest Leroux, Paris.1934. Vol. 1. Planches plate 93

Haselgrove, C.C. et al. Excavations and Fieldwork in the Tofts Field, Stanwick, North Yorkshire, 1984-2004 Britannia, forthcoming

Heslop, D. H. The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement at Thorpe Thewles Cleveland 1980-1982. CBA Research Report no.65, London. 1987

Haselgrove, C. ‘The Later Bronze Age and the Iron Age in the Lowlands’ in Brooks, C., Daniels, R. and Harding, A. Past Present and Future The Archaeology of Northern England. Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5, Durham. 2002. pp.49-70

Higham, N. ‘Brigantia Revisited’, Northern History 23. 1987. pp.1-19 Higham, N. A regional history of England: The Northern Counties to AD. 1000. Longman, Harlow. 1986 Higham, N. et al. ‘The Excavation of two RomanoBritish Farm Sites in North Cumbria’ Britannia 14, 1983. pp.45-72

Haselgrove, C. et al. Understanding the British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action. Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury. 2001

Higham,N. J. and Jones, G. D. B. ‘Frontiers, forts and farmers, Cumbrian aerial survey, 1974-75’ in Archaeological Journal 132. 1975. pp.16-53

Haselgrove, C. ‘Iron Age brooch deposition and chronology’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, Oxford. 1997. pp.51-72

Higham, N, and Jones, B. Peoples of Roman Britain: The Carvetii. Sutton, Gloucester. 1985

Haselgrove, C. The archaeology of Lancashire. Lancaster University, Lancaster. 1996

Hill, J. D. ‘Romanisation, gender and class: recent approaches to identity in Britain and their possible consequences’ in James, S. and Millett, M. (eds) Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 125, York. 2001. pp.12-18

Haselgrove, C. C. ‘The development of British Iron-Age coinage’, The Numismatic Chronicle 53. 1993. pp.31-63 Haselgrove, C. C. et al. ‘Stanwick, North Yorkshire part 1’, The Archaeological Journal 147. 1990a. pp.1-15

Hind, J. G. F. ‘The Genounian Part of Britain’, Britannia 8. 1977

Haselgrove, C. C. et al. ‘Stanwick, North Yorkshire part 3’, The Archaeological Journal 147. 1990b. pp.37-90

125

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Hunter, F. ‘Iron Age hoarding in Scotland and northern England’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, Oxford. 1997. pp.108-33

Hind, J. G. F. ‘The Romano-British name for Corbridge’, Britannia 11. 1980. pp.165-171 Hingley, R. ‘The Deposition of Iron Objects in Britain: Contextual Analysis and the Significance of Iron’ in Britannia 37, 2006. pp.213-257

Huntley, J. P. ‘Environmental Archaeology: Mesolithic to Roman Period’ in Brooks, C., Daniels, R. and Harding, A. (eds). Past, Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England. Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5. Durham. 2002. pp.79-96

Hingley, R. Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire. Routledge, London. 2005 Hingley, R. ‘Rural Settlement in Northern Britain’ in Todd, M. Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford, Blackwell. 2004. pp.327-48

Huntley, J. P. and Stallibrass, S. Plant and vertebrate remains from archaeological sites in northern England: data review and future directions. Research Report No. 4. Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland, Durham. 1995

Hingley, R. ‘Iron, ironworking and regeneration: a study of the symbolic meaning of metalworking in Iron Age Britain’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. (eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, Oxford. 1997a. pp.9-18

Hutcheson, A. R. J. ‘Native or Roman? Ironwork Hoards in Northern Britain’ in Meadows, K., Lemke, C. & Heron, J. (eds.) TRAC 96. Oxbow, Oxford. 1997. pp.6572

Hingley, R. ‘Resistance and Domination: Social change in Roman Britain’ in Mattingly, D. (ed.) Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power discourse and discrepant experiences in the Roman Empire. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 23, Rhode Island. 1997b. pp.81-100

Hutton, W. Landscape and Literature in the Periegesis of Pausanias. CUP, Cambridge. 2005. Ireland, S. Roman Britain: a Sourcebook. Routledge, London. 1996

Hingley, R. ‘Domestic Organisation and Gender Relations in Iron Age and Romano-British Households’ in Samson, R. The Social Archaeology of Houses. Edinburgh University Press,Edinburgh.1990. pp.125-147

James, S. ‘ “Romanization” and the peoples of Britain’ in Keay, S. and Terrenato, N.(eds.) Italy and the West: comparative issues in Romanization. CBA, York. 2001a. pp.187-208

Hingley, R. Rural Settlement in Roman Britain. Seaby, London. 1989 Hodder, I. Symbols in Action: ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture.CUP, Cambridge. 1982

James, S. ‘Soldiers and civilians: identity and interaction in Roman Britain’ in James, S. and Millett, M.(eds.). Britons and Romans: advancing an archaeological agenda. CBA, York. 2001b. pp.77-89

Hodgkinson, D. Lancaster Imprints 8, North West Wetlands Survey 6: The Lowland Wetlands of Cumbria. Lancaster University Archaeological Unit, Lancaster. 2000

James, S. and Rigby, V. Britain and the Celtic Iron Age. British Museum Press, London. 1997 Jobey, G. ‘Iron Age and later farmsteads on Belling Law, Northumberland’ in Archaeologia Aeliana (5th series) 5, 1977. pp.1-38

Hodgson, J. and Brennand, M. (eds.) North West Region Archaeological Research Framework Prehistoric Resource Assessment Draft. 2004. p.1 Hogg, A. British Hill-Forts: An Index. BAR British Series 62, 1979

Jobey, G. ‘An Iron Age settlement at Hartburn and the Devil’s Causeway, Northumberland, 1971’ Archaeologia Aeliana (5th series) 1, 1973. pp.11-53

Hogg, A. Hill-forts of Britain . Mac Gibbon, London. 1975

Jobey, G. ‘Excavations at Brough Law and Ingram Hill’ in Archaeologia Aeliana (4th series) 6. 1971. pp.1-28

Hope-Taylor, B. Yeavering: An Anglo-British centre of early Northumbria. HMSO, London. 1977

Jobey, G. ‘An Iron Age homestead at West Brandon, Durham’ in Archaeologia Aeliana (4th series) 40. 1962. pp.1-34

Hunter, F. ‘Artefacts, regions and identities in the Northern British Iron Age’ in Haselgrove, C. And Moore, T. (eds.) The later Iron Age in Britain and beyond. Oxbow, Oxford. 2007. pp.286-296

Johns, C. ‘Romano-British precious-metal hoards: comments on Martin Millet’s paper.’ in Cottam, S. (ed.) TRAC 94. Oxbow, Oxford. 1994. pp.107-18

126

BIBLIOGRAPHY Johnson, J. Placenames of England and Wales. Bracken Books, London. 1915 rep.1994

Levene, D. S. Tacitus: the Histories. Oxford Worlds Classics, OUP, Oxford. 1997

Jones, B. ‘The North West and Marginality Their Fault or Ours? A Warning from the Cumbrian Evidence’ in Nevell, M. Living on the Edge of Empire. Manchester University, Manchester. 1999. pp. 90-95

Levitan, B in Down, A. Chichester Excavations IV. Phillimore, Chichester 1998. pp.242-276 Loney, H. and Hoean, A. ‘Landscape memory and material culture: Interpreting diversity in the Iron Age’ in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71. 2006. pp.361378

Jones, B. and Mattingly, D. An Atlas of Roman Britain. Oxbow, Oxford. 1990 Jones, G. D. B. ‘North-East Wales: the empty quarter’ in Burham, B. C. and Davies, J. L. (eds.) Conquest CoExistance and Change: Recent Work in Roman Wales. Trivium 25, Lampeter. 1990. pp.123-129

Loaney, H. and Hoean, A. ‘Bronze and Iron Age connections: memory and persistence in Matterdale, Cumbria’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (3rd series) 4. 2004. pp.39-55.

Jones, R. F. Britain in the Roman Period: Recent Trends. J. R. Collis, Sheffield. 1991

Loney, H. and Hoean, A ‘Upland settlement in Glencoyne Park Ullswater, Cumbria' in Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Series 3 vol.3, 2003. pp.51-65

Jones, W. H. S. Pausanias: Description of Greece Books 1 and II. Loeb, Heinemann, London. 1918 Jundi, S. and Hill, J. D. ‘Brooches and identities in first century AD Britain: more than meets the eye?’ in Forcey, C. Hawthorne, J. and Witcher, R. (eds.) TRAC 97. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 1998. pp.125-137

Long, C. Catcote Iron Age and Roman Farm. Cleveland County Archaeological Section, Middlesbrough. 1989 Luff, R. Animal Bones from excavations in Colchester 1971-85. Colchester Archaeological Reports 12, Colchester. 1993

Kelly, R. S. ‘Recent research on the Hut Group Settlement of North West Wales’ in Burham, B. C. and Davies, J. L. (eds.) Conquest Co-Existence and Change: Recent Work in Roman Wales. Trivium 25, Lampeter.1990. pp.102-111

Lynch, F. A Guide to Ancient and Historic Wales. HMSO, Gwynedd. 1995 MacGregor, M. ‘The Early Iron Age Metalwork Hoard from Stanwick, N. R. Yorks’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28. 1962. pp.17-57

Kenyon, R. ‘The Claudian Coinage’ in Crummy, N. (ed.) Colchester Archaeological Report 4: The coins from the excavations in Colchester 1971-9. Colchester Archaeological Trust, Colchester. 1987. pp.24-41

MacGregor, M. Early Celtic Art in North Britain: a study of decorative metalwork from the third century BC to the third century AD. Leicester University Press, Leicester. 1976

Keppie, L. J. F. Understanding Roman Inscriptions. Batsford, London. 1991 Kilbride-Jones, H. E. Celtic Craftsmanship in Bronze. Croom Helm, London. 1980

Main, L. ‘Excavations of a timber round-house and broch at the Fairy Knowe, Buchlyvie, Stirlingshire. 1975-8’. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 128. 1998. pp.293-418

Kilbride-Jones H. ‘The Excavation of a native settlement at Milking Gap, Northumberland’ in Archaeologia Aeliana 15, 1938. pp.303-50

Manby, T.G., Moorhouse, S. and Ottaway, P. The Archaeology of Yorkshire: An Assessment at the beginning of the 21st Century. Yorkshire Archaeological Society Occasional Paper 3, Leeds. 2003

Kraus, C. S. and Woodman, A. J. Latin Historians. Classical Association, OUP. Oxford. 1997 Kurchin, B. ‘Romans and Britons on the Northern Frontier: a theoretical evaluation of the archaeology of resistance’ in Rush, P. (ed.) Theoretical Roman Archaeology: second conference proceedings. Avebury, Aldershot. 1995. pp.124-131

Manning, W. ‘Ironwork hoards in Iron Age and Roman Britain’ in Britannia 3, 1972. pp.224-250 Matthews, K. J. ‘Immaterial culture: invisible peasants and consumer subcultures in north-west Britannia’ in Meadows, K. Lemke, C. and Heron, J. (eds.) TRAC 96. Oxbow Books, Oxbow. 1997. pp.120-132

Laing, L. and Laing, S. ‘the Picts and the Scots’. Sutton, Stroud. 1993

Mattingly, D. (ed). Dialogues in Roman Imperialism. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 23, Portsmouth. 1997

Laing, L. and Laing, J. The Origins of Britain. Paladin, London.1980 127

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Mosley, F. Geology and Scenery in the Lake District. Geologists Association, London. 1990

Mattingly, D. An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, 54BC- AD409. Allen Lane, London. 2006

Mosley, F. Geology of the Lake District. Yorkshire Geological Society, Leeds.1974

Mattingly, D. ‘Being Roman: expressing identity in a provincial setting’ in Journal of Roman Archaeology 17. 2004. pp.5-25

Mytum, H. ‘Iron Age Square Barrows on the North York Moors’ in Vyner, B. Moorland Monuments: Studies in the Archaeology of North-East Yorkshire in Honour of Raymond Hayes and Don Spratt. CBA Research Report no.101, York. 1995. pp.31-37

Maude, K ‘The Very Edge: Reappraising Romano-British Settlement in the Central Pennines; the Littondale Experience’ in Nevell, M. (ed.) Living on the Edge of Empire: models, Methodology and Marginality. Council for British Archaeology North West, University of Manchester and Chester Archaeology. 1999. pp.42-47

Newman, R. The Archaeology of Lancashire: Present State and Future Priorities. Lancaster University Archaeological Unit, Lancaster. 1996

May, J. Dragonby. Oxbow, Oxford. 1996 Mays, M. (ed.) Celtic Coinage: Britain and Beyond. BAR British Series 222. 1992

Nevell, M. ‘Iron Age and Romano-British Rural Settlement in North West England: theory, marginality and settlement’ in Nevell, M. (ed.) Living on the Edge of Empire: models, Methodology and Marginality. Council for British Archaeology North West, University of Manchester and Chester Archaeology. 1999a. pp.14-26

McCarthy, M. ‘Luguvalium (Carlisle); a civitas capital on the northern frontier’ in Wilson, P. (ed.) The Archaeology of Roman Towns. Oxbow, Oxford. 2003. pp.145-55 McCarthy, M. Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway. Tempus, Stroud. 2002

Nevell, M. ‘Great Woolden Hall Farm: A Model for the Material Culture of Iron Age and Romano-British Rural Settlement in North West England’ in Nevell, M. (ed.) Living on the Edge of Empire: models, Methodology and Marginality. Council for British Archaeology North West, University of Manchester and Chester Archaeology.1999b. pp.14-26

McCarthy, M. A Roman, Anglian and Medieval Settlement at Blackfriars Street. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Research Series 4, 1990 Mellars, P. And Dark, P. Star Carr in Context. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. 1998

Nicolaisen W. F. ‘The Picts and their Placenames’. A4 Print, Inverness. 1996 Oswald, A. Hillforts: Prehistoric Strongholds of Northumberland National Park. English Heritage, Swindon. 2006

Middleton, R. et al. The Wetlands of North Lancashire: North West Wetlands Survey. Lancashire Imprints, Lancaster. 1995

Owen, S. G. A Persi Flacci et D. Iuni Iuvenalis: Saturae. Clarendon, Oxford. 1907

Millar, F. A Study of Cassius Dio. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1964

Parker Pearson, M. English Heritage book of Bronze Age Britain. Batsford, London. 1993

Millett, M. (ed.) Shiptonthorpe, East Yorkshire; Archaeological Studies of a Romano-British Roadside Settlement. Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Leeds. 2006 Millett, M. The Cambridge. 1990

Petts, D. And Gerrard, C. Shared Visions: the North-East Regional Research Framework for the Historic Environment. Durham County Council, Durham. 2006

Romanization of Britain. CUP, Piggott, C. M. ‘Exacavation of Hownam Rings, Roxburghshire’ in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 82, 1948. pp.193-225

Mills, A. D. Oxford Dictionary of British Place names. OUP, Oxford. 2003

Price, J. ‘Romano-British glass bangles from East Yorkshire’, Price, J. and Wilson, P. R. (eds.) Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire: Studies in Honour of Mary Kitson Clark. BAR British Series 193. 1998. pp.339-66

Mitchell, S. ‘Venutius and Cartimandua’, LCM 3. 1978. pp.215-9 Moloney, C. et al. Archaeological Services (WYAS) Publications 4: Catterick Racecourse, North Yorkshire; the reuse and adaptation of a monument from prehistoric to Anglian times. Archaeological Services WYAS, Leeds. 2003

Price, J. and Cottam, S. Romano-British Glass Vessels a handbook: Practical Handbook in Archaeology 14. Council for British Archaeology, York. 1998

128

BIBLIOGRAPHY Romm, J. S. The edges of the earth in ancient thought: geography, exploration, and fiction. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 1992

Ptolemy von Stückelberger, A. und Graßhoff, G. unter Mitarbeit von Mittenhuber, F. et al. Handbuch der Geographie: griechisch-deutsch / herausgegeben Schwabe, Basel. 2006 (non vidi) Ptolemy Geographia I-III. Georg Verlagsbuchhandlung, Hildesheim. 1966

Room, A. Dictionary of Place-Names in the British Isles. Bloomsbury, London.1988

Olms

Rudd, N. and Barr, W. Juvenal: The Satires. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1991

Quartermaine, J. ‘Upland Survey: Neolithic and Bronze Age Sites’ in Brooks, C., Daniels, R. and Harding, A. (eds). Past, Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England. Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5. Durham. 2002. pp.29-36

Rush, P. ‘Symbols, pottery and trade’ in Meadows, K. Lemke, C. and Heron, J. (eds.) TRAC 96. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 1997. pp.55-65 Salway, P. Roman Britain. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1982

Rackham, D. J. ‘The animal bone’ in Heslop, D. H. The Excavations of an Iron Age Settlement at Thorpe Thewles, Cleveland, 1980-82. Cleveland County Archaeology and the CBA. London.1987. pp.99-109

Shotter, D. Romans and Britons in North-West England. Centre for North-West Regional Studies, University of Lancaster. 2004

Radice, B. Josephus: The Jewish War. Penguin Books, 1970 (rev. ed.)

Spratt, D. A. (ed.) Prehistoric and Roman Archaeology of North East Yorkshire. CBA Research Report no.87, London. 1993

Ramm, H. ‘Native settlements East of the Pennines’ in Branigan, K.(ed.) Rome and the Brigantes: the impact of Rome on Northern England. University of Sheffield. 1980. pp.28-40

St Joseph, J. K. ‘Aerial Reconnaissance in Roman Britain’ in Journal of Roman Studies 67. 1977. pp.125-61

Ramm, H. Peoples of Roman Britain: The Parisi. Duckworth, London. 1978

Stallibrass, S. ‘Cattle, culture, status and soldiers in northern England’ in Fincham, G. Harrison, G. Holland, R. and Revell, L. (eds.) TRAC 99. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2000. pp.64-73

Reece, R. The Coinage of Roman Britain. Tempus, Gloucestershire. 2002 Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames and Hudson, London. 1996²

Stallibrass, S. ‘On the outside looking in: a view of animal bones in Roman Britain from the North West Frontier’ in Mills, C. M and Coles, G. (eds.) Life on the Edge: Human Settlement and Marginality. Oxbow Monograph 100, Oxford. 1998. pp.53-60

Richardson, J. E. ‘Economy and Ritual: the Use of Animal Bone in the interpretation of the Iron Age to Roman Cultural Transition’ in Meadows, K. Lemke, C. and Heron, J. (eds.) TRAC 96. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 1997. pp.82-90

Stead, I. M. Iron Age cemeteries in East Yorkshire: excavations at Burton Fleming, Rudston, Garton-on-the Wolds, and Kirkburn. English Heritage, London. 1991 Stead, I. M. Rudston Roman Archaeological Society, York. 1980

Rigby, Val. ‘Pots in Pits: The British Museum Yorkshire Settlements Project 1988-92’ in East Riding Archaeologist 11. East Riding Archaeological Society, Hull. 2004.

Villa.

Yorkshire

Stead; I. M. The Arras Culture. Yorkshire Philosophical Society, York. 1979 Stenton, F. Anglo-Saxon England. OUP, Oxford. 19713

Riley, D. N. ‘Air reconnaissance in 1977’ Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 50. 1978. pp.21-4

Stevenson, R. B. K. ‘Romano-British glass bangles’, Glasgow Archaeological Journal: Studies in Roman Archaeology for Anne S. Robertson 4.1976. pp.45-55

Riley, D. N. ‘Air reconnaissance of west and south Yorkshire in 1975’ Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 48. 1976. pp. 13-17

Still, D. A Roman Villa and Settlement at Ingleby Barwick, Stockton on Tees. University of Durham Archaeological Services Assessment and Evaluation Reports. 2006. (non vidi)

Rivet, A. L. F. ‘The Brittones Anavionenses’, Britannia 13. 1982. pp.321-322 Rivet, A. L. F. and Smith, C. The Place-Names of Roman Britain. Batsford, London. 1979

129

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Waterhouse, J. The Stone Circles of Cumbria. Phillimore, Chichester. 1985

Still, L., Vyner, B. E. And Bewley, R. ‘A decade of air survey in Cleveland and the Tees Valley hinterland’ in Durham Archaeological Journal 5. 1989. pp.1-10

Watts, V. A Dictionary of County Durham Place-Names. The English Place-Name Society, Nottingham. 2002

Still, L. and Vyner, B.E. ‘Air photographic evidence for later prehistoric settlement in the Tees Valley’ in Durham Archaeological Journal 2. 1986. pp.11-24

Webster, J. ‘Creolizing the Roman Provinces’ in American Journal of Archaeology 105. 2001. pp.209-225

Stoertz, C. Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds. Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, Swindon. 1997

Welfare, H. ‘The Uplands of the Northern Counties in the First Millennium BC’ in Brooks, C., Daniels, R. and Harding, A. Past Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England. Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5, Durham. 2002. pp.71-77

Summerson, H. R. T. Brougham and Brough Castles. English Heritage, London. 1999 Swanton, M. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Phoenix Press, London. 2000

Welfare, H. et al. ‘Stanwick, North Yorkshire, Part 2: A summary description of the earthworks’ in The Archaeological Journal 147, 1990. pp.16-36

Taylor, B. J. British Regional Geology: Northern England. HMSO, London. 19714

Wellesley, K. The Year of the Four Emperors. Routledge, London. 2000

Taylor, J. The Roman Pottery from Castle Street, Carlisle: Excavations 1981-2. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Archaeological and Antiquarian Society, 5(iv). 1991

Wellesley, K. Tacitus: The Histories. Sydney University Press, Sydney. 1972 Wenham, L. P. and Heywood, B. Yorkshire Archaeological Report No. 3: The 1968-1970 excavations in the vicus at Malton, North Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Roman Antiquities Section, Leeds. 1997

Tipping, R. ‘Pollen analysis and the impact of Rome on native agriculture around Hadrian’s Wall’ in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C.(eds.) Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow, Oxford. 1997. pp.239-47 Thompson, J. The Grassington Project 2000. University of Durham Undergraduate Thesis, 2000. (Unpublished) (non vidi)

Wheeler, M. ‘The Stanwick Fortifications: North Riding of Yorkshire’ in Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London. Oxford. 1954

Thurlow, W. Yorkshire Place-Names. Dalesman Books, North Yorkshire. 1979

Williams, G. ‘Recent Work on Rural Settlement in SouthWest Wales’ in Burham, B. C. and Davies, J. L. (eds.) Conquest Co-Existence and Change: Recent Work in Roman Wales. Trivium 25, Lampeter. 1990. pp.112-122

Todd, M. Peoples of Roman Britain: The Coritanii. Sutton, Gloucestershire. 1991 (rev. ed.) Trigger, B. G. A history of Archaeological Thought. CUP, Cambridge. 1989

Willis, S. ‘Samian Pottery in Britain: exploring its Distribution and Archaeological Potential’ in Archaeological Journal 155, London, 1998a. pp.82-133

Tyers, P. A. Roman pottery in Britain. Batsford, London. 1996

Willis, S. ‘The Iron Age and Roman Pottery’ and ‘Objects of Fired Clay’ in Main, L. ‘Excavations of a timber round-house and broch at the Fairy Knowe, Buchlyvie, Stirlingshire.1975-8’. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 128. 1998b. pp.321-31 and 332-5

Van Arsdell, R. D. Celtic Coinage of Britain. Spink, London. 1989 Van der Veen, M. Crop Husbandry Regimes: an Archaeological Study of Farming in Northern England 1000 BC-AD 500. Sheffield Archaeological Monograph, Sheffield. 1992

Willis, S. ‘The Romanization of Pottery Assemblages in the East and North East of England During the First Century AD: A Comparative Analysis’, Britannia 27. 1996. pp.179-221

Vyner, B. Moorland Monuments: Studies in the Archaeology of North-East Yorkshire in Honour of Raymond Hayes and Don Spratt. CBA Research Report no.101, York. 1995

Wilmott, T. Birdoswald; Excavations of a Roman fort on Hadrian’s Wall and its successor settlement: 1987-92. English Heritage Archaeological Reports 14, London. 1997

Waddell, J. The Prehistoric archaeology of Ireland. Wordwell, Co. Wicklow. 2000 130

BIBLIOGRAPHY Wilson, P.R. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland, excavations and research 1958-97 Part 1. CBA research report 128, York. 2002

Holme House Piercebridge www.barbicanra.co.uk [Accessed July 2008] Keys to the Past http://www.keystothepast.info/k2p/usp.nsf/pws/keys+to+t he+Past+-+home+page

Wilson, P.R. ‘The Yorkshire Moors in the Roman Period: developments and directions’ in Vyner, B. E. (ed.) Moorland Monuments: Studies in the Archaeology of North-East Yorkshire in Honour of Raymond Hayes and Don Spratt. CBA Research Report 101, London. 1995. pp.69-78

Louis Francis. Ptolemy’s Geographia: Books 1 and 2. 1994 [online]http://www.reshistoriaeantiqua.co.uk/Ptolemy%2 0B.html [Accessed May 2006]

Wood, M. and Queiroga, F. (eds.) Current Research on the Romanization of the Western Provinces. BAR International Series 575. 1992

North-West Research Framework (draft) http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/mol/archaeology/ar f/documents/ASSESSMENTINTRODUCTION.pdf [Accessed June 2008]

Woodman, A. J. Tacitus: The Annals. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis. 2004

Roman Britain 2004. [online] http://www.roman-britain.org [Accessed May 2006]

Woodcock, N. and Strachan, R. Geological History of Britain and Ireland. Blackwell, Oxford. 2002 corr.

Sedgefield Roman Town www.dur.ac.uk/archaeological.services/research_and_trai ning/sedgefield [Accessed June 2008] http://www.durham.gov.uk/durhamcc/usp.nsf/pws/Archa eology+-+Archaeology-Projects-East+Park+Sedgefield [Accessed July 2008]

Woolf, G. Becoming Roman. CUP, Cambridge. 1998. Wooliscroft, D. J., Nevell, M. D., and Swain, S. A. M. ‘The Roman site on Grey Hill, Bewcastle, Cumbria’, Jones, B. C. and Wiseman, W. G. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 89. 1989. pp.69-75

Street House, Loftus http://www.teesarchaeology.com/new/StreetHouseInDept hInfo.html [Accessed June 2008]

Wright, R. P. and Gillam, J. P. ‘Second Report on Roma Buildings at Old Durham’ in Archaeologia Aeliana 29, 1951. pp.203-212

Tees Archaeology http://www.teesarchaeology.com [Accessed June 2008]

Wrathmell, S. and Nicholson, A. (eds.) Dalton Parlours Iron Age settlement and Roman Villa. Yorkshire Archaeological Trust 3. Yorkshire Archaeology Service, Hull.1990

Tyers, P. A. Potsherd: Atlas of Roman Pottery. 2007 [online] http://www.potsherd.uklinux.net [Accessed April 2007] Willis, S. ‘Samian Pottery: A Resource for the Study of Roman Britain and Beyond’ in Internet Archaeology. 2005 [online] http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue17/willis_index.html [Accessed May 2008]

Young, R. ‘The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Periods in Northern England: An Overview’ in Brooks, C., Daniels, R. and Harding, A. (eds). Past, Present and Future: The Archaeology of Northern England. Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Report 5. Durham. 2002. pp.37-43

INTERNET Archaeology Data Service [online] http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/index.html [Accessed May 2005] Bournemouth University AIP http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/aip/aipintro.htm [Accessed June 2008] Carey, W. L. The Latin Library. [online] http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/index.html [Accessed June 2007] Heslin, P. J. Diogenes (1999-2007) [online]http://www.dur.ac.uk/p.j.heslin/Software/Diogene s/index.php [Accessed June 2007] 131

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION

GRID REF OSGB

TORTHORWALD; DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY; SCOTLAND EWANRIGG; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 0258 7863 FORT

IRON AGE

NY 033 352

IRON AGE

TORTHORWALD; DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY; SCOTLAND SWARTHY HILL; (SOLWAY PLAIN PROJECT); CROSSCANONBY; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND TOWN BANK; ENNERDALE AND KINNISIDE; COPELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

NY 0417 7876 FORT

IRON AGE

NY 06 40

IRON AGE

MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

NY 0700 0980 CAIRNFIELD, HUT CIRCLE, LONG CAIRN, ROUND CAIRN, ENCLOSURE, BANK (EARTHWORK) HAYTON AND MEALO; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 086 414 CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

DALTON; DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY; SCOTLAND

NY 0864 7639 FORT

IRON AGE

ALLONBY; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 089 429

IRON AGE

DALTON; DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY; SCOTLAND

CROPMARK, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT NY 0884 7603 FORT

IRON AGE

HOLME ST CUTHBERT; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 0904 4763 ANNEXE ENCLOSURE, CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, PIT, SETTLEMENT HOLME ST CUTHBERT; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 0977 4629 BOUNDARY DITCH, CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, FIND, PIT DEFINED ENCLOSURE, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, SCRAPER (TOOL), SETTLEMENT, SPINDLE WHORL, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT WOLSTY HALL; HOLME LOW; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND ALLONBY; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

GOSFORTH; COPELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND HOLME LOW; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND WESTNEWTON; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

EARLY NEOLITHIC

IRON AGE

NY 10 51

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NY 101 431

CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE, CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

HOLME ST CUTHBERT; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 103 462

NY 1037 0542 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE NY 105 505 CROPMARK, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT NY 1099 4305, AMPHORA, EARTHWORK, FIND, FLOOR, NY 1105 4412, HAMMERSTONE, QUERN, SETTLEMENT NY 1146 4317

HOLME ST CUTHBERT; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 110 463

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

SILLOTH ON SOLWAY; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 1135 5403 CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIND, FINDSPOT, SQUARE ENCLOSURE, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, TEMPORARY CAMP, VESSEL DALTON; DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY; SCOTLAND NY 117 739 FORT

IRON AGE

HOLME ABBEY; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 126 476

IRON AGE

HOLME LOW; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND HOLME LOW; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND WESTNEWTON; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

NY 127 514

CROPMARK, DYKE (DEFENCE), FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NY 132 513

SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NY 139 436

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

GREENDALE; NETHER WASDALE; COPELAND; CUMBRIA; NY 14 05 ENGLAND HOLME ABBEY; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 141 497

SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

CROPMARK, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

HOLME ABBEY; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 145 483

CROP MARK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

NETHER WASDALE; COPELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 144 056

EARTHWORK, FARMSTEAD, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

HOLME ABBEY; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 148 485

CROPMARK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

HOLME ABBEY; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 166 506

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

ANNAN; DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY; SCOTLAND

NY 1705 7190 FORT

IRON AGE

BROMFIELD; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 180 455

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BROMFIELD; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 181 457

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BROMFIELD; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 183 482

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

WYTHOP; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 2016 3081 EARTHWORK, FIND, FINDSPOT, HILLFORT, POT BOILER, TILE

IRON AGE

DUNDRAW; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 212 494

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

DUNDRAW; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 217 497

CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

132

PREHISTORIC

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

Local HER/ SMR Number

ADS Number

Bibliographic References

None Recorded

NY07NW 1

None Recorded

RCAHMS06-66134

RCAHMS (1920) RCAHMS (1997) Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological RCAHMS (1920) RCAHMS (1997) Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological None Recorded

ROMAN

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

NY07NW 15

None Recorded

RCAHMS06-66140.

Excavated 1988-89

1029675

N/A

EHNMR-1029675.

National Trust SMR 24399

NTSMR-NA10643.

EH Pastscape: 9140

NMR_NATINV-9140.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Identified from aerial photography None Recorded

NY 04 SE 5 NY07NE 8

None Recorded

RCAHMS06-66132.

ROMAN

Aerial Photograph

NY 04 SE 9

EH Pastscape 9148

NMR_NATINV-9148.

None Recorded

NY07NE 9

None Recorded

RCAHMS06-66133.

None Recorded

Aerial Photograph Reference if any

Archaeological Journal (N Higham) 132, 1975 NMR NY0841/3 (12295/60) 14-JUL-1992 Page(s)30 RCAHMS (1920) RCAHMS (1997) Archaeological Journal (N Higham) 132, 1975 NMR NY0842/3 (13485/37) 01-Jan-1975 Page(s)30 Feachem, R W 'Iron Age and early medieval monuments in Archaeological Journal (N Higham) 132, 1975 NMR NY 0947/10 ( 13554/4) 28-JUL-1977 Page(s)30

ROMAN

Cropmark and mapped NY 04 NE 27 by air photographs

EH Pastscape: 9122

NMR_NATINV-9122.

ROMAN

Aerial Photograph 1949, fieldwalking 1984, limited excavation 1988-90, gephysical survey 1990 Excavated 1956-58

NY 04 NE 21

EH Pastscape 9108

NMR_NATINV-9108.

Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland 16, 2001, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society 93, 1993

631156

N/A

EHNMR-631156.

NY 14 SW 17

EH Pastscape 9591

NMR_NATINV-9591.

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark

NY 14 NW 11

EH Pastscape 9538

NMR_NATINV-9538.

ROMAN

Excavated 1936

NY 10 NW 2

EH Pastscape 9162

NY 10 NW 2

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph 1996 Earthwork remains, fieldwalking

NY 15 SW 18

EH Pastscape 9684

NMR_NATINV-9684.

NY 14 SW 2

EH Pastscape 9572

NMR_NATINV-9572.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 24, 1958 Page(s)217 Archaeological Journal (N Higham) 132, 1975 NMR NY 1043/2 (13484/6) 01-JAN-1975 Page(s)30 Archaeological Journal (N Higham) 132, 1975 Page(s)30 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Archaeological Journal (N Higham) 132, 1975 NMR NY1050/43 (20599/22) 28-JUL-2006 Page(s)30 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society 5 pp.121-3

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 14 NW 14

EH Pastscape 9541

NMR_NATINV-9541.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 15 SW 21

EH Pastscape 9687

NMR_NATINV-9687.

Identified initially by field survey then by aerial photography

NY17SW 2

None Recorded

RCAHMS06-66735.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 14 NW 15

EH Pastscape 9542

NMR_NATINV-9542.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 15 SW 19

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 15 SW 20

EH Pastscape 9686

NMR_NATINV-9686.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 14 SW 24

EH Pastscape 9598

NMR_NATINV-9598.

Excavated 1927

628347

N/A

EHNMR-628347.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 14 NW 17

EH Pastscape 9544

NMR_NATINV-9544.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 14 NW 18

EH Pastscape 9545

NMR_NATINV-9545.

Excavated 1927, earthwork

NY 10 NW 13

EH Pastscape 9195

NMR_NATINV-9195.

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark

NY 14 NW 21

EH Pastscape 9548

NMR_NATINV-9548.

NY 15 SE 12

EH Pastscape 9656

NMR_NATINV-9656.

Aerial Photograph

NY17SE 5

None Recorded

RCAHMS06-66715

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 14 NE 9

EH Pastscape 9517

NMR_NATINV-9517.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 14 NE 10

EH Pastscape 9518

NMR_NATINV-9518.

ROMAN

Cropmark, Partial excavation 1995 Aerial Photograph, earthwork

NY 14 NE 11

EH Pastscape 9519

NMR_NATINV-9519.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 24 NW 16

EH Pastscape 9984

NMR_NATINV-9984.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 24 NW 13

EH Pastscape 9981

NMR_NATINV-9981.

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

Archaeological Journal (N Higham) 132, 1975 Page(s)30 Britainna (N J Higham and G D B Jones) 14, 1983 Page(s)57, Britannia (R Goodburn) 9, 1978 Page(s)424 RCAHMS (1920) RCAHMSAP 1983 RCAHMS (1997) Truckell, A. E. 'Some lowland native sites in Western Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)29, 30-1 Archaeological Journal (N Higham) 132, 1975 Page(s)30 Archaeological Journal (N Higham) 132, 1975 Page(s)30 Archaeological Journal (N Higham) 132, 1975 Page(s)31 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)31 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)31 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society 28, 1928 Page(s)371-6 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) APs (OS 66/111 374-5 1966) 132, 1975 Page(s)31 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)31 Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Possible traces on APs (540/1540 F22 0053Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian 4). Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)31 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)31 Britannia 27, 1996 Page.405, Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Transactions of the Cumberland and NMR OS 76054 415 13-MAY-1976 Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 11, 1911 Page(s)118-121 plan (JF Curwen) Transactions of the Cumberland and Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)31 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)32

NMR_NATINV-9685.

NY 23 SW 2

AP (CUC DU 033 11.7.49)

NMR_NATINV-9936.

133

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

WAVERTON; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

LOCATION

GRID REF OSGB NY 227 494

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

WAVERTON; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 229 474

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

WAVERTON; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 233 449

CROPMARK, PROMONTORY FORT

IRON AGE

WAVERTON; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 233 451

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

KIRKBRIDE; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 2338 5549 BOUNDARY, CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, EXTRACTIVE PIT, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BORROWDALE; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 2493 1594 EARTHWORK, FIND, FINDSPOT, IRON WORKING SITE, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT, VESSEL

IRON AGE

WESTWARD; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 2547 4620 CROPMARK, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

IREBY AND ULDALE; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 256 372

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BORROWDALE; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 2751 1757 EARTHWORK, HILLFORT

IRON AGE

IREBY AND ULDALE; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 2759 3408, CROSS DYKE, PROMONTORY FORT NY 2760 3409

IRON AGE

FINGLAND FARM; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 278 575

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

OUGHTERBY; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND BOUSTEAD HILL; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 290 556 NY 295 590

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE IRON AGE

LAKES; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 2972 0328 EARTHWORK, HILLFORT, HUT CIRCLE, HUT PLATFORM

IRON AGE

ST JOHNS CASTLERIGG AND WYTHBURN; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 2999 1880 EARTHWORK, HILLFORT

IRON AGE

NETHERHALL; MARYPORT; CUMBRIA; SOLWAY

NY 304 536 NY 308 475

THE BATTERIES; AIGLEGILL; ASPATRIA; WESTNEWTON; ENGLAND

NY 311 544

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, DITCH, SUBSURFACE DEPOSIT CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, FIND, VESSEL SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK QUERN, STONE HAMMER

IRON AGE

WESTWARD; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SILLOTH; SILLOTH ON SOLWAY; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 311 553

FARMSTEAD, CROPMARK

IRON AGE

DRYHOLME; HOLME LOW; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 313 551

SETTLEMENT, CROPMARK

IRON AGE

BURGH BY SANDS; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 3221 5798 CROPMARK, CURVILINEAR ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), TRACKWAY NY 3223 5792 BOUNDARY DITCH, CROPMARK, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC) NY 3321 5820 BOUNDARY DITCH, CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, DOUBLE DITCHED ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT NY 3350 5863 CROPMARK, PIT, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC)

BURGH BY SANDS; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

BURGH BY SANDS; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

BURGH BY SANDS; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

DALSTON; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 337 493

CROPMARK, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY

CALDBECK; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 3425 3364 CAIRN, CIST, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HILLFORT, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

CALDBECK; ALLERDALE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 356 346

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

WASDALE FOOT SETTLEMENT; SHAP RURAL; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 357 509

SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM

IRON AGE

DALSTON; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 358 512

CROPMARK, HUT CIRCLE, TRACKWAY

IRON AGE

WINDERWATH; BROUGHAM; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 359 528

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FARMSTEAD, CROPMARK

IRON AGE

PATTERDALE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND HELM; ORMSIDE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 3671 1490 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE NY 369 515 SETTLEMENT, CROPMARK

IRON AGE

CROSBY GARRETT; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 370 509

IRON AGE

SETTLEMENT, CROPMARK

134

PREHISTORIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

IRON AGE

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 24 NW 11

Local HER/ SMR Number EH pastscape 9979

NMR_NATINV-9979.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 24 NW 8

EH Pastscape 9976

NMR_NATINV-9976.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 24 SW 9

EH Pastscape 10008

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 24 NW 7

EH Pastscape 9975

NMR_NATINV10008. NMR_NATINV-9975.

Cropmark on Aerial Photograph

NY 25 NW 19

EH Pastscape 1364441

NMR_NATINV1364441.

ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN

Earthwork. NY 21 NW 2 Antiquarian work recovered Roman pottery and evidence for iron working on the site. Cropmark, Aerial NY 24 NE 8 Photograph Earthwork, Aerial NY 23 NE 7 Photograph Earthwork NY 21 NE 4 Earthwork, Aerial Photogaph

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

Excavated 1977

ADS Number

Bibliographic Aerial Photograph References Reference if any Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)32 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)32 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)32 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)32 None Recorded NMR NY 2355/20 (12745/10) 07-AUG-1995

NMR_NATINV-9802.

Transactions of the Cumberland Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 24, 1924 Page.83 (RG Collingwood)

EH Pastscpe 9951

NMR_NATINV-9951.

EH Pastscape 9895

NMR_NATINV-9895.

Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) AP DS 061 (Dr J.K. St. Joseph) 132, 1975 Page(s)32 Transactions of the Cumberland and NMR NY2537/14 (17467/10) 16-JUN-2000 Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-9790.

NY 23 SE 24

EH Pastscape 1361675

NMR_NATINV1361675.

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded 630066

None Recorded N/A

None Recorded EHNMR-630066.

Earthworks including NY 20 SE 46 hut platforms, hut circles and rock cut ditches

NMR_NATINV1347853.

Earthwork containing NY 21 NE 2 levelled rock cut hut platforms

NMR_NATINV-9786.

None Recorded

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Transactions of the Cumberland and Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological None Recorded

Transactions of the Cumberland Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 24, 1924 Page.82 (R.G. Collingwood)

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

NY 35 NW 172

EH Pastscape 1378164

NMR_NATINV1378164.

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

NY 35 NW 176

EH Pastscape 1378196

NMR_NATINV1378196.

ROMAN

Excavated 1980, Aerial Photographs

NY 35 NW 40

EH Pastscape 10772

NMR_NATINV10772.

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

NY 35 NW 153

EH Pastscape 1377902

NMR_NATINV1377902.

Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)25 Transactions of the Cumberland Westmorland Robert Bewley RB 88, 29 Robert Bewley RB 88, 30 Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 23, 1923 Page 243; Transactions of the Britannia 14,1983, Page(s) 45-72 Manchester University MU CS 120, 7 Britannia 10,1979, Page(s) 284 Manchester University MU CS 122, 17 Archaeological desk-based assessment and Manchester University MU CS 122, 18 walkover survey on land at Fell View, Silloth, Manchester University MU CS 122, 19 Ove Arup Partners Ltd, Hellrigg Wind Farm: Manchester University MU CS 59, 14 environmental statement. Unpublished client Manchester University MU CS 59, 15 NMR NY 3158/1 (11519/109/52) 05-AUGNone Recorded 1984 NMR NY 3158/3 (13557/16) 28-JUL-1977 NMR NY 3158/5 (4091/05) 06-JUL-1988 None Recorded NMR NY 3258/24 (13518/31) 02-AUG-1977 NMR NY 3257/25 (12911/330) 12-AUG-1996 NMR NY 3257/46 (NMR 20596/35) 28-JulBritannia 12, 1981 Page(s)325-7 (F O Grew), NMR NY 3358/14 (13488/41) 01-JAN-1975 Britannia 14, 1983 Page.45, Archaeological CUCAP (ADZ84) 20-JUL-1961 Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 None Recorded CUCAP (AGO51) 25-JUL-1952 NMR NY 3358/1 (11534/27) 30-AUG-1983

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 34 NW 10

EH Pastscape 10537

NMR_NATINV10537.

Archaeological Journal (N J Highan & G D B Jones) 132 , 1975 Page(s)33

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

NY 33 SW 1

EH Pastscape 10501

NMR_NATINV10501.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NY 33 SE 8

EH Pastscape 10499

NMR_NATINV10499.

ROMAN

Desk based assessment 2006, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial NY 35 SE 16 Photograph Geophysical Survey 2002, Aerial Photographs Earthwork NY 31 SE 1

Transactions of the Cumberland and NMR NY 3333/2 (17159/34) 18-AUG-1998 Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological NMR NY3433/41 (17448/11) 16-JUN-2000 Society 23, 1923 Page.241 (WG Collingwood) Archaeology in the North Gazetteer 1975, Page.18 None Recorded Manchester University MU CS 46, 33 Manchester University MU CS 46, 34

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

Geophysical Survey 2000-4 Cropmark

Cumbria SMR 42082 NY 34 NW 9

Excavated April-May 2006, Aerial Photograph Excavated 1977, Desk Based Assessment 2006, Aerial Photographs Aerial Photographs

EH Pastscape 10536

Information from Cumbria SMR NMR_NATINV10536.

Cumbria SMR 596

Information from Cumbria SMR

Cumbria SMR 4196

Information from Cumbria SMR

Cumbria SMR 4195

Information from Cumbria SMR

Cumbria SMR 1940

EH Pastscape 10802

Information from Cumbria SMR NMR_NATINV10802.

Cumbria SMR 2881

EH Pastscape 10389

Information from Cumbria SMR NMR_NATINV10389.

ROMAN

Desk-based assessment & walkover survey 2006; Geophysical survey 2006

Cumbria SMR 3477

Information from Cumbria SMR

ROMAN

Desk-based assessment & Walk-over survey 2003, possible Aerial Photograph now lost

Cumbria SMR 3934

Information from Cumbria SMR

135

Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) APs (OS 69/033 277-30 2 4 69) 132, 1975 Page(s)33 Cumbria County Council CCC 2589, 15 A66 Temple Sowerby Geophysical Survey Cumbria County Council CCC 2589, 16 Report Cumbria County Council CCC 3082, 1 2002 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Manchester University MU E86 Wild Rose Park, Ormside, Appleby-inWestmorland, Cumbria: archaeological deskbased assessment and walkover survey, Archaeological Services, University of Durham, 2006 Little Asby Scar and Sunbiggin Tarn Common, Eden District, Cumbria: archaeological survey, Oxford Archaeology North Report L9304 Site 4, 2004

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION

EWEBANK SCAR; NATEBY;CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

GRID REF DESCRIPTION OSGB NY 3755 5850 CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HILLFORT, TRACKWAY NY 378 507 SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

HARTLEY; KIRKBY STEPHEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 379 508

SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE, DYKE

IRON AGE

WHINGILL; HARTLEY; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 379 509

FARMSTEAD, EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

GLENCOYNE PARK 2; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 384 196

HUT CIRCLE, POSSIBLE ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

GLENCOYNE PARK 4; CUMRBIA; ENGLAND

NY 388 195

IRON AGE

GLENCOYNE PARK 6; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 389 199

GLENCOYNE PARK 7; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 391 199

BALDHOWEND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND DOBCROSS HALL; DALSTON; DALSTON; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND MATTERDALE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 396 226 NY 39 44

HUT CIRCLE, LONG HOUSE, POSSIBLE ENCLOSURE HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, POSSIBLE CAIRN, ENCLOSURE HUT CIRCLE, POSSIBLE CURVILINEAR ENCLOSURE UNENCLOSED SETTLEMENT ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

PATTERDALE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 3993 1414 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT NY 40 56 HUT CIRCLE, BUILDING

IRON AGE

NY 404 228

ROUND HOUSE, ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

GREYSTOKE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 406 309

BROWNRIGG; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 408 246

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT CURVILINEAR SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

ALLEN KNOTT AND LATTER HEATH; WINDERMERE; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND GREYSTOKE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 4144 0104 UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

NY 410 309 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT NY 4113 6007 CROPMARK, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC)

IRON AGE

KINGMOOR; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

GLOBE LANE; SCOTCH STREET; CARLISLE; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND ULCAT ROW; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

STANWIX RURAL; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 396 226

ENCLOSURE, HEARTH, HOLLOW WAY, HUT, SLAG, STRUCTURE, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, WALL

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

WINDERMERE; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 4145 0103 EARTHWORK, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

HUTTON; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 419 282

EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT, STONE CIRCLE

IRON AGE

STONE CARR; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 419 286

SCOOPED CURVILINEAR SETTLEMENT, CURVILINEAR SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

HUGHILL; HIGH BORRANS; HUGILL; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 4373 0097 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK, D SHAPED ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC)

WETHERAL; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 4353 5530 BOUNDARY DITCH, CROPMARK, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC) CURVILINEAR SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

HUTTON JOHN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 445 274

IRON AGE

BARTON; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 45 22, NY EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT 46 22 NY 4510 2435 BUILDING PLATFORM, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT NY 4585 4789 CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM NY 46 02 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

MATTERDALE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND HESKET; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND MILLRIGG; KENTMERE; KENTMERE; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND CASTLE CRAG; MARDALE; BAMPTON; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND HESKET; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND DACRE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

NY 46 12

HILLFORT

IRON AGE

NY 466 475

CROPMARK, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

NY 4677 2462 EARTHWORK, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

BAMPTON; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 4692 1277 EARTHWORK, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

SHAP RURAL; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 484 140

IRON AGE

DACRE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 4847 2750 CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, HILLFORT

IRON AGE

LAZONBY; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 4972 4283 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SHAP RURAL; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 499 153

EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

PENRITH FARM; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 502 333

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

BRAMPTON; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 502 603

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SHAP RURAL; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 508 157

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM

IRON AGE

DESTROYED MONUMENT, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

136

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

Cropmark, Aerial NY 35 NE 6 Photographs Topographic Survey 2007, Aerial Photograph Desk-based assessment & walk-over surve 2002, Aerial Photographs Desk-based assessment & walk-over survey 2002, Aerial Photograph Geophysical Survey 2000-2003 Geophysical Survey 2000-2003 Excavated

Local HER/ SMR Number EH Pastscape 10572

ADS Number

Cumbria SMR 3446

Information from Cumbria SMR

Cumbria SMR 2779

Information from Cumbria SMR

Cumbria SMR 3444

Information from Cumbria SMR

Geophysical Survey 2000-2003 Excavated 1998 Trial Excavation 1977- 645865 79 Geophysical Survey, NY 32 SE 3 Excavated 1997

N/A

EHNMR-645865.

EH Pastscape 1340574

NMR_NATINV1340574.

ROMAN

Earthwork

NY 31 SE 4

EH Pastscape 10398

ROMAN

Excavated 1981

646249

N/A

NMR_NATINV10398. EHNMR-646249.

ROMAN

Geophysical Survey 2000-2003 Cropmark

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN

NY 43 SW 12

Geophysical Survey 2000-2003 Earthwork, Excavated 645919 1963 Cropmark NY 43 SW 13 Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

NY 46 SW 8

Excavated 1963 rampart sectioned Earthwork

NY 40 SW 5

EH Pastscape 11319

NMR_NATINV11319.

N/A

EHNMR-645919.

EH Pastscape 10944

NMR_NATINV10944. NMR_NATINV11116.

Geophysical Survey 2000-2003

ROMAN

Excavated 1881

645982

N/A

EHNMR-645982.

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Geophysical Survey 2000-2003 Earthwork

NY 45 NW 245

EH Pastscape 1383234

NMR_NATINV1383234.

ROMAN

ROMAN

NY 42 SE 14

EH Pastscape 11163

Earthwork

NY 42 SE 3

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs Excavated 1935

NY 44 NE 3

EH Pastscape 11325

628671

N/A

632618

N/A

EHNMR-632618.

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

NY 44 NE 8

EH Pastscape 11330

NMR_NATINV11330. NMR_NATINV11131. NMR_NATINV11056. NMR_NATINV11070.

NY 42 SE 2

Earthwork

NY 41 SE 1

Earthwork now destroyed by landslip

NY 41 SE 7

EH Pastscape 11070

Earthwork

NY 42 NE 12

EH Pastscape 11102

NMR_NATINV11102.

ROMAN

Earthwork

NY 44 SE 4

EH Pastscape 11356

ROMAN

Earthwork

NY 41 NE 22

EH Pastscape 11021

ROMAN

Excavated 1979

None Recorded

None Recorded

NMR_NATINV11356. NMR_NATINV11021. None Recorded

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

NY 56 SW 49

EH Pastscape 12861

NY 51 NW 4

EH Pastscape 11818

ROMAN

ROMAN

None Recorded

NMR NY 4355/10 (12761/24) 15-AUG-1995

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological None Recorded

NMR_NATINV11163. NMR_NATINV11134. NMR_NATINV11325. EHNMR-628671.

Excavated 1922

Report on an archaeological field survey at Lockthwaite Farm, Nateby, near Kirkby Stephen, Cumbria. Philip Cracknell Historic Archaeological Journal,1975 Page(s)44 Manchester University MU CS 23, 25 Survey, Cumbria: archaeological survey report Manchester University MU CS 23, 26 L9119, Oxford Archaeology North, 2003, Site Manchester University MU CS 44, 18 51, 1. Manchester University MU CS 45, 11 Manchester University MU CS 45, 14 RAF Hartley Fold Estate Survey, Cumbria: RAF 540,570 30 7 51 archaeological survey report L9119,Oxford Archaeology North site 7, 2003 Page(s) 83 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Transactions of the Cumberland and Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Interim report: Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society 100, 2000

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)36 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)36 NMR, NY 4159/3-4 None Recorded NMR NY 4160/6 (2174/4029) 01-AUG-1984 CUCAP (CQN66) 30-JUL-1984 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)36, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Series 3 vol.3, 2003 Page(s)51-66 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society 6, 1883 Page(s)86-90

NMR_NATINV11320. EH Pastscape 927783 NMR_NATINV927783.

NY 42 NW 1

Aerial Photograph Reference if any NMR NY 3758/9 (3402/09A) 29-DEC-1985 NMR NY 3758/17 (12166/00) 13-AUG-1991 Manchester University MU E43 RAF RAF 540,570 3003-4 30 7 51

RCHME 'An inventory of the historical monuments in Westmorland', 1936 Page(s)130Britannia 13, 1982 Page.344

EH Pastscape 11320

ROMAN

ROMAN

Bibliographic References None Recorded

NMR_NATINV10572.

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological AP (CUC BE82) None Recorded AP (CUC BE82 10 7 48) RCHME 'An inventory of the historical monuments in Westmorland', 1936 Page(s)130Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)36 AP (CUC DO 049 PM 9 7 49) None Recorded Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)36 None Recorded RCHME 'An inventory of the historical monuments in Westmorland', 1936 1936 Page(s)195 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)36 None Recorded Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)52 Higham, N. et al. ‘The Excavation of two Romano-British Farm Sites in North Cumbria’ Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) APs (RAF 540/519 4105-6 1 6 51) 132, 1975 Page(s)35 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)52

NMR_NATINV12861. NMR_NATINV11818.

137

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION HAWK HIRST; BRAMPTON; BRAMPTON; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND OLD BRAMPTON; BRAMPTON; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND BRAMPTON; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

GRID REF OSGB NY 51 61

EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

NY 51 61

SETTLEMENT, BUILDING, DITCH

IRON AGE

NY 5131 6119, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE NY 5136 6121 DEPOSIT

IRON AGE

NY 5148 0151 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NY 5185 2518 EARTHWORK, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

LONGSLEDDALE; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND YANWATH AND EAMONT BRIDGE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND WHITWELL AND SELSIDE; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND BRAMPTON; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 5194 0291 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NY 522 609

IRON AGE

LOWTHER PARK; EDEN; CUMBRIA

NY 5280 2340 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BAMPTON; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 5300 1929 EARTHWORK, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

THRIMBY; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 5432 1884 HILLFORT, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT, ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK NY 5442 2990 CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, TRACKWAY

IRON AGE

LOWTHER; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 548 229

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BEWCASTLE; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND GREY HILL; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 565 746 NY 569 760

SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

SHAP RURAL; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 5779 0960 EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT NY 578 093 HILLFORT

IRON AGE

NY 60 13

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT

IRON AGE

NY 602 189

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, INHUMATION, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT

IRON AGE

LANGWATHBY; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

ORTON; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND EWE CLOSE; CROSBY RAVENSWORTH; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND SLEAGILL; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

BIRDOSWALD; WATERHEAD; CARLISLE; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND GLASSONBY; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND HARTLEYBURN; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND HARTLEYBURN; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND HARTLEYBURN; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND CULGAITH; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

NY 6155 6612 HILLFORT, PROMONTARY FORT

IRON AGE

NY 633 405 SETTLEMENT NY 6346 6082 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, SCOOPED SETTLEMENT NY 637 612 EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

NY 6375 6069 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, SCOOPED SETTLEMENT NY 6413 3344 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE

CRACKENTHORPE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 6437 2432 CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, SUB CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

OUSBY; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 6443 3426 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

KNARESDALE WITH KIRKHAUGH; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND, ENGLAND KENNEL HALL; KNOWE; FALSTONE; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND GOWANBURN CAMP; KIELDER; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND CULGAITH; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND CULGAITH; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND CULGAITH; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 653 484

EARTHWORK, FARMSTEAD

NY 66 89

SETTLEMENT

CULGAITH; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND LONG MARTON; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

NY 661 900

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NY 663 319 NY 665 319 NY 672 325

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

NY 674 323 CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT NY 6746 2215 CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FORTLET, RING DITCH, SIGNAL STATION

IRON AGE IRON AGE

GREENHEAD; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND NY 6778 6673 EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

LATE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

ASBY; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND THE BELLING LAW; FALSTONE; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND ASBY; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 678 107 NY 68 88

ASBY; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 684 113

MILBURN; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND MILBURN; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND MILBURN; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND A69 HALTWHISTLE BY-PASS; HALTWHISTLE; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 694 310 NY 695 304 NY 699 311 NY 70 63

LONG MARTON; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND FEATHERSTONE; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 700 295 CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT NY 7012 6222 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

DUFTON; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 7016 2301 D SHAPED ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIND, QUERN

IRON AGE

LONG MARTON; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND BELLISTER CASTLE, FEATHERSTONE; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND ASBY; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 702 292 NY 706 632

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

NY 714 114

SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NY 688 103

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT PIT, PLOUGH MARKS, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, FIELD, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, PADDOCK CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT HUT CIRCLE, CREMATION

138

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

Excavated 1898

628641

Local HER/ SMR Number N/A

ADS Number

ROMAN ROMAN

Excavated 1956

628636

N/A

EHNMR-628636.

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

NY 56 SW 45

EH Pastscape 12855

NMR_NATINV12855.

ROMAN

None Recorded

NY 50 SW 2

EH Pastscape 11735

Earthwork

NY 52 NW 31

ROMAN

Earthwork

NY 50 SW 3

EH Pastscape 11738

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs Survey 1997

NY 56 SW 47

EH Pastscape 12859

NMR_NATINV11735. NMR_NATINV12051. NMR_NATINV11738. NMR_NATINV12859.

ROMAN

ROMAN

Bibliographic References Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological None Recorded

EHNMR-628641.

Information from Bournemouth AIP

Earthwork

NY 51 NW 8

EH Pastscape 11828

Earthwork, Survey 1984-85 Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

NY 50 SW 3

EH Pastscape 11738

NY 52 NW 22

EH Pastscape 12028

NMR_NATINV11828. NMR_NATINV11738. NMR_NATINV12028.

RCHME 'An inventory of the historical monuments in Westmorland', 1936 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological AP (CUC No.DO - 074) None Recorded

NMR_NATINV12166. NMRMIC-2385. EHNMR-1032282.

Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 Page(s)25 None Recorded Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Antiquarian RCHME 'An inventory of the historical monuments in Westmorland', 1936 Page(s)195 None Recorded (OS 73/114 004-5 2.5.73) (CUC AQL 93 2 1 67) Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological None Recorded (OS 68/224 134-5 14.6.68)

Cropmark

NY 52 SW 34

EH Pastscape 12166

ROMAN ROMAN

None Recorded Excavated 1992-5

2385 1032282

None Recorded N/A

ROMAN

Earthwork

NY 50 NE 2

EH Pastscape 11715 EH Pastscape 11712

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial NY 50 NE 1 Photographs Excavated 1907-1908 628679

N/A

NMR_NATINV11715. NMR_NATINV11712. EHNMR-628679.

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

EH Pastscape 13328

NMR_NATINV-13328.

Excavated 1927-1933 2323

None Recorded

NMRMIC-2323.

ROMAN

Aerial Photograph Aerial Photographs

NY 64 SW 6 NY 66 SW 12

EH Pastscape 13770 EH Pastsape 14143

NMR_NATINV-13770. NMR_NATINV-14143.

ROMAN

Earthwork

6102

KTTP N6102

NSMR03-6102.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Aerial Photograph

NY 66 SW 11

EH Pastscape 14140

NMR_NATINV-14140.

NY 63 SW 2

EH Pastscape 13701

NMR_NATINV-13701.

Cropmarks, Aerial Photographs

NY 62 SW 22

EH Pastscape 1344273

NMR_NATINV-1344273.

ROMAN

(CUC D56 and D57), CUCAP (AKI 034-035) 06-JUL-1949 NMR NY 5161/3 (1140/381) 07-JUL-1977

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Antiquarian RCHME 'An inventory of the historical monuments in Westmorland', 1936 Transactions of the Cumberland Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 71, Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 APs (RAF 540/519 4102-3 1 6 51), APs Page.27 (CUC)

ROMAN

ROMAN

Aerial Photograph Reference if any

NY 61 NW 12

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 None Recorded

AP (J.K. St Joseph, unspecified) RAF 106G/UK/1392 3215 10-APR-1946

Archaeologia Aeliana 4 series 39, 1961 Page(s)94-5 None Recorded

NMR NY 6360/10 13890/84 16-MAY-1995

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological None Recorded

APs (RAF F21/58/1093 0405-6 21.4.53)

APs (RAF F22/58/1156 0153-4 30.6.53)

NMR NY 6423/22 (17333/35) 27-JUL-1999

Earthwork, Aerial Photographs Earthwork

NY 63 SW 5

EH Pastscape 13712

NMR_NATINV-13712.

None Recorded

ROMAN

13106

KTTP N13106

NSMR03-13106.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Excavated 1976

628787

N/A

EHNMR-628787.

ROMAN

Excavated 1977-78

628798

N/A

EHNMR-628798.

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

Cropmarks Cropmarks Cropmarks, Aerial Photograph Cropmark Earthwork, Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

NY 63 SE 14 NY 63 SE 13 NY 63 SE 12

EH Pastscape 13695 EH Pastscape 13694 EH Pastscape 13693

NMR_NATINV-13695. NMR_NATINV-13694. NMR_NATINV-13693.

NY 63 SE 11 NY 62 SE 4

EH Pastscape 13692 EH Pastsape 13605

NMR_NATINV-13692. NMR_NATINV-13605.

Archaeological Excavations for 1976, 1977 Page(s)64 Archaeologia Aeliana 16, 1988 Page(s)11-28 Britannia 9, 1978 Page(s)421 Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 APs (RAF 58/1156/F21 0144-5 30.6.53) Page(s)32 Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 The Journal of Roman Studies St Joseph - "Air DO 79 (CUC) (9.7.49) Reconnaissance of N. Britain 41", 1951 NMR NY 6722/18 (17333/30) 27-JUL-1999 Page(s)53

Earthworks on Aerial NY 66 NE 378 Photographs Cropmark NY 61 SE 12 Excavated 628794

EH Pastscape 1398465 EH Pastscape 13370 N/A

NMR_NATINV-1398465.

None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-13370. EHNMR-628794.

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

NY 61 SE 25

EH Pastscape 13385

NMR_NATINV-13385.

Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 Archaeological Excavations for 1974, 1975 Page(s)103 None Recorded

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

NMR NY6766/15 TMG 19852/62 02-MAY2000

APs (OS 72/272 175-6 18.7.72)

NY 61 SE 10

EH Pastscape 13366

NMR_NATINV-13366.

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

Cropmark Cropmark Cropmark Excavated 1996 (watching brief)

NY 63 SE 8 NY 63 SE 10 NY 63 SE 9 1081774

EH Pastscape 13689 EH Pastscape 13691 EH Pastscape 13690 N/A

NMR_NATINV-13689. NMR_NATINV-13691. NMR_NATINV-13690. EHNMR-1081774.

ROMAN ROMAN

Cropmarks Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

NY 72 NW 2 NY 76 SW 17

EH Pastscape 15003 EH Pastscape 15527

NMR_NATINV-15003. NMR_NATINV-15527.

Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

NY 72 SW 1

NMR_NATINV-15006.

Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) APs (RAF 541/108 3151-2 27 7 48) 132, 1975 Page(s)48

ROMAN ROMAN

Cropmarks Excavated 1996 (watching brief) Cropmark

NY 72 NW 1 6775

NMR_NATINV-15002. NSMR03-6775.

Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 Northern Archaeological Associates, 1997. A69 Haltwhistle Bypass. Archaeological Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones)

ROMAN

ROMAN

NY 71 SW 4

EH Pastscape 15002 KTTP N6775

NMR_NATINV-14993.

139

RCHME 'An inventory of the historical monuments in Westmorland', 1936 Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 Archaeology in Northumberland: [annual newsletter], 1996-97 Page(s)4-5

NMR OS/69243 0177 10-JUN-1969

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION DUFTON; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND RAVENSTONEDALE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND CROSBY GARRETT; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

PLENMELLER WITH WHITFIELD; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND RAVENSTONEDALE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

RAVENSTONEDALE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND RAVENSTONEDALE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND CROSBY GARRETT; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

GRID REF OSGB NY 715 266 NY 717 058 NY 7213 0710

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT CAIRN, COSMETIC SET, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, FIND, INHUMATION NY 7219 6272 D SHAPED ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT NY 722 054 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

NY 7220 0477 CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT NY 723 056 CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT NY 726 085 CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

GREYSTEAD; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND NY 7336 8548 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

RAVENSTONEDALE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 7339 0419 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

TARSET; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 752 862

FIND, QUERN, EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT, AXE

IRON AGE

WAITBY; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 757 083

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE

KIRKBY STEPHEN; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND KIRKBY STEPHEN; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 765 075 SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT NY 7685 0770 EARTHWORK, OVAL ENCLOSURE, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

MALLERSTANG; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 7757 0433 EARTHWORK, UNENCLOSED SETTLEMENT NY 7724 6779 HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT

MILKING GAP; HENSHAW; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND BARDON MILL; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND BARDON MILL; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 776 697

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

NY 7767 6979 EARTHWORK, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

BARDON MILL; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND BARDON MILL; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 782 668

EARTHWORK, HILLFORT, SIGNAL STATION NY 7830 6682 EARTHWORK, SIGNAL STATION, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

BARDON MILL; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 788 675

EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, CORD RIG, FARMSTEAD

IRON AGE

DUBBY SIKE; COW GREEN RESERVOIR; FOREST AND FRITH; TEESDALE; DURHAM; ENGLAND LITTLE SHIELD; BARDON MILL; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND FOREST AND FRITH; TEESDALE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NY 79 31

CAIRN, HUT, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NY 791 678

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM KERB CAIRN, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BARDON MILL; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 795 311

NY 7952 7046 CORD RIG, EARTHWORK, FIELD BOUNDARY, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

QUEEN’S CRAGS; SIMONBURN; TYNEDALE; NY 797 707 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND SIMONBURN; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND NY 8001 7144 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SIMONBURN; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND NY 820 722

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM

IRON AGE

ENCLOSURE, HUT CORD RIG, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 822 148 HUT CIRCLE BRIDGE HOUSE; WARK; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; NY 8246 7897 BEAD, COIN, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED ENGLAND SETTLEMENT, FIND, PALISADED SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 827 135 SETTLEMENT STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 827 136 ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 827 148 HUT CIRCLE STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 829 139 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE

STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NY 821 144 SIMONBURN; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND NY 821 725

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

SHIELD ON THE WALL, NEWBROUGH; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 830 702

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM

THE CARTS; SIMONBURN; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND NEWBROUGH; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

NY 832 735

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NY 8356 6865 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE NY 836 120 SETTLEMENT NY 837 141 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT NY 838 142 SETTLEMENT NY 8415 6958 EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT NY 842 144 SETTLEMENT NY 843 136 SETTLEMENT NY 845 127 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND NEWBROUGH; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

140

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

LATER PREHISTORIC

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

Cropmark Cropmark Earthwork

NY 72 NW 3 NY 70 NW 20 NY 70 NW 2

Earthwork

NY 76 SW 6

ROMAN

Earthwork, Cropmark NY 70 NW 16

ROMAN

Aerial Photograph

ROMAN ROMAN

Cropmark Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

NY 70 SW 36

EH pastscape 1030457 NMR_NATINV-1030457.

ROMAN

Earthwork, one containing hut platforms Earthwork

NY 78 NE 11

EH Pastscape 15698, KTTP N6999

NMR_NATINV-15698.

ROMAN

Excavated 1987

1032277

N/A

EHNMR-1032277.

ROMAN

Cropmark Earthwork

NY 70 NE 28 NY 70 NE 3

EH Pastscape 14658

NMR_NATINV-14658. NMR_NATINV-14595.

Earthworks

NY 70 SE 77

Excavated 1937

628846

EH Pastscape 1029651 KTTP N6587

NMR_NATINV-1029651.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Surveyed 1984, Aerial Photograph Excavated 1939 and early 1950's Excavatec 1939 and 1950's, Aerial Photograph, Earthwork Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

6593

KTTP N6593

NSMR03-6593.

NY 76 NE 43

EH Pastscape 15266

NMR_NATINV-15266.

6569

KTTP N6569

NSMR03-6569.

NY 76 NE 19

EH Pastscape 15186

NMR_NATINV-15186.

6638

KTTP N6638

NSMR03-6638.

Excavated 1984

646031

N/A

EHNMR-646031.

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph None Recorded

6678

KTTP N6678

NSMR03-6678.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

NY 77 SE 48

EH Pastscape 1392593

NMR_NATINV-1392593.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photographs

6962

KTTP N6962

7844

EH Pastscape 16892, KTTP N7844

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photographs

7864

ROMAN ROMAN

Cropmark Earthwork, Aerial Photographs Earthwork Excavated 1957 and 1972-3 Cropmark Cropmark Cropmark Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photographs

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

Local HER/ SMR Number EH Pastscape 15004 EH Pastscape 14741 EH Pastscape 14701

ADS Number NMR_NATINV-15004. NMR_NATINV-14741. NMR_NATINV-14701.

EH Pastscape 15491

NMR_NATINV-15491.

EH Pastscape 14737

NMR_NATINV-14737.

NY 70 SW 18

EH Pastscape 14822

NMR_NATINV-14822.

NY 70 NW 15 NY 70 NW 18

EH Pastscape 14736 EH Pastscape 14739

NMR_NATINV-14736. NMR_NATINV-14739. NMR_NATINV-15756.

NY 78 NW 8

EHNMR-628846.

NMR_NATINV-876709.

NY 73 SE 3

Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) APs (OS 72-280 744-5 20.7.72) 132, 1975 Page(s)44-46 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) APs (OS 72-280 614-5 20.7.72) 132, 1975 Page(s)44 and 47 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle 4 ser 2, 1946-50 Page(s)178 (A H A Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)46 Archaeologia Aeliana 4 ser 38, 1960 Page(s)36 (G Jobey) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Transactions of the Cumberland Westmorland Antiqarian and Archaeological Society 72, Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Pages(s)42 and 47 RCHME: Howgill Fells Project Amy Lax, 27JUL-1993 Archaeologia Aeliana 15, 1938 Page(s)303-50 The Journal of Roman Studies 28, 1938 Northern Archaeology 7 part 2, 1986 AP TMG 13888/71 (7) Page(s)35-7 (A T Welfare) AP TMG 14738/79-81 (7) Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)44-46 Archaeologia Aeliana 4 ser 46, 1969 Page(s)183-5 (G Jobey) Archaeologia Aeliana 43, 1965 Page(s)26 (G Jobey) Archaeologia Aeliana 44, 1966 Page(s)71-77 (P Woodfield) Archaeology in Northumberland, 1994-1995 Page(s)29 (J Crow)

NMR NY 7769/18 (14738/80) 04-MAY-1993 CUCAP BLL9 16-JAN-1973

AP TMG 13889/37-43, 45, 47-51, 56-57 (3) AP TMG 13890/17, 21-24, 32-34 (3)

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin 3, 1985 Page(s)2324 AP NY7967/11/15 15-MAY-1992 (RCHME) None Recorded (1) AP TMG 13889/44, 46, 49, 55, 58-61, 63Durham Archaeological Journal, 1988 Page(s)1-12 (D Coggins and L J Gidney) None Recorded

NMR NY 7970/11 (13892/66) 18-MAY-1992

NSMR03-6962.

None Recorded

NSMR03-7844.

None Recorded

KTTP N7864

NSMR03-7864.

None Recorded

AP NY7970/9-12 18-MAY-1992 (RCHME) (1) AP TMG 13888/59 (3) AP TMG 14738/72 (3) AP TMG 14748/94 (3) AP TMG 16650/26-30 (2) Gates, T, 1999. The Hadrian's Wall Landscape from Chesters to Greenhead: an air

NY 81 SW 9 7863

EH Pastscape 15941 KTTP N7863

NMR_NATINV-15941. NSMR03-7863.

NY 81 SW 8 7700

EH Pastscape 15940 EH Pastscape 16581, KTTP N7700

NMR_NATINV-15940. NSMR03-7700.

NY 81 SW 31 NY 81 SW 13 NY 81 SW 17 NY 81 SW 12

EH Pastscape 15963 EH Pastscape 15945 EH Pastscape 15949 EH Pastscape 15944

NMR_NATINV-15963. NMR_NATINV-15945. NMR_NATINV-15949. NMR_NATINV-15944.

12600

KTTP N12600

NSMR03-12600.

Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) AP TMG 13892/40-44,47 (2) None Recorded AP TMG 16650/27-8,30 (2) Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) Archaeologia Aeliana 5 series 2, 1974 Page(s)33-40 (D B Charlton and J C Day) Archaeologia Aeliana 4 series 38, 1960 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) APs (OS 72/240 463-4 16 7 72) 132, 1975 Pages(s)48 None Recorded AP TMG 16650/3-7,13-15,23-4 (1) Gates, T, 1999. The Hadrian's Wall Landscape from Chesters to Greenhead: an air AP NY8373/15-20 18-MAY-1992 (RCHME) None Recorded (1) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle 4 ser 2, 1946-50 Page(s)179 (A H Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) BAR British series (AHA Hogg) 62, 1979 APs (OS 72/240 465-6 16 7 72) Page(s)141 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle 4 ser 2, 1946-50 Page(s)176 (A H A Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones)

7862

KTTP N7862

NSMR03-7862.

7563

KTTP N7563

NSMR03-7563.

NY 81 SW 22 NY 81 SW 10

EH Pastscape 15954

NMR_NATINV-15954. NMR_NATINV-15942.

ROMAN ROMAN

Cropmark Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Cropmark Earthworks

NY 81 SW 32 7570

EH Pastscape 15964 KTTP N7570

NMR_NATINV-15964. NSMR03-7570.

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

Cropmark Cropmark Cropmark

NY 81 SW 18 NY 81 SW 19 NY 81 SW 25

EH Pastscape 15950 EH Pastscape 15951 EH Pastscape 15957

NMR_NATINV-15950. NMR_NATINV-15951. NMR_NATINV-15957.

ROMAN ROMAN

Bibliographic Aerial Photograph References Reference if any Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) Transactions of the Cumberland Westmorland Antiqarian and Archaeological Society 74, 1974 Page(s)2 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle 4 ser 2, 1946-50 Page(s)178 (A H A Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Page(s)44-46

141

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

STAINMORE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

LOCATION

GRID REF OSGB NY 846 143

WARK; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 851 775

DYKE (DEFENCE), EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

BIRTLEY; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 862 794

EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE

BIRTLEY; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 868 792

BIRTLEY; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

CUP MARKED STONE, CINERARY URN, EARTHWORK, CAIRN, SETTLEMENT, FIND, CIST, POTTERY, FIND NY 8687 7920 CAIRN, CIST, COIN, DAGGER, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIND, SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, SWORD IN WOODEN SCABBARD, VESSEL

FORCEGARTH PASTURE; (NORTH); FOREST AND FRITH; NY 87 28 TEESDALE; DURHAM; ENGLAND HEXHAM GRID SUPPLY POINT; NEWBROUGH; TYNEDALE; NY 87 67 NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE BRONZE AGE BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

FARMSTEAD

IRON AGE

HILLFORT, FRONTIER DEFENCE, CHURCH

IRON AGE

BIRTLEY; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 8702 7963 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

FOREST AND FRITH; TEESDALE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NY 8747 2798 BLOOMERY, DEMOLISHED BUILDING, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, HEARTH, SLAG HEAP, STRUCTURE, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, IRON SMELTING SITE NY 876 818 EARTHWORK, FARMSTEAD, CORD RIG

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

THE CRAGG QUARRY; WEST WOODBURN; CORSENSIDE; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 882 858

IRON AGE

BIRTLEY; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 8807 7936 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT NY 8911 2823 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

BIRTLEY; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

HOLWICK; TEESDALE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

BARROW, SETTLEMENT, FORT, EARTHWORK, FARMSTEAD

HOLWICK; TEESDALE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NY 9013 2666 BURNT MOUND, CAIRN, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD, FIND, HUT CIRCLE, POLISHED AXEHEAD

BOWES MOOR; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NY 9025 1208 PILLOW MOUND, CAIRN, SETTLEMENT, SHIELING NY 9035 1237 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, STRUCTURE

BOWES; TEESDALE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

BRONZE AGE

LATE IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

NY 9040 6786 CROPMARK, EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT, QUERN, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

GUNNAR PEAK CHOLLERTON; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 914 749

IRON AGE

CORSENSIDE; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 917 875

WALL; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 920 690

EARTHWORK, PROMONTORY FORT, CUP MARKED STONE, SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE, FIND EARTHWORK, CLEARANCE CAIRN, HUT CIRCLE, CAIRN, CORD RIG, UNENCLOSED SETTLEMENT EARTHWORK, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT, SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE

BLANCHLAND; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 9270 5374 DEMOLISHED BUILDING, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD BOUNDARY, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, STRUCTURE, WALL

IRON AGE

BLANCHLAND; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND, ENGLAND

NY 928 531

EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, FARMSTEAD, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

BLANCHLAND; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND, ENGLAND

NY 929 534

SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

STANHOPE PARK; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NY 9300 3800 PROBABLE SETTLEMENT, QUERN

CHOLLERTON; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND CORBRIDGE BYPASS CORBRIDGE; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND KIRKWHELPINGTON; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND KIRKWHELPINGTON; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

NY 97 65

PALISADED SETTLEMENT, TEMPORARY CAMP, GRAVEL PIT EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

142

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

NY 9731 8682 CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

LATER PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

NY 940 757

NY 973 868

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

HIGH WARDEN; WARDEN; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

GREAT WANNEY CRAG, KIRKWHELPINGTON; TYNEDALE; NY 9319 8338 EARTHWORK, ENHANCED NATURAL NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND FEATURE, CUP MARKED STONE, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT CHOLLERTON; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; NY 9399 7574 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE ENGLAND SETTLEMENT, FARMSTEAD, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT BLUE CRAGS; COLWELL; CHOLLERTON; TYNEDALE; NY 9464 7608 EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT, HILLFORT, NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND CUP MARKED STONE, FIND, POTTERY

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

LATER PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

ROMAN

Earthwork

NY 81 SW 33

Local HER/ SMR Number EH Pastscape 15965

NMR_NATINV-15965.

ROMAN

Earthworks no longer 7757 extant Earthwork 7740

KTTP N7757

NSMR03-7757.

KTTP N7740

NSMR03-7740.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Excavated 7738 1875 and 1882-3

KTTP N7738

NSMR03-7738.

ROMAN

Excavated 1873

NY 87 NE 1

EH Pastscape 16402

NMR_NATINV-16402.

ROMAN

Excavated 1972-74

628972

N/A

EHNMR-628972.

ROMAN

Desk based assessment 1333637 1997

N/A

EHNMR-1333637.

ROMAN

Earthwork

NY 87 NE 4

EH Pastscape 16421

NMR_NATINV-16421.

ROMAN

Earthworks

NY 82 NE 14

EH Pastscape 16017

NMR_NATINV-16017.

ROMAN

Earthwork

8058

KTTP N8058

NSMR03-8058.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Desk based 1307357 assessment 1991

N/A

EHNMR-1307357

ROMAN

Earthwork

NY 87 NE 27

EH Pastscape 16518

NMR_NATINV-16518.

Earthwork

NY 82 NE 16

EH Pastscape 16021

NMR_NATINV-16021.

Archaeologia Aeliana, 1876 Page(s)6 (G Rome Hall) None Recorded

Earthwork

NY 92 NW 8

EH Pastscape 17662

NMR_NATINV-17662.

None Recorded

Earthworks

D4841

KTTP D4841

DURSMR-4841.

ROMAN

Earthworks

NY 91 SW 7

EH Pastscape 17603

NMR_NATINV-17603.

English Heritage "Schedule of Ancient Monuments", 1999 None Recorded

8558

KTTP N8558

NSMR03-8558.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Geophysical Survey 1994, Aerial Photograph Excavated 1880

NY 97 SW 14

EH Pastscape 19145

NMR_NATINV-19145.

Earthworks discovered 9375 whilst fieldwalking in 1880 Earthwork, Aerial 8572 Photograph

KTTP N9375

NSMR03-9375.

KTTP N8572

NSMR03-8572.

ROMAN

Earthwork

NY 95 SW 31

EH Pastscape 1157576

NMR_NATINV-1157576.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photographs

8393

KTTP N8393

NSMR03-8393.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photographs

8394

KTTP N8394

NSMR03-8394.

ROMAN

Observed during ploughing 2006 features masked by plough damage Earthwork

9500

KTTP N9500

NSMR03-9500.

Earthwork

NY 97 NW 28

EH Pastscape 18970

NMR_NATINV-18970.

Excavated 1924-25

627818

N/A

EHNMR-627818.

Earthworks

9207

KTTP N9207

NSMR03-9207.

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ADS Number

Bibliographic Aerial Photograph References Reference if any Archaeological Journal (N Higham & G Jones) 132, 1975 Pages(s)49 Archaeologia Aeliana 4 ser 38, 1960 Page(s)32 (G Jobey) Chapman, J. C. and Mytum, H. C. eds. Settlement in North Britain 1000BC to Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 16, 1950 Page(s)24 (S Piggott) Archaeologia Aeliana 2 ser 7, 1884 Full report: Archaeologia Aeliana 45, 1880 Page(s)355-74

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin 7, 1974 Page(s)2 CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin 10, 1975 Page(s)3 Northern Archaeological Associates [assessment & evaluation reports] (Fraser R), 1997

Archaeologia Aeliana 4th Series 38, 1960 Page(s)32 (G Jobey) None Recorded

Archaeologia Aeliana 4 series 38, 1960 Page(s)1-35 (G Jobey) None Recorded

NMR NY9067/24 (NMR 17788/1) 05-FebProceedings of the Society of Antiquaries 2003 Newcastle Upon Tyne 4th Series, 1946-50 Page(s)178 (A.H.A.Hogg), Proceedings of the APs (RAF 106G/UK/1393/7248-9) Society of Antiquaries Newcastle Upon Tyne, Archaeologia Aeliana (G. Rome Hall) 10, 1885 Page(s)13-37 Archaeologia Aeliana 20, 1942 Page(s)155-73 Field Survey in Northum pt 2, 1981 Page(s)20 (T Gates and S Ainsworth) BAR British Series 118, 1983 Page(s)139 Jobey, G. A Field Guide to Prehistoric AP (RAF/106G/UK/1393 : 5325) (1) Northumberland, part 2. 1974 Archaeologia Aeliana 4 ser 43, 1965 Page(s) None Recorded

Northern Archaeological Associates, 1993. Lord Crewe Estate Archaeological Survey. Unpublished (site 28) Northern Archaeological Associates, 1993. Lord Crewe Estate Archaeological Survey. Unpublished (site 29) Information from Bournemouth AIP

Excavated 1974

629344

N/A

EHNMR-629344.

Earthwork

9424

KTTP N9424

NSMR03-9424.

Earthwork

NY 98 NE 18

EH Pastscape 19300

NMR_NATINV-19300.

143

Archaeologia Aeliana 4 series 43, 1965 Page(s)63 no 118 (G Jobey) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne 4th Series 11, 1947 Page(s)175 (AHA Hogg) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1925 Page(s)23-34 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle 4th series 11, 1947 Page(s)175 (A Archaeological excavations for 1974, 1975 Page(s)61 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle 4 series 11, 1947 Page(s)171 (A H Proceedings of the Society of Antiquries of Newcastle upon Tyne 4th Series 11, 1947

AP AEROFILMS 91/COL/141 1421 (3) AP NAA 1/22,27-29; 4/1-3,13,24-29,32; 6/36 (2) AP NAA 1/10,20-21; 3/15-18; 4/0,4,15-21,3335 (2) AP AEROFILMS 91/COL/141 2421 (3)

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION DOVECOTE HILL; HOMILTON; BAVINGTON; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND WEST WHELPINGTON; KIRKWHELPINGTON; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

GRID REF OSGB NY 974 781

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

NY 975 838

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, QUERN, FIND, POTTERY, COIN, SETTLEMENT, DESERTED SETTLEMENT

ROTHLEY; ALNWICK; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 977 890

EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

OTTERCOPS BURN; ROTHLEY; ALNWICK; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 977 891

EARTHWORK, CORD RIG, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

LATER PREHISTORIC

OTTERCOPS BURN; ROTHLEY; ALNWICK; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NY 978 887

EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE, CORD RIG

IRON AGE

LATER PREHISTORIC

CORBRIDGE; (CORSTOPITUM); CORBRIDGE; TYNEDALE; NY 98 64 HUT CIRCLE, FORT, BARRACKS, NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND GRANARY, TOWN CORBRIDGE; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND NY 9822 6484 FORT, HUT CIRCLE, PALISADED ENCLOSURE, PALISADED SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT TEMPLE, TOWN WALLINGTON; KIRKWHELPINGTON; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND REETH FREMINGTON AND HEALAUGH; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND GRINDSTONE LAW; WHITTINGTON; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND WALLINGTON, HOLLINGHILL, ALNWICK, NORTHUMBERLAND SHILDON HILL; BYWELL; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND BYWELL; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND BYWELL; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND THE STELL; ROTHLEY ROTHLEY; ALNWICK; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND ROTHLEY; ALNWICK; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

IRON AGE BRONZE AGE

NY 9896 8725 EARTHWORK, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT NZ 003 005 NZ 003 733

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

NZ 0190 9366 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NZ 03 66

IRON AGE

HILLFORT

NZ 034 669

EARTHWORK, FARMSTEAD, HILLFORT, SITE NZ 0342 6698 CROPMARK, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FARMSTEAD NZ 042 885 EARTHWORK, BEACON, FORT, EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT NZ 0422 8850 BEACON, EARTHWORK, HILLFORT

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

MATFEN; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND CAPHEATON; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND CAPHEATON; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NZ 044 750, NZ 043 750 NZ 051 816

NZ 0515 8170 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

CAPHEATON; CASTLE MORPETH; WALLINGTON DEMESNE; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND WALLINGTON DEMESNE; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NZ 053 823

IRON AGE

NZ 0535 8235 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE, PROMONTORY FORT

IRON AGE

BELSAY; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NZ 0728 8281 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIND, FINDSPOT, PALISADED SETTLEMENT, VESSEL, HUT SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BELSAY; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NZ 073 828

IRON AGE

BELSAY; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NZ 077 821

BELSAY; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND BELSAY CASTLE; MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND HARTBURN; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NZ 0775 8216 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

BELSAY; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND BELSAY; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND HORSLEY; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE, UNENCLOSED SETTLEMENT EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT, FIND, POTTERY, PALISADED SETTLEMENT, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HEARTH, FIND, SLAG, UNCERTAIN EVIDENCE, IRONSTONE WORKINGS EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT, FIND, ROTARY QUERN

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

NZ 0796 7853 EARTHWORK, PROMONTORY FORT NZ 081 866, NZ 082 866, NZ 081 867 NZ 086 823

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT, UNENCLOSED SETTLEMENT EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT, FIND, QUERN

IRON AGE BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

NZ 0864 8230 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NZ 0926 6624 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

HORSLEY WOOD; OVINGHAM; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NZ 094 647

CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

HORSLEY; TYNEDALE; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NZ 104 648

EARTHWORK, PROMONTORY FORT

IRON AGE

GAYLES; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BEDBURN; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 1111 0741 EARTHWORK, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

NZ 1120 3396 ENCLOSURE, HUTS AND SHELTERS

IRON AGE

144

LATER PREHISTORIC

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

Earthwork

9257

Local HER/ SMR Number KTTP N9257

NSMR03-9257.

Excavated 1965-75

9556

KTTP N9556

NSMR03-9556.

Earthwork

9470

KTTP N9470

NSMR03-9470.

Earthwork

9450

KTTP N9450

NSMR03-9450.

Earthwork

9451

KTTP N9451

NSMR03-9451.

N/A

EHNMR-629037.

ROMAN

Excavated 1946-1973 629037

ROMAN

Excavated 1830, 1906- NY 96 SE 20 1914, 1930-1931, 1934-1943

ADS Number

Bibliographic References None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-18511.

Earthwork

NY 98 NE 16

EH Pastscape 19294

NMR_NATINV-19294.

Earthwork

NZ 00 SW 3

EH Pastscape 19791

NMR_NATINV-19791.

Earthwork

10292

KTTP N10292

NSMR03-10292.

ROMAN

Earthwork

10196*0

National Trust SMR

NTSMR-NA23614.

Excavated 1947

647440

N/A

EHNMR-647440.

ROMAN

Earthwork

9961

KTTP N9961

NSMR03-9961.

ROMAN

Earthwork

NZ 06 NW 15

EH Pastscape 20492

NMR_NATINV-20492.

ROMAN

Earthwork

10396

KTTP N10396

NSMR03-10396.

Earthwork

NZ 08 NW 2

EH Pastscape 20972

NMR_NATINV-20972.

Earthwork

10189

KTTP N10189

NSMR03-10189.

Earthwork

10566

KTTP N10566

NSMR03-10566.

Earthwork, Excavated NZ 08 SE 1 1925, Geophysical Survey 1993

EH Pastscape 21017

NMR_NATINV-21017.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

10587

KTTP N10587

NSMR03-10587.

ROMAN

Earthwork

NZ 08 SE 22

EH Pastscape 21080

NMR_NATINV-21080.

ROMAN

Earthwork, excavated NZ 08 SE 14 1956-58

KTTP N10579

NMR_NATINV-21056.

ROMAN

Earthwork

10579

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

10578

KTTP N10578

NSMR03-10578.

Earthwork

NZ 08 SE 13

EH Pastscape 21053

NMR_NATINV-21053.

ROMAN

ROMAN

NSMR03-10579.

Surveyed 1986

NZ 07 NE 16

EH Pastscape 20738

NMR_NATINV-20738

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

10449

KTTP N10449

NSMR03-10449.

Earthwork

10577

KTTP N10577

NSMR03-10577.

Archaeologia Aeliana 48, 1970 Page(s)183302 Archaeological excavations for 1969, 1970 Page(s)32 Archaeological excavations for 1970, 1971 Prothero, D H, 1994. A Survey of Kirkwhelpington and Ridsdale Areas, BAR British Series 209, 1989 Page(s)155 Prothero, D H, 1994. A Survey of Kirkwhelpington and Ridsdale Areas, Prothero, D H, 1994. A Survey of Kirkwhelpington and Ridsdale Areas, Northumberland. Unpublished (D16) BAR Archaeologia Aeliana : or miscellaneous tracts relating to antiquity 49, 1971 Page(s)1-28 Archaeologia Aeliana : or miscellaneous tracts NMR NY 9864/171 (20559/01) 13-JUL-2006 relating to antiquity (I A Richmond and J P Gillam) 28, 1950 Page(s)152-201 Archaeologia Aeliana : or miscellaneous tracts Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Newcastle upon Tyne 4th Series 11, 1947 The Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42, 1967 Page(s)6 (E Cooper) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne 4th series 11, 1947 None Recorded Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne 4th series 11, 1947 Hodgson, J. C. A History of Northumberland, vol 6, 1902 Page(s)88 Jobey J. Hill Forts and Settlements in CUCAP BKC 16 26-Jul-1972 Northumberland 43, 1965 Page(s)61 Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series 43, 1965 Page(s)61 (G Jobey) Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series 43, 1965 Page(s)61 (G Jobey) Dodds, M.H. A History of Northumberland vol 12, 1926 Page(s)31 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of AP A78,79 (11/6/1957) Salway Mus Antiq Newcastle upon Tyne 3rd series 10, 1921-2 Newcastle (7) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquities of Newcastle upon Tyne 3rd series 10, 1921-2 Page(s)242-44 plan (T Ball) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquities of Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of AP NMR SF 3376/41,42,47,48 (11/3/1987) Newcastle upon Tyne 4th series 11, 1947 (5) Page(s)172 (A H A Hogg) AP A78,79 Salway Mus Antiq Newcastle (5) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquities of Newcastle upon Type 4th series 11, 1947 Page(s)172 (A H A Hogg) Archaeologia Aeliana 4th Series 37, 1959 Page(s)217-278 Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series 46, 1968 Page(s)293-295 Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series 37, 1959 AP Neg A80-82 (11/6/1957) Mus Antiq Page(s)217-78 (G Jobey) Newcastle (6) Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series 46, 1968 Page(s)293-5 (G Jobey) Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series 37, 1959 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of AP Neg 83-84 Salway, Mus Antiq Newcastle Newcastle upon Tyne 3rd series 10, 1921-22 (5) Page(s)248-50 (T Ball) AP Neg 3376/30-31,34-36 Mus Antiq Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series 43, 1965 Page(s)62 (G Jobey) English Heritage Register of parks and gardens of special historic interest in England Archaeological Newsbulletin Northumberland APs (CUC F5 and E89 undated) (2) Cumbria and Westmorland 13, 1972 Page(s)78 (G Jobey) Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series 22, 1944 Page(s)146 Archaeologia Aeliana 43, 1965 Page(s)61 (G Jobey) BAR British series, 1974 Page(s)51 AP (CPE/UK/2352 1114-6) RAF 58/2657 F21 478 30-DEC-1958 AP (J K St Joseph AP No GU 0022) (1) Archaeologia Aeliana AP NZ 0964/F Selkirk c. 1980 (Museum of 4th series 46, 1968 Antiquities, Newcastle) (6) Page(s)62 (N McCord AP Cambridge GU/0023 (5) and G Jobey) AP NZ 0964/A-E McCord 1970 (Museum of Archaeologia Aeliana Antiquities, Newcastle) (6) 4th series 38, 1960 Page(s)18 and 35 (G Jobey)

Earthwork

NZ 08 SE 12

EH Pastscape 21050

NMR_NATINV-21050.

Earthwork, Aerial Photographs Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

NZ 06 NE 17

EH Pastscape 20423

NMR_NATINV-20423.

10127

KTTP N10127

NSMR03-10127.

Earthwork

10919

KTTP N10919

NSMR03-10919.

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

NZ 10 NW 9

EH Pastscape Castle Steads KTTP D1748

NMR_NATINV-21584.

Archaeologia Aeliana 5th series 25, 1997 Page(s)145-7 (M Tolan-Smith) None Recorded

DURSMR-1748.

Victoria County History 1, 1905 Page(s)356

D1748

145

Aerial Photograph Reference if any

AP (RAF 541/118 3062-3, 30-7-48) Vyner, B 1995 "Shipley Moat 95/9" Three photos on slide original and colour print. SMR

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION MELDON; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

HEDDON-ON-THE-WALL; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND WYCLIFFE WITH THORPE; TEESDALE; DURHAM; ENGLAND RICHMOND; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND WHALTON; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND ESP GREEN; GREENCROFT; DERWENTSIDE; DURHAM; ENGLAND TRANWELL OPENCAST; MELDON; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND GREENCROFT; DERWENTSIDE; DURHAM; ENGLAND TOFT HILL; DURHAM; ENGLAND

GRID REF DESCRIPTION MESOLITHIC OSGB NZ 1204 8578 CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT, SETTLEMENT, SUB CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

NZ 122 665

EARTHWORK, HILLSLOPE ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT NZ 1249 1458 EARTHWORK, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE IRON AGE

NZ 1370 0195 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, FIND, FINDSPOT, HUT CIRCLE, VESSEL NZ 1399 8217 EARTHWORK, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

NZ 14 49

SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NZ 14 83

HOMESTEAD

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

NZ 146 492 FARMSTEAD, FIND, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, VESSEL NZ 1547 2858 HILLFORT

IRON AGE IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

ASKE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NZ 15658 04186

HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

EVENWOOD AND BARONY; TEESDALE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 158 305

CROPMARK, CURVILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

CARKIN MOOR; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NZ 1614 0831 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FORT

STOCKLEY BECK CAMP; TANNERS HALL; CROOK; WEAR VALLEY; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 17 37

HILLFORT

IRON AGE

BARFORTH; TEESDALE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 173 162

IRON AGE

PONTELAND; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND STANNINGTON; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND ROCK CASTLE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND STANWICK; STANWICK ST JOHN; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NZ 177 765

CROPMARK, CURVILINEAR ENCLOSURE, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT CROPMARKS, DOUBLE DITCHED ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT, SITE

NZ 177 788 NZ 180 060 NZ 18 11

IRON AGE

SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE HILLFORT, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED OPPIDUM, SETTLEMENT, FIND, FINDSPOT, HOARD SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE DESERTED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM

IRON AGE IRON AGE

NZ 180 060 NZ 18 12

GILLING WITH HARTFORTH AND SEDBURY; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NZ 1873 0691 CROPMARK, FIELD SYSTEM, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC) NZ 1938 4313 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NZ 195 723

IRON AGE

PONTELAND; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND ESH; DERWENTSIDE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

CROPMARK, DOUBLE DITCHED ENCLOSURE NZ 1955 4320 CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE NORTH WHITEHOUSE STANNINGTON; CASTLE MORPETH; NZ 196 814 CROPMARKS, SITE, ENCLOSED NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND SETTLEMENT, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE MELSONBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND NZ 197 086 SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORKS, ROUND HOUSE NZ 1995 3990 CUP MARKED STONE, ENHANCED WEST BRANDON, BRANDON AND BYSHOTTLES; NATURAL FEATURE, CROPMARK, DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIND, FURNACE, HUT CIRCLE, IRON WORKING SITE, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

IRON AGE

ROCK CASTLE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND STANWICK ST JOHN; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

ESH; DERWENTSIDE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

GARDENER'S HOUSES FARM; DINNINGTON; NEWCASTLE NZ 20 74 UPON TYNE; TYNE AND WEAR; ENGLAND

PIT ALIGNMENT, HENGIFORM MONUMENT, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE, SQUARE ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

PEGSWOOD; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NZ 20 88

UNENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, METAL WORKING SITE ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

BURNHOPE; DERWENTSIDE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 203 459

CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

BURNHOPE; DERWENTSIDE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 206 462

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

BRANCEPETH; DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 208 389

CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE CROPMARK, D SHAPED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT CROPMARKS, SITE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

STANNINGTON; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; NZ 209 831 ENGLAND SCOTCH CORNER; MELSONBY; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH NZ 21 05 YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BRANCEPETH; DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND NZ 210 385

146

IRON AGE IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

Earthwork

NZ 18 NW 5

Local HER/ SMR Number EH Pastscape 23289

ADS Number

ROMAN

Earthwork

10871

KTTP N10871

NSMR03-10871.

Earthwork

NZ 11 SW 3

NMR_NATINV-21906.

ROMAN

Earthwork

NZ 10 SW 1

EH Pastscape Cockshot Camp EH Pastscape 21679

Earthwork

NZ 18 SW 3

amp House

NMR_NATINV-23354.

ROMAN

Excavated 1979

646048

N/A

EHNMR-646048.

ROMAN

Desk Based assessment 1993 Excavated 1979-80

1309973

N/A

EHNMR-1309973.

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

Excavated 2003 - 4 trial trenches

ROMAN ROMAN

NZ 14 NW 28

Earthwork now D1674 destroyed by open cast mining Excavated 2002 - trial trench NZ 13 SE 32

NMR_NATINV-23289.

NMR_NATINV-21679.

EH Pastscape 876817 NMR_NATINV-876817. KTTP D1674

DURSMR-1674.

Bibliographic References Archaeologia Aeliana 4th Series 46, 1968 Page(s)67 Archaeologia Aeliana 4th Series 43, 1965 Page(s)62 (G Jobey) Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series 43, 1965 Page(s)51-3 and 64 (G Jobey) Archaeological Journal 6, 1849 Page(s)340-1 plan (H MacClauchlan) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 14, 1963 Page(s)9

Aerial Photograph Reference if any RAF APs CPE/SCOT/UK/221 3200-1 St J AP T 56 AP Newcastle 05133/24

Archaeologia Aeliana 4th Series 43, 1965 Annotated AP (CUC 16 N 29.7.46) Page(s)60 (G Jobey) CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin 10, 1980 Page(s)78 The Archaeological Practice [assessment & evaluation reports] Tranwell Opencast University of Durham and University of Newcastle upon Tyne archaeological reports Victoria County History Co. Durham vol.1, 1905 Page(s)348

Northern Archaeological Associates. 03/2004. Information from North Yorkshire SMR Bridge Road, Brompton on Swale North Yorkshire Archaeological Post Excavation CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)101 Durham University 137/3 XX-XXX-XXXX EH Pastscape 876816 NMR_NATINV-876816. (Clack P and Haselgrove S) North Yorkshire SMR ENY1948

North Yorkshire SMR ENY2131

Information from North Yorkshire SMR EHNMR-646067.

Excavated 1978, site badly disturbed by trees and ploughing Cropmark

646067

N/A

NZ 11 NE 47

EH Pastscape 579999 NMR_NATINV-579999.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)67, 98 and 101 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

10960

KTTP N10960

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin 2 series 7, 1979 AP OS 75/108/030-1 (1) Page(s)19 and 22 (T Gates) Archaeology in the North Gazeteer, 1975 AP (J K St Joseph) (1) Page(s)126 Durham Archaeological Journal 10, 1994 University of Durham and University of Newcastle upon Tyne archaeological reports for 1983 9, 1984 Page(s)37-39 Millett, M. et al. Shiptonthorpe East Yorkshire. None Recorded APs (RAF 106G/UK 1700 2177-8 27.8.46)

ROMAN Excavated 1981-89

ROMAN Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

Council for British Archaeology Group 3 Newsbulletin 6, 1978 Page(s)9-10

NSMR03-10960.

10958

KTTP N10958

NSMR03-10958.

None Recorded 645718

None Recorded N/A

None Recorded EHNMR-645718.

None Recorded NZ 11 SE 15

None Recorded None Recorded None Recorded EH Pastscape Stanwicl NMR_NATINV-21893.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Cropmarks, Aerial Photographs

NZ 10 NE 2

EH Pastscape 21533

NMR_NATINV-21533.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photographs Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark

NZ 14 SE 12

EH Pastscape 22430

NMR_NATINV-22430.

11006

KTTP N11006

NSMR03-11006.

NZ 14 SE 19

EH Pastscape 876821 NMR_NATINV-876821.

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

11288

KTTP N11288

NSMR03-11288.

Archaeology in the North Gazetteer, 1975 Archaeologia Aeliana 40, 1962 (G Jobey) Aerial Archaeology 4, 1979 Page(s)103 (T Gates) The Central Section of the Deerness Valley Department of Archaeolgy Durham University, A/P NZ1981 A-I 1979 Mus Antiq Newcastle Aerial Archaeology 4, 1979 Page(s)103 (T (T Gates) (1) Gates)

ROMAN

Excavated 1976-77

None Recorded

None Recorded

ROMAN

None Recorded

Durham Archaeological Journal 14-15 1999 Page(s) 1-51 Plans and Photographs 40, 1962 Page(s)1-34 (G Jobey) Archaeologia Aeliana 40, 1962 Page(s)1-34

Excavated 1960-61

NZ 13 NE 9

EH Pastscape 22118

NMR_NATINV-22118.

Geophysical Survey 1995

1142342

N/A

EHNMR-1142342.

Durham Archaeological Journal 13, 1997 Page(s)43-53

ROMAN

Excavated 2000 (5ha) 1341139 in advance of opencast coal extraction

N/A

EHNMR-1341139.

Archaeology in Northumberland: [annual newsletter], 2000-2001 Page(s) 36-37 The Archaeologist 40, Spring 2001 Page(s)10

ROMAN

Cropmark

NZ 24 NW 22

EH Pastscape 876865 NMR_NATINV-876865.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)62, 63, 68, 79, 99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

Cropmark

NZ 24 NW 23

EH Pastscape 876866 NMR_NATINV-876866.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)62, 63, 68, 79, 99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

NZ 23 NW 9

EH Pastscape 24155

NMR_NATINV-24155.

Archaeology in the North Gazetteer 1975

11705

KTTP N11705

NSMR03-11705.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin 2 series 7, 1979 Page(s)19 (T Gates)

Watching brief over development 1995 Cropmark

1048127

N/A

EHNMR-1048127.

NZ 23 NW 27

EH Pastscape Browns NMR_NATINV-876855. Den 2

Durham Archaeological Journal 11, 1995 Page(s)7-18 CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)98 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN

147

APs (RAF 540/567 3037-38 26 6 51) NMR NZ 1806/18 (17338/51) 27-JUL-1999 AP (CUC JX91 undated) AP (CUC DS 003 11.7.49) AP (CUC DS 003) AP NZ1972A-B,E-F 02/08/1979 Mus Antiq Newcastle (2)

AP (CUC DS/001)

AP (9/4 D W Harding) NMR NZ 2038/7 (5601/9) 12-JUL-1990 AP NZ2083 A-O 1977 Mus Antiq Newcastle (T Gates) (1)

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

BRANCEPETH; DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND

LOCATION

GRID REF OSGB NZ 210 386

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

DERWENTSIDE; DURHAM; ENGLAND

BROMPTON ON SWALE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

NZ 210 526

CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

NZ 22058 01380

ROUND HOUSE, SETTLEMENT, POTTERY

STANNINGTON; CASTLE MORPETH; NORTHUMBERLAND; NZ 222 812, ENGLAND NZ 224 812, NZ 218 811, NZ 219 812, NZ 220 815, NZ 218 812 SACRISTON; CHESTER LE STREET; DURHAM; ENGLAND NZ 23 48

BISHOP AUCKLAND; WEAR VALLEY; DURHAM; ENGLAND NZ 233 311

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, RING DITCH CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

CROPMARK, LINEAR FEATURE, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

CROPMARKS, SITE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, CROPMARK, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

EDMONDSLEY; CHESTER LE STREET; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 238 496

SCORTON; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NZ 239 009

WITTON GILBERT; DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 246 455

WHINNEY HILL FARM; BEDLINGTON; WANSBECK; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

NZ 250 846

KIMBLESWORTH AND PLAWSWORTH; CHESTER LE STREET; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 255 467

BURRADON I; LONGBENTON; NORTH TYNESIDE; TYNE AND WEAR; ENGLAND OUSTON; CHESTER LE STREET; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 26 72

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT

IRON AGE

NZ 263 538

CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

SPENNYMOOR; SEDGEFIELD; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 266 315

CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

NORTH TYNESIDE; TYNE AND WEAR; ENGLAND

NZ 269 729

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

NEOLITHIC

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

IRON AGE

HEIGHINGTON; DARLINGTON; ENGLAND

AXEHEAD, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, FIND, FINDSPOT, HUT CIRCLE, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT NZ 273 812 CROPMARKS, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, RING DITCH, SITE NZ 2790 2240 SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, DITCH

OLD DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 280 410

BUILDING, FARMSTEAD, VILLA (POSSIBLE), BATHS

DURHAM CITY; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 283 417

EARTHWORK, PROMONTORY FORT

SHINCLIFFE; DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 293 388

CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BELMONT; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 298 448

IRON AGE

BELMONT; DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 300 448

CROPMARK, HUT CIRCLE, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE

DALTON ON TEES; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NZ 3008 0822 ANIMAL REMAINS, BUILDING, DITCH, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIND, ROOF TILE, SLAG, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, VESSEL, VILLA, WELL

BEBSIDE ROAD, BLYTH; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

IRON AGE IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

LATE IRON AGE

FENWICK'S CLOSE OPENCAST COAL SITE; BLYTH; BLYTH NZ 31 73 VALLEY; NORTHUMBERLAND; ENGLAND

FARMSTEAD, BOUNDARY AND ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

PITTINGTON; DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 314 439

CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

WEST HOUSE; COXHOE; COXHOE; DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND WEST RAINTON; DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 32 36

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

NZ 325 462

CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

MORDON; SEDGEFIELD; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 331 258

CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE, CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

COXHOE; DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 332 355

CROPMARK, CURVILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

MORDON; SEDGEFIELD; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 338 240

CROPMARK, DOUBLE DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

MORDON; SEDGEFIELD; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 345 241

CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

148

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

ROMAN

Cropmark

NZ 23 NW 28

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

NZ 25 SW 9

ROMAN

Cropmark, Geophysical Survey, Test Excavation 2002

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

11700

KTTP N11700

ROMAN

Cropmark

NZ 24 NW 24

EH Pastscape 876867 NMR_NATINV-876867.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

NZ 23 SW 35

EH Pastscape 24313

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

Cropmark

NZ 24 NW 25

EH Pastscape 876868 NMR_NATINV-876868.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)98 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

NZ 20 SW 10 Cropmark, Aerial Photograph, Excavated 1995-96 Cropmark NZ 24 NW 21

EH Pastscape 23598

Note: CBA Group 4 Newsletter, 1997

ROMAN

Local HER/ SMR ADS Number Number EH Pastscape Browns NMR_NATINV-876856. Den 3

Bibliographic References CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)98 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

Aerial Photograph Reference if any

EH Pastscape 876881 NMR_NATINV-876881.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

RAF CPE/UK/2352 1360 04-OCT-1947

North Yorkshire SMR ENY2612

NSMR03-11700.

Northern Archaeological Associates. 07/2003. Information from North Yorkshire SMR Yorkshire Derwent Aqueduct Duplication Main Elvington to Riccall Archaeological PostExcavation Assessment. Neal, P; Robinson, G. Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series 41, 1963 AP RAF/CPE/SCOT/UK/221/3339 27-JunPage(s)19 1947 (7) Archaeologia Aeliana 4th series 38, 1960 AP BKS/18446 1960 (8) Page(s)37(G Jobey)

NMR_NATINV-24313.

NMR_NATINV-23598.

AP (2/1 D W Harding)

APs (CUC DQ 077 10.7.49)

EH Pastscape 876864 NMR_NATINV-876864.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S) CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin 2nd series 7, 1979 AP NZ2584 A-I 1977 Mus Antiq Newcastle (T Page(s)19 (T Gates) Gates) (1)

ROMAN

Cropmarks, Aerial Photograph

11759

KTTP N11759

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

NZ 24 NE 28

EH Pastscape 876873 NMR_NATINV-876873.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

Excavated 1968-9

629284

N/A

Archaeologia Aeliana 49, 1970 Page(s)51-95

ROMAN

Cropmark

NZ 25 SE 50

EH Pastscape 876884 NMR_NATINV-876884.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

Cropmark

NZ 23 SE 27

EH Pastscape Kirk Merrington

NMR_NATINV-876858.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

Excavated 1968-9, Aerial Photographs

NZ 27 SE 8

EH Pastscape 25279

NMR_NATINV-25279.

ROMAN

Cropmarks, Aerial Photograph Evaluation 2002

11760

KTTP N11760

NSMR03-11760.

Notes of Air Recce. Northumbria & Durham, APs (Newcastle 023203/3 & 029453/10 1967 Appendix B (N.McCord & G. Jobey) undated) Full report: Archaeologia Aeliana 49, 1970 None Recorded AP NZ2781 A-T 1972 Mus Antiq Newcastle (T Gates) (1)

ROMAN ROMAN

NSMR03-11759.

EHNMR-629284.

Information from Bournemouth AIP

Excavated 1941-43 641113 and 1948-9 site now destroyed by quarrying

N/A

EHNMR-641143.

Earthwork

D1181

KTTP D1181

DURSMR-1181.

Cropmark

NZ 23 NE 31

EH Pastscape 876857 NMR_NATINV-876857.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

NZ 24 SE 56

EH Pastscape 24554

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs Cropmark

NZ 34 SW 33

EH Pastscape 876900 NMR_NATINV-876900.

Archaeologia Aeliana 4th Series 49, 1971 Page(s)121 (N McCord and G Jobey) CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)98 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

Excavated 1996-7

NZ 30 NW 8

EH Pastscape 1230878

NMR_NATINV-1230878.

ROMAN

Evaluated 1993 (field 1313287 reconnaissance and documentary searches)

N/A

EHNMR-1313287.

ROMAN

NMR NZ 2546/3 (16549/26) 22-JUL-1996

NZ 34 SW 23

Archaeologia Aeliana : or miscellaneous tracts relating to antiquity 29, 1951. Page(s)203-212 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne 11,1950. Page(s) 8-302 None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-24554.

NMR_NATINV-26152.

AP (A/069656/18) Durham University 176/30 XX-XXX-XXXX

Interim report: Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1999. Brown, J. Yorkshire Archaeological Society: Roman Antiquities Section Bulletin 16, 1999. pages.19-27 Heritage Site and Landscape Surveys Limited [assessment & evaluation reports] Fenwick's Close Opencast Coal Site; Cultural Heritage.1993 None Recorded

Excavated 1979-80

646057

N/A

EHNMR-646057.

ROMAN

Cropmark

NZ 34 NW 15

EH Pastscape 26092

NMR_NATINV-26092.

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

NZ 32 NW 17

EH Pastscape 876887 NMR_NATINV-876887.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

NZ 33 NW 52

EH Pastscape 876891 NMR_NATINV-876891.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 DURHAM UNIVERSITY 154/2 xx-xxx-xx Page(s)67and 101 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

Cropmark

NZ 32 SW 16

EH Pastscape 876888 NMR_NATINV-876888.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

NZ 32 SW 17

EH Pastscape 876889 NMR_NATINV-876889.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

149

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin 9, 1979Page(s)1314 CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S) DURHAM UNIVERSITY 114/4 xx-xxx-xx

NMR NZ 3424/10 (13977/13) 29-JUL-1992

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION CASSOP CUM QUARRINGTON; DURHAM; DURHAM; ENGLAND

GRID REF OSGB NZ 348 393

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

FISHBURN; SEDGEFIELD; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 351 337

CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

THORNLEY; EASINGTON; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 355 389

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

EAST PARK; SEDGEFIELD; COUNTY DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 356 289

ROMAN TOWN

COWPEN BEWLEY; DURHAM; ENGLAND

NZ 3620 4990 SETTLEMENT - IRON AGE VILLAGE, POTTERY, JET WORKING, SALT PRODUCTION, ANGLO-SAXON ROYAL CEMETARY NZ 365 679 HUT CIRCLE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), ALTAR, BUILDING, CHURCH, FIND, FORT, GATE, GRANARY, SETTLEMENT, STRUCTURE, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, TOWER, WALL, BATH HOUSE, KILN, ROAD, TOWER, PARADE GROUND

IRON AGE

NZ 3729 6937 PROMONTORY FORT, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT NZ 3832 1790 CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIND, HUT CIRCLE, ROTARY QUERN NZ 3967 2445 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NZ 391 257

CROPMARK, DROVE ROAD, PALISADED ENCLOSURE, UNENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

MANOR COTTAGE; EAST ROUNTON; EAST ROUNTON; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE HUTTON RUDBY; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NZ 43 04

DITCH, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, GULLY, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC) DITCH, POST HOLE, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

CATCOTE, CLEVELAND; HARTLEPOOL; HARTLEPOOL

NZ 448 531

SETTLEMENT, ROUND HOUSE, FIELD SYSTEM

IRON AGE

INGLEBY BARWICK; STOCKTON ON TEES; ENGLAND

NZ 4500 1250 SETTLEMENT, POTTERY

IRON AGE

INGLEBY BARWICK; STOCKTON ON TEES; ENGLAND

NZ 455 134

SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

CLEVELAND; REDCAR AND CLEVELAND; SKELTON AND BROTTON

NZ 469 518

UNENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ROUND HOUSE

IRON AGE

CATCOTE, HARTLEPOOL; HARTLEPOOL; CLEVELAND; ENGLAND

NZ 490 315

WHORLTON; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND STAINTON AND THORNTON; MIDDLESBROUGH; CLEVELAND; ENGLAND

NZ 496 012

BUILDING, COIN, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIND, FINDSPOT, HUT CIRCLE, INHUMATION, IRON WORKING SITE, SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, VESSEL EARTHWORK, PROMONTORY FORT

NZ 500 134

FARMSTEAD, FIND, GULLY, PIT, QUERN, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, VESSEL

IRON AGE

GUISBOROUGH; REDCAR AND CLEVELAND; CLEVELAND; ENGLAND ESTON NAB; GUISBOROUGH; REDCAR AND CLEVELAND; CLEVELAND; ENGLAND GUISBOROUGH; REDCAR AND CLEVELAND; CLEVELAND; ENGLAND FOXRUSH FARM; REDCAR AND CLEVELAND; ENGLAND

NZ 557 164

HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NZ 56 18

SETTLEMENT, HILLFORT

SOUTH SHIELDS; SOUTH TYNESIDE; TYNE AND WEAR; ENGLAND

TYNEMOUTH; NORTH TYNESIDE; TYNE AND WEAR; ENGLAND LONGNEWTON; STOCKTON ON TEES; CLEVELAND; ENGLAND THORPE THEWLES; GRINDON; STOCKTON ON TEES; CLEVELAND; ENGLAND GRINDON; STOCKTON ON TEES; CLEVELAND; ENGLAND

NZ 447 034

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

NEOLITHIC

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

NZ 578 178 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, LITHIC IMPLEMENT, VESSEL NZ 5860 2300 SETTLEMENT, INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY INCLUDING SALT PRODUCTION AND METAL WORKING NZ 59 20 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

GREAT AYTON MOOR; NORTH YORKSHIRE MOORS; ENGLAND GUISBOROUGH; REDCAR AND CLEVELAND; CLEVELAND; ENGLAND PERCY RIGG; KILDALE; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND WESTERDALE; SCARBOROUGH; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NZ 597 117

IRON AGE

WESTERDALE; SCARBOROUGH; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND KILTON LANE; BROTTON; REDCAR AND CLEVELAND; ENGLAND KILTON LANE; BROTTON; REDCAR AND CLEVELAND; ENGLAND SKELTON; REDCAR AND CLEVELAND; ENGLAND

NZ 6760 0478 EARTHWORK, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

NZ 6912 1656 IRON AGE VILLAGE, BOUNDARIES, POTTERY NZ 6920 1850 IRON AGE VILLAGE - OPEN SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

NZ 6930 1925 SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, DITCH

IRON AGE

REDCAR; REDCAR AND CLEVELAND; CLEVELAND; ENGLAND

NZ 597 171

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, HEARTH, IRON WORKING SITE ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

NZ 6101 1154 SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, DITCH, PIT NZ 6645 0725 BLOOMERY, CAIRN, CAIRNFIELD, CROSS DYKE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, HOLLOW WAY, HUT CIRCLE, STANDING STONE, STRUCTURE, TRACKWAY

150

IRON AGE IRON AGE BRONZE AGE

LATE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

Cropmark

NZ 33 NW 51

Local HER/ SMR ADS Number Number EH Pastscape 876890 NMR_NATINV-876890.

Bibliographic References CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

Aerial Photograph Reference if any

ROMAN

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

NZ 33 SE 11

EH Pastscape 876899 NMR_NATINV-876899.

CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)99 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

DURHAM UNIVERSITY 122/27 xx-xxx-xx

ROMAN

Cropmark

NZ 33 NE 13

EH Pastscape 876894 NMR_NATINV-876894.

ROMAN

Excavation 2005 and ongoing Trial trenching during pipeline excavation 2003

Bowes Museum Archaeological Report 1, 1978 Page(s)165 www.dur.ac.uk/archaeological.services/researc h_and_training/sedgefield See also Petts, D.

ROMAN

Information from Bournemouth AIP

ROMAN

Excavated 1875-77, NZ 36 NE 4 1933, 1949-50, 1959, 1960,1961, 1962, 1966, 1970, 1975, 1977-81, 1983, 19945, 2001, 2002, Aerial Photographs, Earthwork

EH Pastscape South Shields Roman Fort

NMR_NATINV-26402.

Archaeologia Aeliana 7, 1979 Page(s)239-41 (L Allason-Jones) Britannia 15, 1984 Page(s)277 Britannia 16, 1985 Page(s)268 Britannia 17, 1986 Page(s)332 Britannia 18, 1987 Page(s)315 Britannia 19, 1988 Page(s)431-3 Britannia 20, 1989 Page(s)272-3 Britannia 21, 1990 Page(s)315

ROMAN

Earthworks, Excavated NZ 36 NE 582 1963

EH Pastscape 1162258

NMR_NATINV-1162258.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Excavated 1980-82

NZ 31 NE 5

EH Pastscape 25563

NMR_NATINV-25563.

646041

N/A

EHNMR-646041.

Cropmarks

NZ 32 NE 12

EH Pastscape 874041 NMR_NATINV-874041.

Archaeol Aeliana 4th Series 49, 1971 Page(s)121 Pl 13 (N McCord and G Jobey) The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement at Thorpe Thewles, Cleveland 1980-1982, 1987 CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1982 Page(s)98, 102 (Clack P and Haselgrove S)

Excavated 1999

1309353

N/A

EHNMR-1309353.

ROMAN

Cropmark, Excavated 2002

North Yorkshire SMR ENY2613

ROMAN

Excavated 1998-2002 1343902 and ongoing summers as a training site including geophysical surveys

N/A

EHNMR-1343902.

ROMAN

Excavated 2005

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

None Recorded

Information from Northern Archaeological Associates. 07/2003. North Yorkshire SMR Yorkshire Derwent Aqueduct Duplication Main Elvington to Riccall Archaeological PostFull report: Catcote/Summerhill Woodland Adventure Park, Hartlepool: geophysical survey/Report No 810. Archaeological Services, University of Durham [assessment & evaluation reports] ASUD, 2001 Interim report Archaeology north : the Information from Bournemouth AIP Still, D. A Roman Villa and Settlement at None Recorded Ingleby Barwick, Stockton on Tees. Full report: An archaeological excavation at Kilton Thorpe, near Brotton

None Recorded

None Recorded

N/A

EHNMR-1432604.

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Fieldwalking, Excavated 1980

NZ 40 SE 12

EH Pastscape 26824

NZ 51 SW 12

EH Pastscape 874083 NMR_NATINV-874083.

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Excavated 1966-68

NZ 51 NE 22

EH Pastscape 27561

NMR_NATINV-27561.

629476

EHNMR-629476.

Earthwork, NZ 51 NE 21 fieldwalking Geophysical Survey, Aerial Photographs, Excavation 2002-6 Excavated 2000 (5ha) 1370466 in advance of opencast coal extraction

EH Pastscape 27560

NMR_NATINV-27560.

N/A

EHNMR-1370466.

Excavated 1963

None Recorded

None Recorded

EH Pastscape Catcote NMR_NATINV-27142.

NMR_NATINV-26824.

Information from Bournemouth AIP

None Recorded

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Excavated 1962-68

NZ 51 NE 32

EH Pastscape 583324 NMR_NATINV-583324.

635198

N/A

EHNMR-635198.

Earthwork

NZ 60 NE 1

EH Pastscape Crown End

NMR_NATINV-27838.

Earthworks

NZ 60 SE 38

EH Pastscape 1151276

NMR_NATINV-1151276.

Excavated 2001

ROMAN

Excavated 2002

ROMAN

Evaluation 1999

AP (A/069890/21) APs (RAF CPE/UK/1835 4222-3 13.11.46) AP NZ 3924 Cleeveland Arch Office Exchange Place Middlesbrough

CBA Group 4 Newsletter, 1999

1432604 Excavated 2002, Geophysical survey 2001 Excavated 1963-4 and NZ 43 SE 6 1967

ROMAN

NMR NZ 3667/31 (4900/23) 22-DEC-1989

Information from Bournemouth AIP Information from Bournemouth AIP Information from Bournemouth AIP

151

Archaeologia Aeliana 46, 1968 Page(s)127 Full report Durham Archaeology Journal 4/1988/13-35 Note The journal of Roman studies Society for Promotion of Roman Studies 55/1965/203 CBA Group 4 Region, 1978 Page(s) 3 APS (OS 71/271 103-4 2-JUN-71) APs (Meridan Air Maps 022/73 031-33 undtd) CBA Group 3 Newsbulletin, 1985 Page(s)22 (Sherlock and Vyner) Council for British Archaeology Group 4 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 43, 1971 APs (RAF 541/23 4216-7 16 5 48) Page(s)192 (D A Spratt) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42,1967 Page(s)165 BAR British Series 20, 1975 Page(s) 51 AP (RAF 106G UK/1312 3395 9 10 51) Teeside Archaeological Society

Northern Archaeological Associates [assessment & evaluation reports] East Cleveland Reinforcement Pipeline: archaeological excavation/Report No 01, 2001 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 50, 1978 Page(s) 49-56 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 43, 1971 APs (RAF 540/612 4173-4 9 10 51) Page(s)192 (D A Spratt) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1963 Page(s)8 Early man in north-east Yorkshire, 1930 160 Page(s)140-142 and 147 (Frank Elgee)

None Recorded

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION DANBY RIGG; DANBY; SCARBOROUGH; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND STREET HOUSE FARM; LOFTUS; REDCAR AND CLEVELAND; ENGLAND

GRID REF OSGB NZ 71 06

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

HILLFORT, CAIRN

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

NZ 7390 1965 IRON AGE VILLAGE, POTTERY, JET WORKING, SALT PRODUCTION, ANGLOSAXON ROYAL CEMETARY ROXBY; SCARBOROUGH; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND NZ 7601 1393 CROPMARK, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, FIND, HUT CIRCLE, UNENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, VESSEL, PLOUGH MARKS, IRON WORKING SITE

IRON AGE

NEWTON MULGRAVE; SCARBOROUGH; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NZ 7658 1423 AGGREGATE FIELD SYSTEM, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

EGTON; SCARBOROUGH; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NZ 807 025

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

EGTON; SCARBOROUGH; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NZ 832 078

WHITBY; SCARBOROUGH; NORTH YORKSHIRE

NZ 90 09

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, GRANARY, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), TROUGH

HAZEL HEAD FARM; ULPHA; COPELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND BARROW-IN-FURNESS; BARROW IN FURNESS; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND STONE CLOSE; STAINTON; URSWICK; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND THE HAWK; BROUGHTON MOOR; BROUGHTON WEST; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 186 948

SETTLEMENT

EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT BEEHIVE QUERN, EARTHWORK, FIND, FINDSPOT, IRON WORKING SITE, KNIFE, SCRAPER (TOOL), SETTLEMENT, VESSEL

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

SD 2030 6979 HILLFORT SD 24 72

IRON AGE

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

SD 2404 9223 ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SKELMORE HEADS; URSWICK; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND HARE CRAGS; TORVER; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 27 75

IRON AGE

SD 2793 9500 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, BURIAL

IRON AGE

CONISTON; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 2769 9608 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BARROW-IN-FURNESS; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 28 90

SETTLEMENT

BURNHILL; THORNTON; FLEETWOOD; WYRE; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 33208 44331

TRACKWAY, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

DRY TARN; SEDBERGH; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 369 490

EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

GRANGE OVER SANDS; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 421 797

PROMONTORY FORT, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT, COIN, FIND, FINDSPOT

IRON AGE

HEST BANK; SLYNE WITH HEST; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 46830 65410

SETTLEMENT, CROPMARK, 1 SHERD BB1 (2ND CENTURY AD), RING (ROMAN)

SCOTFORTH; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 477 582

SCOTFORTH; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND KELLET LANE; HALTON WITH AUGHTON; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 47904 58817 SD 48300 64450

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, FIND, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE, VESSEL CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT, SUB CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE BANK, PIT, SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

CRAG HALL; ELLEL; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 48421 53435

SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

WARTON CRAG HILLFORT; WARTON; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE

SD 4919 7289 CROPMARK, EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT, HILLFORT, BARROW

IRON AGE

WARTON; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

OVER KELLET; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 4923 7285 EARTHWORK, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT, PROMONTORY FORT SD 49291 FARMSTEAD, SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, 63931 EARTHWORK, SEVERAL POTTERY SHERDS 3RD-4TH CENTURY SD 5196 7096 SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT

NEAR OLD HALL FARM; QUERNMORE; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 52110 63720

OVER KELLET; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 5220 7113 SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT

IRON AGE

QUERNMORE; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND NATLAND; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 5273 6238 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY SD 5308 8875 EARTHWORK, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

SIX ACRES; FULWOOD; PRESTON; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 54300 32400

CLAUGHTON; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 5727 6633 D SHAPED ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY SD 5740 2405 EARTHWORK, HILLFORT, HILLTOP ENCLOSURE

COTTAMS FARM; BULK; QUERNMORE; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

CLAYTON LE WOODS; CHORLEY; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

HILLFORT

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

SETTLEMENT, CROPMARK, 2x QUERNS

BOUNDARY DITCH, PROMONTARY FORT, EARTHWORK

152

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

ROMAN

Earthworks, Excavated 635217 1958 Excavated 2004-6

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

NMR Number

NZ 71 SE 5

NMR_NATINV-29399.

EH Pastscape 29251

NMR_NATINV-29251.

Excavated 1999 during 1309358 topsoil stripping

EH Pastscape 29251

EHNMR-1309358.

CBA Group 4 Newsbulletin, 1999

Cropmark

National Trust SMR

NTSMR-NA12471.

None Recorded

EH Pastscape Black Castle Hill N/A

NMR_NATINV-37684.

None Recorded

EHNMR-645632.

N/A

EHNMR-645928.

N/A

EHNMR-646108

Excavated during SD 29 NE 21 1800's date not certain

EH Pastscape 38766

NMR_NATINV-38766.

Earthworks

SD 29 NE 3

EH Pastscape 38688

NMR_NATINV-38688.

None Recorded

3406

Listed as 'the ancient NMRMIC-3406. settlements of Furness'

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 71, 1971 Page(s)12-16 Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society 26, 1926 Page(s)44 Archaeologia 53 pt 2, 1893 Page(s)396-7 (H Swainson Cowper) None Recorded

Earthwrorks, 645632 Excavated 1904 Earthworks, Excavated 645928 1959

Landscape Survey 2003-4 Earthworks

ROMAN

Virtual Catalogue Entry to support E.I. Migration: North-East Yorkshire Studies:Archaeological Papers, 1988 (R H Hayes) Scarborough & District Archaeological Society AP (J K St Joseph DP040 041 10 7 49) NMR NZ8002/5 (17530/10) 25-JAN-2001 Research Report 4 Wade's Causeway, 1964 Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland Research Reports 4, 1994 Page(s)79

EH Pastscape 29399

20013

Cropmark, Geophysical Survey and Excavation 1984 Excavatec 1970 (briefly)

646108

Lancashire SMR PRN26074 MLA25632 Cumbria SMR 41324 SD 47 NW 1

EH Pastscape Castle Head

Lancashire SMR PRN2574 - MLA257 SD 45 NE 13

EH Pastscape 40991

Information from Lancashire SMR Information from Cumbria SMR NMR_NATINV-41514.

Information from Lancashire SMR NMR_NATINV-40991.

Aerial Photograph Reference if any

http://www.teesarchaeology.com/new/StreetHo useInDepthInfo.html Full report: Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1985 Page(s)51

Earthwork, Aerial NZ 80 SW 27 Photograph Site discovered during NZ 80 NW 25 ploughing

ROMAN

ROMAN

NMR_NATINV-29059.

EH Pastscape Soldiers NMR_NATINV-29056. Garth

Earthwork, Excavation (un-published) 2005

ROMAN

Information from Bournemouth AIP

Trial trenching

ROMAN

ROMAN

Bibliographic References None Recorded

EH Pastscape 29059

Excavated 1959-60

ROMAN

ADS Number EHNMR-635217.

Earthworks, Excavated NZ 71 SE 6 1973-81

No remains - doubtful SD 26 NW 18

ROMAN

Local HER/ SMR Number N/A

None Recorded

The Upper Lune Valley Catchment Area: An Analysis of the Prehistoric Landscape of Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 1, 1901 Page(s)316 (ed W G Collingwood) T Cumb & Westm A & AS 26 1926 39 Excavations at Hest Bank 1985 (G E Lee)

Full report: Virtual Catalogue Entry to support E.I. Migration: Notes on Roman Roads, 1968 (G M Leather) None Recorded Aerial Photograph: Hunting Surveys Ltd. 6/1963. Lancs CC AP Group. VAP, b&w. Aerial Survey - Contrebis 2, 1974 Page(s)36-7 Lancs CC AP Group. OAP, print, b&w. (B E Woodhouse)

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

Lancashire SMR PRN243 - MLA243 Lancashire SMR PRN2677 - MLA267

Information from Lancashire SMR Information from Lancashire SMR

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

Information from Lancashire SMR

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork, Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

Lancashire SMR PRN11260 MLA11258 Lancashire SMR PRN513 - MLA513

Information from Lancashire SMR

Victoria County History of Lancashire 2, 1908 Olivier, A C H. -. Lancs CC AP Group. OAP, Page(s)508 (W Farrer and J Brownbill) b&w.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph, Trial Trenching 1997 Evaluation Excavation SD 57 SW 90 1990 Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

Earthwork

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

SD 47 SE 4

Evaluation Excavation SD 57 SW 89 1990 Earthwork, Aerial SD 56 SW 17 Photograph Earthwork SD 58 NW 3

EH Pastscape 41541

NMR_NATINV-41541. Information from Lancashire SMR

EH Pastscape 1150247 Lancashire SMR PRN2854 - MLA285

NMR_NATINV-1150247.

EH Pastscape 1150245 EH Pastscape 42983

NMR_NATINV-1150245.

NMR_NATINV-43089.

Information from Lancashire SMR

NMR_NATINV-42983.

Earthwork

SD 56 NE 30

EH Pastscape Castlesteads Lancashire SMR PRN15249 MLA15212 EH Pastscape 42938

Earthworks

SD 52 SE 24

EH Pastscape 887099 NMR_NATINV-887099.

Earthwork

Information from Lancashire SMR NMR_NATINV-42938.

153

None Recorded

Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society Volume 72 No.3, 1962 None Recorded

Transect through time : the archaeological landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene Contrebis 4, 1976 Page(s)39 (S H Penny) 4/1955. Lancs CC AP Group. -.

Transect through time : the archaeological landscape of the Shell North Western Ethylene APs (OS 71/026 042-3 27.3.71) None Recorded Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological None Recorded

Lansdale Magazine 1, 1820 Page(s)43 The Surviving Past: Archaeological Finds and Excavations in Central Lancashire, Page(s)31

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION HORNBY WITH FARLETON; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

GRID REF DESCRIPTION OSGB SD 5828 6975 EARTHWORK, HILLFORT

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

NEAR TOWN'S QUARRY; WHITTINGTON; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 58640 76940

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

LONGFIELD BARN; WHITTINGTON; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 59008 77999

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

TATHAM; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

BULL BANK FARM; WENNINGTON; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 6110 6848 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT SD 62200 SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK 71800

SEDBERGH; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 629 981

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

OLD WENNINGTON FARM; WENNINGTON; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 63100 71800

SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

MIDDLETON; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 6317 8717 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SEDBERGH; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 6326 9773 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE SD 6331 8695 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE, KILN

IRON AGE

CASTERTON; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 6345 7988 EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

MIDDLETON; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 6365 8825, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, SD 6370 8823, HUT PLATFORM, TRACKWAY SD 6384 8822

IRON AGE

MIDDLETON; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 6375 8733 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BURROW WITH BURROW; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND MIDDLETON; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 63795 78088 SD 638 839

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BURROW WITH BURROW; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND CASTERTON; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

SD 6385 7810 EARTHWORK, HUT PLATFORM SD 6386 7876 EARTHWORK, SCOOPED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

LECK; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 639 748

IRON AGE

MIDDLETON; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND

CASTERTON; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND BURROW WITH BURROW; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND BURROW WITH BURROW; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND BURROW WITH BURROW; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND BURROW WITH BURROW; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND BURROW WITH BURROW; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND CASTERTON; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND CASTERTON; SOUTH LAKELAND; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND BURROW WITH BURROW; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND BURROW WITH BURROW; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

BRONZE AGE

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, SCOOPED SETTLEMENT SD 6392 7863 EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY SD 64000 78291 SD 64031 78149 SD 64033 77966 SD 64034 77938 SD 64053 77856 SD 64089 78375 SD 64162 78645 SD 64207 77991 SD 64394 78040

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, UNENCLOSED SETTLEMENT EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT EARTHWORK, HUT PLATFORM EARTHWORK, HUT PLATFORM

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE BRONZE AGE BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, SCOOPED SETTLEMENT, STOCK ENCLOSURE EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, UNENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

HIGH PARK; LECK; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND SD 64461 78400

SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

BURROW WITH BURROW; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND BURROW WITH BURROW; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND SOUTH OF FAIR OAK FARM; BOWLAND WITH LEAGRAM; RIBBLE VALLEY; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 64553 78525 SD 64564 78483 SD 64740 45810

EARTHWORK, HUT PLATFORM

LOW BARN; WIRE GILL; LECK; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 64790 75640

EARTHWORK, HUT PLATFORM

IRON AGE

BRONZE AGE BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

DITCH, SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

LECK; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 6502 7794 EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

IREBY FELL; IREBY; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 67246 77177

ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

NEAR HORSE HEY FARM; BASHALL EAVES; RIBBLE VALLEY; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 69000 42000

SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

INGLETON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 6995 7460 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, LONGHOUSE, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

INGLETON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 705 730

IRON AGE

LECK HALL; LECK; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND SD 64910 76750

EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT

154

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

Excavated 1800's, Geophysical Survey 2002 Earthwork, Aerial Photographs

SD 56 NE 23

Earthwork, Cropmark

Earthwork

SD 66 NW 11

Local HER/ SMR Number EH Pastscape Castle Stede

ADS Number NMR_NATINV-42931.

Lancashire SMR PRN30748 - MLA27

Information from Lancashire SMR

Lancashire SMR PRN4334 - MLA4334

Information from Lancashire SMR

EH Pastscape 43932

None Recorded

APs (OS 69/369 050-1 25.7.69)

None Recorded

Earthwork

ROMAN

Cropmark

ROMAN

Earthwork

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SD 68 NW 13

EH Pastscape 44095

NMR_NATINV-44095.

SD 69 NW 6

EH Pastscape 44160

NMR_NATINV-44160.

SD 68 NW 16

EH Pastscape 44098

NMR_NATINV-44098.

Earthworks

SD 67 NW 31

EH Pastscape 44002

NMR_NATINV-44002.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SD 68 NW 14

EH Pastscape 44096

NMR_NATINV-44096.

RCHME: Howgill Fells Project, 1993 (A Carter) Archaeol in the North Gaz 1975 47

AP (J K St Joseph) APs (RAF F21 540/1323 0158-9 4.6.54)

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

SD 68 NW 15

EH Pastscape 44097

NMR_NATINV-44097.

AP (J K St Joseph) APs (RAF F21 540/1323 0160-1 4.6.54)

SD 67 NW 68

EH Pastscape 1109014 EH Pastscape 44125

NMR_NATINV-1109014.

EH Pastscape 1109016 EH Pastscape 1093181 EH Pastscape 44068

NMR_NATINV-1109016.

RCHME: Howgill Fells Project, 1993 (A Carter) RCHME High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey Changing Past' Recent work in the Archaeology of Northern England, 1979 RCHME, High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey RCHME Aerial Reconnaissance, 15th April 1997 None Recorded

ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

Earthworks, Aerial Photograph Earthwork Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

SD 69 NW 8

Lancashire SMR PRN2665 - MLA266

SD 68 SW 13 SD 67 NW 69 SD 67 NW 49 SD 67 SW 18 SD 67 NW 50 SD 67 NW 62 SD 67 NW 64 SD 67 NW 85

Earthwork

SD 67 NW 86

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

SD 67 NW 91

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SD 67 NW 58 SD 67 NW 57 SD 67 NW 84 SD 67 NW 82

Earthwork

Earthwork

SD 67 NW 70

Earthwork

SD 67 NW 71

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

EH Pastscape 44162

EH Pastscape 1093182 EH Pastscape 1108998 EH Pastscape 1109010 EH Pastscape 1109050 EH Pastscape 1109053 EH Pastscape 1109063 EH Pastscape 1108986 EH Pastscape 1108983 EH Pastscape 1109049 EH Pastscape 1109039 Lancashire SMR PRN25046 MLA24407 EH Pastscape 1109019 EH Pastscape 1109021 Lancashire SMR PRN3089 - MLA308 Lancashire SMR PRN10217 MLA10217 Lancashire SMR PRN2584 - MLA258

NMR_NATINV-44162. Information from Lancashire SMR

NMR_NATINV-44125.

NMR_NATINV-1093181. NMR_NATINV-44068. NMR_NATINV-1093182. NMR_NATINV1108998. NMR_NATINV1109010. NMR_NATINV-1109050. NMR_NATINV-1109053. NMR_NATINV-1109063. NMR_NATINV-1108986. NMR_NATINV-1108983. NMR_NATINV-1109049. NMR_NATINV-1109039.

Information from Lancashire SMR NMR_NATINV-1109019. NMR_NATINV-1109021. Information from Lancashire SMR

RCHME:Howgill Fells Project, 1992 (A Deegan) Lune Valley Survey, 1976 (C A Hodsdon)

RCHME: Howgill Fells Project Phase 2, 1994 (A Lax) RCHME: Howgill Fells Project, 1992 (A Carter) RCHME: Howgill Fells Project Phase 2, 1994 (A Lax) Ann Carter/12-JAN-1993/RCHME: Howgill None Recorded

RCHME Aerial Reconnaissance, 15th April 1997 RCHME High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey RCHME High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey RCHME High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey RCHME High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological RCHME High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey RCHME High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey RCHME High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey RCHME High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey Report, 1998 High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria : An Archaeological Survey Report. RCHME, 1997 RCHME High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey RCHME High Park, Lancashire and Cow Close, Cumbria. An Archaeological Survey None Recorded

Information from Lancashire SMR

None Recorded

Information from Lancashire SMR

None Recorded

AP (J K St Joseph) APs (RAF F22 540/1421 0068-9 28.9.54) Air Photographs (OS 73/471 056-7 12.10.73) AP (J K St Joseph) APs (RAF F22 540/1421 0068-9 28.9.54)

AP's (OS 70/390 350-1 24.9.70)

NMR SD 6378/11-16 Lancs/Cumbria Archaeol Unit - air photos N 1135-6 NMR SD 6378/11-16, SD 6478/77-78

RAF/541/525/4096-9, 14-MAY-1950

RAF/541/525/4096-9, 14-MAY-1950 RAF/541/525/4096-9, 14-MAY-1950

RAF/541/525/4096-9, 14-MAY-1950 RAF/541/525/4096-9, 14-MAY-1950

6/1968. Lancs CC AP Group. -. Olivier, A C H. -. Lancs CC AP Group. OAP, b&w. 1948. Lancs CC AP Group. White, R. 9/1998. Lancs CC AP Group. OAP, b&w. Aerial Photograph: -. -. Lancs CC AP Group. .

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Surveyed 1990, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

SD 67 NE 1

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SD 67 SE 14

EH Pastscape 44042

NMR_NATINV-44042.

RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (P Horne)

AP (J K St Joseph BLY 34 undt) AP (J K St Joseph AQL 66 undt)

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SD 77 SW 8

EH Pastscape 44976

NMR_NATINV-44976.

None Recorded

AP (St Joseph AQL 71 undated)

ROMAN

ROMAN

EH Pastscape 43942

Information from Lancashire SMR

None Recorded

ROMAN

ROMAN

Lancashire SMR PRN2667 - MLA266

NMR_NATINV-43932.

Bibliographic Aerial Photograph References Reference if any Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 12, 1912 Page(s)414 None Recorded LCC 2000 and 1960s digital aerial photographs

Lancashire SMR PRN11327 MLA11324 Lancashire SMR PRN1875 - MLA187

Information from Lancashire SMR

Transactions of the Cumberland and AP (RAF/541/525 4096-7 14.5.50) Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological None Recorded LCC colour vertical air photographs, shot no. 1390-250

Information from Lancashire SMR

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 31, 1932-4 Page(s)47-8

NMR_NATINV-43942.

155

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION GRID REF OSGB SAGAR HILL; SLAIDBURN; RIBBLE VALLEY; LANCASHIRE; SD 70850 ENGLAND 55040

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

NEWTON; RIBBLE VALLEY; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 7192 5037 ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

INGLETON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 7194 7598 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT SD 72 75 CAVE, HEARTH, HUMAN REMAINS

IRON AGE

RAVENSCAR CAVE; INGLETON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND INGLETON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND RAVENSTONEDALE; EDEN; CUMBRIA; ENGLAND INGLETON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND INGLETON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND INGLETON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND INGLETON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND PORTFIELD CAMP/ PLANES WOOD, WHALLEY; RIBBLE VALLEY; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

SD 7236 7627 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT SD 726 969 EARTHWORK, HILLFORT SD 736 769 EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

SD 7415 7685 BROOCH, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIND, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT SD 742 746 EARTHWORK, FIND, FINDSPOT, HILLFORT, HUT CIRCLE, VESSEL SD 7433 7830 EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT SD 745 355

ANIMAL REMAINS, AXE, BARBED AND TANGED ARROWHEAD, BRACELET, EARTHWORK, FIND, FINDSPOT, GOUGE, HOARD, KNIFE, LEAF ARROWHEAD, LITHIC SCATTER, LITHIC WORKING SITE, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT, PERSONAL ORNAMENT, PIT, PROMONTORY FORT, SCRAPER (TOOL), STUD, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, VESSEL

INGLETON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

SD 7469 7734 CLEARANCE CAIRN, EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT AUSTWICK; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SD 7766 7233 EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT HORTON IN RIBBLESDALE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; SD 7753 7595 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, ENGLAND SETTLEMENT HORTON IN RIBBLESDALE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; SD 775 778 EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT ENGLAND CIRCLE SETTLEMENT HORTON IN RIBBLESDALE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; SD 777 773 CAIRN, CLEARANCE CAIRN, EARTHWORK, ENGLAND FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

HORTON IN RIBBLESDALE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND HORTON IN RIBBLESDALE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND HORTON IN RIBBLESDALE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND LONG PRESTON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

SD 778 737

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT SD 7843 7468 EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

SD 84 64

SETTLEMENT, FARMSTEAD

IRON AGE IRON AGE

LANGCLIFFE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

BARROW, BOWL FURNACE, COPPER MINE, COPPER WORKING SITE, EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT SD 84240 SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK, IRON SWORD 47680 BLADE, QUERN, SPINDLE WHORL, 4TH CENTURY AD POTTERY SD 8433 6497 EARTHWORK, HUT, SETTLEMENT

COVERDALE; BROGDEN; PENDLE; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 84907 46839

BAINBRIDGE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND HALTON GILL; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 8609 8453 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BOMBER CAMP; BRACEWELL; PENDLE; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

SD 865 737

HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, STORAGE PIT

IRON AGE

PENYGHENT GILL; UPPER SKIRFARE VALLEY; HALTON GILL; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 87 74

PIT, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

HALTON GILL; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 874 741

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

HIGH SCAR; MALHAM TARN; MALHAM MOOR; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

HALTON GILL; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 88 67

IRON AGE

SD 8818 6521, EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE, STOCK SD 8819 6522 ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

SD 883 751

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT

156

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

SD 7920 7395 EARTHWORK, HUT, SETTLEMENT

SD 842 652

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

SD 8388 5802 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FORT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT

ATTERMIRE CAMP EAST SETTLE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND LANGCLIFFE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

ROMAN

Earthwork

ROMAN

Excavated 1931 and 1952 Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Excavated 1971-85 Eathwork, Aerial Photographs Earthwork Earthwork, Aerial Photographs Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photographs Earthwork, Aerial Photographs Excavated 1957-58, 1969-72, 1971-72

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

NMR Number

ADS Number

SD 75 SW 7

Local HER/ SMR Number Lancashire SMR PRN13288 MLA13285 EH Pastscape 44745

SD 77 NW 3

EH Pastscape 44887

NMR_NATINV-44887.

635276

N/A

EHNMR-635276.

SD 77 NW 13

EH Pastscape 44915

NMR_NATINV-44915.

SD 79 NW 4 SD 77 NW 12

EH Pastscape 45011 EH Pastscape 44912

NMR_NATINV-45011. NMR_NATINV-44912.

SD 77 NW 4

EH Pastscape 44890

NMR_NATINV-44890.

SD 77 SW 1

NMR_NATINV-44959. EH Pastscape Ingleborough Hillfort EH Pastscape 44909 NMR_NATINV-44909.

SD 77 NW 11

Information from Lancashire SMR NMR_NATINV-44745.

Bibliographic Aerial Photograph References Reference if any NWW Forest of Bowland Estate Archaeological Survey Report. Site 605, Lancaster University Archaeology Unit, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 31, 1931-4 Page(s)44-7, plan (Raistrick) None Recorded APs (OS/74/155 003 and 004) APs(F22 540/RAF/1401 0340-41 1.9.54) and Transactions of the British Cave Rescue Association 3, 1976 Page(s)95-99 None Recorded APs (F22 540/RAF/1401 0339-40 1.9.54) and (J K St Joseph) AQL 62 undated) RCHME: Howgill Fells Project, 1992 (A APs (OS/74/155 005-6) None Recorded AP(F22 540/RAF/1401 0338-9 1.9.54) and (J Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 34, 1938 A.Ps. F.22. 540/1401/0336-7 Page(s)120 (A Raistrick) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42, 1967 Air Photographs (F21/540/RAF 1401 0337-9 19-54) Page(s)4 (A King) None Recorded APs (OS/74/154 082 83) AP (F21 540/RAF/1401 0441-2 1.9.54) and (J Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 67, 1957 Page(s)115-7 Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 68, 1958 Page(s)139-40 BAR British series 20, 1975 Page(s)34 Archaeological Excavations For 1972, 1973 Page(s)34

SD 73 NW 22

EH Pastscape Portfield NMR_NATINV-44511. Camp

SD 77 NW 10

EH Pastscape 44906

NMR_NATINV-44906.

None Recorded

SD 77 SE 1

EH Pastscape 44922

NMR_NATINV-44922.

SD 77 NE 5

EH Pastscape 44846

NMR_NATINV-44846.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 34, 1938-9 Page(s)119 (A Raistrick) None Recorded A.P. F.22. 540/1401/0332-3

SD 77 NE 4

EH Pastscape 44841

NMR_NATINV-44841.

None Recorded

SD 77 NE 3

EH Pastscape 44836

NMR_NATINV-44836.

None Recorded

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Excavated 1924, Geophysical Survey 1992, Evaluation 1993 trial trenching Excavated 1973-5

SD 77 SE 10

EH Pastscape 44955

NMR_NATINV-44955.

None Recorded

SD 77 SE 6

EH Pastscape 44939

NMR_NATINV-44939.

None Recorded

SD 77 SE 7

EH Pastscape 44944

NMR_NATINV-44944.

SD 85 NW 4

EH Pastscape 45517

NMR_NATINV-45517.

635304

N/A

EHNMR-635304.

ROMAN

Excavated 1900's no record of date

SD 86 NW 23

EH Pastscape Victoria NMR_NATINV-45679. Camp

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph, Limited excavation 1939 Earthwork, Excavated SD 86 SW 15 1966, Aerial Photograph

A.P. (F.21. 540/RAF/1401 1.9.54 Nos.0329None Recorded 0330) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 27, 1924 Page(s)410-12 Lancaster University Archaeological Unit [assessment & evaluation reports], 1993 (I Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 46, 1974 Page(s)145 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 1971 Page(s)5, 417 Virtual Catalogue Entry to support E.I. Migration: Early Pennine Settlement, 1970 Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical Society Lancs CC AP Group. CS. vol.5 pt.4, 1941 Pages(s)239-51 Lancs CC AP Group. OAP, b&w.

ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

Lancashire SMR PRN317 - MLA317 EH Pastscape 45770

Information from Lancashire SMR NMR_NATINV-45770.

Lancashire SMR PRN1918 - MLA191

Information from Lancashire SMR

AP (F21 540/RAF/1401 0440-1 1.9.54) and (J K St JosephAQL 56 undated)

APs. F21. 540/1401/0436-8.

AP (J K St Joseph AQL 30 undated) and (RAF F21 540/1401 0331-2 1.9.54) f 21 540/RAF/1401 0329-32

CBA Group 4 Newsletter, 1966 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42, 1967 Page(s)165 None Recorded

AP 106G/UK 1514/3033 & 4173

Earthwork, Aerial SD 88 SE 3 Photograph Earthwork, Aerial SD 87 SE 5 Photograph Earthwork, Excavated 635313 1937

EH Pastscape 45869

NMR_NATINV-45869.

None Recorded

AP (F22 540/RAF/1421 0143-4 28.9.54)

EH Pastscape 45823

NMR_NATINV-45823. EHNMR-635313.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 34, 1939 Page(s)413-19 figs. (W. Bennett) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 34, 1939 Page(s)131-32,412 and 417

AP (F22 82/RAF/1153 18 4 55 0189-91)

N/A

Excavated 1937

EH Pastscape 45814

NMR_NATINV-45814.

SD 87 SE 2

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 34, 1939 Page(s)413-9 Figs (W. Bennett) CBA Group 4 Newsletter, 1964 Page(s)10

Excavated 1964

635330

N/A

EHNMR-635330.

Earthwork

SD 86 NE 17

EH Pastscape 45617

NMR_NATINV-45617

RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SD 87 NE 2

EH Pastscape 45806

NMR_NATINV-45806.

None Recorded

157

APs (OS 74/153 167-8) A.P.'s (F.21. 540/RAF/1401 Nos. 0315-16:

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

GRID REF OSGB SD 8841 6496, SD 8843 6518, SD 8848 6495, SD 8849 6489, SD 8850 6494, SD 8852 6501, SD 8856 6496, SD 8828 6499, SD 6498, SD 8838 6496

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BOUNDARY, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD BOUNDARY, HUT CIRCLE, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

MALHAM MOOR; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND NELSON; PENDLE; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 8841 6753 EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SD 8848 3839 EARTHWORK, MULTIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

RINGSTONES CAMP; WORSTHORNE WITH HURSTWOOD; BURNLEY; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 88660 33010

MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 8870 6511 BUILDING, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, LONGHOUSE

TWIST CASTLE; BRIERCLIFFE; BURNELY; LANCASHIRE;ENGLAND MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BEADLE HILL CAMP; LANCASTER; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 88870 FARMSTEAD, SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK 33700 SD 8889 6385 EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT SD 88970 FARMSTEAD, EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT 34090 SD 89 66 OCCUPATION SITE

MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 892 644

MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BUCKDEN; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

FARMSTEAD, KILN, SETTLEMENT, EARTHWORK

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD, HUT, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SD 910 648

MALHAM MOOR; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9010 6807 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, FIND, HUT CIRCLE, VESSEL SD 9013 6393 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT SD 9015 6934, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SD 9026 6916, SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT, SD 9033 6907, STOCK ENCLOSURE SD 9057 6910

MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, CAIRN, ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSURE SETTLEMENT

MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

UPPER WHARFEDALE; BUCKDEN; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BRIERCLIFFE; BURNLEY; LANCASHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT SD 8931 6461 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT, SETTLEMENT SD 8946 8078 EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT SD 8977 6525 EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT SD 90 63 SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, POUND

BROAD SCARS; MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; SD 90 64 ENGLAND UPPER WHARFEDALE; BUCKDEN; CRAVEN; NORTH SD 9002 7985 YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND , SD 8997 7988 MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SD 9008 6425

MALHAM MOOR; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

SD 9015 7908 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SD 9024 3522 AXEHEAD, CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIND, FINDSPOT SD 905 647 CAIRNFIELD, CREMATION, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, FIND, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, LITHIC IMPLEMENT

NEOLITHIC

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9063 6380 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 909 636

CELTIC FIELD SYSTEM, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 910 648

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD, HUT, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

158

PREHISTORIC

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

Earthwork

SD 86 NE 6

Earthwork

SD 86 NE 140

Earthwork, Excavated SD 83 NE 7 1958-61, 1970-71 ROMAN

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph, Trial trenching 1888 and 1925 Earthwork

ROMAN

NMR_NATINV-1037713 NMR_NATINV-45247.

Information from Lancashire SMR

Bibliographic References RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (A Carter)

SD 86 NE 11

EH Pastscape 45605

NMR_NATINV-45605.

RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

SD 86 SE 8

Lancashire SMR PRN253 - MLA253 EH Pastscape 45713

Information from Lancashire SMR NMR_NATINV-45713.

Roman Lancashire. 1883 Page(s)211 (W T Watkin) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 34, 1938 OS APs 74/153/ 194-5 Page(s)119 (A Raistrick) Transactions of the Lancashire Archaeology None Recorded Society 11, 1893 Page(s)159 Virtual Catalogue Entry to support E.I. Migration: Grassington 2000 Project: A site survey project in the Malham Moor and Upper None Recorded

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork Earthwork

SD 86 SE 5 SD 86 SE 6

EH Pastscape 45703

NMR_NATINV-45703.

None Recorded

SD 88 SE 1 SD 86 NE 13

EH Pastscape 45867 EH Pastscape 45607

NMR_NATINV-45867. NMR_NATINV-45607.

Earthwork

635349

N/A

EHNMR-635349.

Grassington, 1948 Page(s)18 (A Raistrick) RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod) Archaeology of Malham Moor Field Studies Vol I No 4, 1962 Page(s)16 (A Raistrick and P F Holmes)

Excavated 1952-53

635347

N/A

EHNMR-635347.

Survey 2000

31062*0

National Trust SMR

NTSMR-NA12001.

ROMAN

Excavated 1960

SD 96 SW 15

EH Pastscape 47021

NMR_NATINV-47021.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 SW 4

EH Pastscape 46982

NMR_NATINV-46982.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NW 2

EH Pastscape 46774

NMR_NATINV-46774.

Excavated 1957

SD 96 SW 5

EH Pastscape 46987

NMR_NATINV-46987.

Earthwork

SD 96 NW 16

EH Pastscape 46834

NMR_NATINV-46834.

Archaeology of Malham Moor Field Studies Vol I No 4, 1962 Page(s)22 (A Raistrick and P Archaeology of Malham Moor Field Studies Vol I No 4, 1962 Page(s)16 (A Raistrick and P RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

Survey 2000

30644*0

National Trust SMR

NTSMR-NA3013.

Excavated 1950 and 1974-75

SD 93 NW 8

EH Pastscape Burwains Camp

NMR_NATINV-46151.

Excavated 1952-53

SD 96 SW 2

EH Pastscape 46976

NMR_NATINV-46976.

Earthwork, Excavated SD 96 SW 6 1954-55 Earthwork SD 96 SW 22

EH Pastscape 46990

NMR_NATINV-46990.

EH Pastscape 594303 NMR_NATINV-594303.

Upland Settlement in Britain 143, 1985 Page(s)128 (ed D Spratt & C Burgess)

Earthwork

EH Pastscape 46982

None Recorded

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

Aerial Photograph Reference if any

RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod) BAR British series 20, 1975 Page(s)45 Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society 81, 1981 Transactions of the Lancashire Archaeological Society12, 1893 Page(s)158

Lancashire SMR Information from PRN252 - MLA252 Lancashire SMR National Trust Project EHNMR-1345633. Reference Number ZP9618 EH Pastscape 45698 NMR_NATINV-45698.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Survey 2000

EH Pastscape 1037713 EH Pastscape 45247

ADS Number NMR_NATINV-45582.

Lancashire SMR PRN254 - MLA254

Earthwork Earthwork

Local HER/ SMR Number EH Pastscape 45582

1345633

SD 96 SW 4

OS APs 74/153/194-5

Archaeology of Malham Moor Field Studies Vol I No 4, 1962 Page(s)22 (A Raistrick and P Plan of Hagg and Deepdale, 1994 field season interim report 8000, 1994 (R Martelew)

NMR_NATINV-46982.

159

Plan of Hagg and Deepdale, 1994 field season interim report 8000, 1994 (R Martelew) Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 104, 1952 Page(s)14551 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 60, 1988 Page(s)185 (ed P Abramson) Archaeology of Malham Moor Field Studies Vol I No 4, 1962 Page(s)22 (A Raistrick and P None Recorded

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION MALHAM MOOR; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

MALHAM TARN; MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YOKSHIRE; ENGLAND MALHAM MOOR; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND MALHAM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

ARNCLIFFE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

BAINBRIDGE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND ARNCLIFFE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

GRID REF OSGB SD 9120 6946, SD 9121 6921, SD 9124 6923, SD 9129 6953, SD 9131 6940, SD 9134 6952, SD 9146 6965, SD 9155 6950, SD 9159 6948, SD 9161 6953, SD 9162 6971, SD 9165 6964,SD 9168 6943

SD 915 695

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SD 9175 6835 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT SD 918 635 EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, FIND, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, QUERN, TRACKWAY SD 9185 7238 MICROLITH, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FARMSTEAD, FIELD SYSTEM, FINDSPOT

IRON AGE

MESOLITHIC

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

ARNCLIFFE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9298 6979 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD, HUT CIRCLE, STOCK ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

ARNCLIFFE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 932 710

IRON AGE

HAWKSWICK; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9323 6871, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD, SD 9324 6896, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, SD9325 6876, SETTLEMENT SD 9319 6868

IRON AGE

BAINBRIDGE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND HAWKSWICK; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 920 845

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD, HUT CIRCLE SD 9261 6920 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT SD 9284 6751, BUILDING, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, SD 9288 6777, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT SD 9289 6753, SD 9296 6774, SD 9303 6755

BORDLEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

CAIRN, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE

SD 9323 8983 EARTHWORK, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

IRON AGE

SD 9335 6913, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD, SD 9348 6913 HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

BORDLEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9342 6778, BUILDING, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, SD 9343 6788 HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

BORDLEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9355 6683 EARTHWORK, FARMSTEAD, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE

BAINBRIDGE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BORDLEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 936 849

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT SD 9378 6703, BUILDING, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, SD 9399 6718 FIELD BOUNDARY, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT SD 938 750 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

MUKER; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BISHOPDALE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 939 946

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT SD 9394 8318 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, HUT PLATFORM, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

HAWKSWICK; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9399 6787 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT SD 9400 8096, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, SD 9401 8088 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SD 9407 6766 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT SD 9415 6699 BUILDING, EARTHWORK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE

UPPER WHARFEDALE; KETTLEWELL WITH STARBOTTOM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

BISHOPDALE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND HAWKSWICK; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BORDLEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

PREHISTORIC

BUILDING, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

UPPER WHARFEDALE; BUCKDEN; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND ARNCLIFFE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9425 7750 SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

SD 943 704

IRON AGE

BUCKDEN; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 943 773

EARTHWORK, FARMSTEAD, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE FLAKE, EARTHWORK, FIND, FINDSPOT, HOUSE PLATFORM, SETTLEMENT

160

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

SD 96 NW 3

Local HER/ SMR Number EH Pastscape 46779

NMR_NATINV-46779.

Survey 2000

30626*0

National Trust SMR

NTSMR-NA5357.

Earthwork

SD 96 NW 140

NMR_NATINV-1032759.

ROMAN

Eathwork

SD 96 SW 14

EH Pastscape 1032759 EH Pastscape 47016

ROMAN

Excavated 1968-69, Geophysical Survey 1992

SD 97 SW 8

EH Pastscape 47170

NMR_NATINV-47170.

Yorkshire archaeological journal 42/1970/168:402-405 The Manchester archaeology bulletin 7/1992

ROMAN

SD 98 SW 3

EH Pastscape 47259

NMR_NATINV-47259.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

SD 96 NW 24

EH Pastscape 46874

NMR_NATINV-46874.

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NW 21

EH Pastscape 46859

NMR_NATINV-46859.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1964 Page(s)163 (R Hartley) RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod) RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

Earthwork

SD 96 NW 126

EH Pastscape 1032745

NMR_NATINV-1032745.

RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

Earthwork

SD 97 SW 5

EH Pastscape 47163

NMR_NATINV-47163.

Earthwork

SD 96 NW 17

EH Pastscape 46839

NMR_NATINV-46839.

Archaeological Journal 125, 1968 Page(s)338 (D Charlesworth) Antiquity 3, 1929 Page(s)170-3 (A Raistrick) RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

ADS Number

NMR_NATINV-47016.

Bibliographic References RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

Aerial Photograph Reference if any

The Romans in Yorkshire,1962(A Raistrick) Iron Age Settlements and Field Systems, 1968 RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod) None Recorded

AP (F21 540/RAF/1421 0154-5 20.9.54)

Earthwork

SD 98 NW 3

EH Pastscape 47222

NMR_NATINV-47222.

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NW 165

EH Pastscape 1032784

NMR_NATINV-1032784.

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NW 22

EH Pastscape 46864

NMR_NATINV-46864.

RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

Earthwork

SD 96 NW 153

NMR_NATINV-1032772.

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 98 SW 1

EH Pastscape 1032772 EH Pastscape 47253

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NW 20

EH pastscape 46854

NMR_NATINV-46854.

RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod) CBA Group 4 Newsletter, 1973 Page(s)6-7 (F AP (F21 540/RAF/1421 1056-7 2.9.54) Thorp) RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

Surveyed 2000

30646*0

National Trust SMR

NTSMR-NA8152.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 99 SW 9

EH Pastscape 47349

NMR_NATINV-47349

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SD 98 SW 5

EH Pastscape 47265

NMR_NATINV-47265.

None Recorded

Earthwork

SD 96 NW 166

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SD 98 SW 7

EH Pastscape 1032785 EH Pastscape 47269

NMR_NATINV-1032785.

ROMAN

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

SD 96 NW 13

EH Pastscape 46825

NMR_NATINV-46825.

SD 96 NW 168

Survyed 2000

30972*0

EH Pastscape 1032787 National Trust SMR

NMR_NATINV-1032787.

ROMAN

NTSMR-NA7633.

RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42, 1969 Page(s)238 (A Raistrick) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1964 RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod) RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod) None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 97 SW 2

EH Pastscape 47154

NMR_NATINV-47154.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 97 NW 138

EH Pastscape 594599 NMR_NATINV-594599.

NMR_NATINV-47253.

NMR_NATINV-47269.

161

RCHME: Newcastle Field Investigation, 1989 (H Welfare) RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

None Recorded

AP (F22 540/RAF/1421 0157- 8 28.9.54)

AP (F21 540/RAF/1421 0014.15 28.9.54)

A.P.s 106G/UK/1514 Nos. 3067-8

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

BAINBRIDGE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BISHOPDALE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND KETTLEWELL WITH STARBOTTON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BUCKDEN; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

GRID REF OSGB SD 9442 6719, SD 9449 6731, SD 9451 6693, SD 9453 6719, SD 9456 6725, SD 9460 6698, SD 9461 6728

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

SD 947 747 SD 948 779

BRONZE AGE

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT CLEARANCE CAIRN, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT PLATFORM CAIRN, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT, SHEEP FOLD

BORDLEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

SD 952 650

EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT SD 9533 6565 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT, STOCK ENCLOSURE SD 954 665 CAIRN, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH SD 955 688 YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND STIRTON WITH THORLBY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; SD 9606 5461 ENGLAND

IRON AGE

CARLETON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT DEER POUND, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, HUNTING LODGE SD 9631 4910 DITCHED ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

UPPER WHARFEDALE; KETTLEWELL WITH STARBOTTOM; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 964 721

IRON AGE

THRESHFIELD; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9671 6432 D SHAPED ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT, STOCK ENCLOSURE SD 9699 6558 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND KILNSEY (NORTH WEST OF); CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; SD 97 68 SETTLEMENT CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH SD 9704 6697, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SD 9720 6699 FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

THRESHFIELD; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 971 648

CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND CONONLEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9714 6568 EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT SD 9719 4629 ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9734 6684 CULTIVATION TERRACE, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT SD 9749 6526 CULTIVATION TERRACE, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, FIND, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT, VESSEL

IRON AGE

KETTLEWELL WITH STARBOTTON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9782 7554, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, HUT CIRCLE, SD 9906 7539 LINEAR EARTHWORK

IRON AGE

ELLER BECK; SKIPTON; NORTH YORKSHIRE

SD 980 540

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND KETTLEWELL WITH STARBOTTON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 980 663

EARTHWORK, FORT, HILLFORT

IRON AGE

CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

CARPERBY CUM THORESBY; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND THRESHFIELD; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

SD 9803 7159, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT SD 9846 7053 CIRCLE SETTLEMENT SD 982 904

IRON AGE

FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SD 9830 6427 EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, UNENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SD 9854 6974 BOUNDARY, CLEARANCE CAIRN, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH SD 986 685 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT GRASSINGTON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SD 9883 6542 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, RUINED BUILDING, SETTLEMENT GRASSINGTON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SD 989 654 CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

FIND, FINDSPOT, HUT CIRCLE, LITHIC IMPLEMENT, SPINDLE WHORL, VESSEL SD 9891 6772 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SD 9900 6848 EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT

162

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

THORNTON RUST; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; SD 949 875 FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT ENGLAND UPPER WHARFEDALE, BUCKDEN; CRAVEN; NORTH SD 9495 7965 EARTHWORK, FARMSTEAD, SCOOPED YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SETTLEMENT THRESHFIELD; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE IRON AGE

SD 9444 8787 HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT SD 945 810

BRONZE AGE

BUILDING, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, STOCK ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number SD 96 NW 49

Local HER/ SMR ADS Number Number EH Pastscape 594078 NMR_NATINV-594078.

Bibliographic References RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

Aerial Photograph Reference if any

Earthwork

SD 98 NW 11

EH Pastscape 47242

NMR_NATINV-47242.

None Recorded

SD 98 SW 2

EH Pastscape 47256

NMR_NATINV-47256.

SD 97 SW 11

EH Pastscape 47183

NMR_NATINV-47183.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1964 Page(s)165 (R Hartley) None Recorded

AP (Crawford/26A/791 V/B2 9.10.30) and (F21 540 RAF/1476 0123-4 15.11.54) AP (F21 540/RAF/1421 0014-5 28.9.54)

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 97 NW 4

EH Pastscape 47068

NMR_NATINV-47068.

None Recorded

SD 98 NW 4

EH Pastscape 47225

NMR_NATINV-47225.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthworks, Aerial Photograph Surveyed 2000

30645*0

National Trust SMR

NTSMR-NA26261.

None Recorded

Earthwork

SD 96 SE 4

EH Pastscape 46912

NMR_NATINV-46912.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 30

EH Pastscape 46694

NMR_NATINV-46694.

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 13

EH Pastscape 46633

NMR_NATINV-46633.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1965 Page(s)332 (A Raistrick) None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 25

EH Pastscape 46671

NMR_NATINV-46671.

Excavated 1962-63

SD 95 SE 7

EH pastscape 46515

NMR_NATINV-46515.

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SD 94 NE 6

EH Pastscape 46241

NMR_NATINV-46241.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1965 Page(s)326 (A Raistrick) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1963 Page(s)161 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1964 Page(s)162None Recorded A.P. 58/RAF/1093/F22 0006

ROMAN

Surveyed 2000

30635*0

National Trust SMR

NTSMR-NA2432.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 SE 18

EH Pastscape 46958

NMR_NATINV-46958.

None Recorded

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 38

EH Pastscape 46724

NMR_NATINV-46724.

None Recorded

Geophysical Survey 1993 Earthwork

1036110

N/A

EHNMR-1036110.

CBA Group 4 Newsletter, 1993 Page(s)11

ROMAN

SD 96 NE 39

EH Pastscape 46729

NMR_NATINV-46729.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1965 Page(s)326 (A Raistrick)

Earthworks

SD 96 SE 11

EH Pastscape 46933

NMR_NATINV-46933.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 31

EH Pastscape 46697

NMR_NATINV-46697.

None Recorded

Earthwork

SD 94 NE 3

EH Pastscape 46228

NMR_NATINV-46228.

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 43

EH Pastscape 46749

NMR_NATINV-46749.

Victoria County History Yorkshire 2, 1912 Page(s)63 (E S Armitage) None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 32

EH Pastscape 46702

NMR_NATINV-46702.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1965 Page(s)326 (A Raistrick)

Earthwork

SD 97 NE 1

EH Pastscape Tor Dike

NMR_NATINV-47039.

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Bradford Historical and Antiquarian Society 8, 1940 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1965 Page(s)326 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 50, 1978 None Recorded AP (RAF/58/711 3054-5 3.6.51)

ROMAN

ROMAN

None Recorded

ROMAN

Excavated 1900's

SD 96 NE 22

EH Pastscape 46658

NMR_NATINV-46658.

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 97 SE 5

EH Pastscape 47103

NMR_NATINV-47103.

Earthworks, Aerial Photograph Earthwork

SD 99 SE 4

EH Pastscape 47321

NMR_NATINV-47321.

SD 96 SE 5

EH Pastscape 46917

NMR_NATINV-46917.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1965 Page(s)333 (A raistrick)

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 27

EH Pastscape 46679

NMR_NATINV-46679.

RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 23

EH Pastscape 46661

NMR_NATINV-46661.

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 4

EH Pastscape 46600

NMR_NATINV-46600.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1965 Page(s)320 (A Raistrick). Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 34, 1939 Page(s)125-6 (A Raistrick)

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 3

EH Pastscape 46599

NMR_NATINV-46599.

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 28

EH Pastscape 46684

NMR_NATINV-46684.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 33, 1937 Page(s)171 (A Raistrick) None Recorded

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 9

EH Pastscape 46617

NMR_NATINV-46617.

None Recorded

ROMAN

ROMAN

163

AP (F21/540/RAF/1476 0122-23 15.11.54)

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

GRID REF DESCRIPTION OSGB SD 9905 6907, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD, SD 991 691 FIELD BOUNDARY, STOCK ENCLOSURE

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH SD 9925 6925 YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND CONISTONE WITH KILNSEY; CRAVEN; NORTH SD 993 679 YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND GRASSINGTON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SD 9945 6508

EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT COIN, EARTHWORK, FIND, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, MIDDEN, SETTLEMENT, VESSEL GRASSINGTON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SD 9960 6627 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIND, FINDSPOT, LITHIC IMPLEMENT, VESSEL SKIPTON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SD 9965 5047 BEAD, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, FIND, HILLTOP ENCLOSURE, SUB CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE, TOGGLE, UNENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, VESSEL GRASSINGTON; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SD 999 655 EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

SE 012 620 SETTLEMENT SE 0308 8602 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT SE 0514 3627 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE IRON AGE

HEBDEN; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 0545 6705 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE SE 0552 2941 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE SE 0624 8737 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE SE 0680 3808 CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE, CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT SE 081 911 FARMSTEAD, FIELD SYSTEM

IRON AGE

COVERHAM WITH AGGLETHORPE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BINGLEY; BRADFORD; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

WENSLEY; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND NESFIELD WITH LANGBAR; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

BINGLEY; BRADFORD; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND THORNTHWAITE WITH PADSIDE; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BRAITHWAITE HALL, EAST WITTON TOWN, RICHMONDSHIRE, NORTH YORKSHIRE, ENGLAND STONEBECK DOWN; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

STONEBECK DOWN; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 125 665

FOUNTAINS EARTH; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BLUBBERHOUSES; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND DENTON; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

BLUBBERHOUSES; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND ELLINGSTRING; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 1400 7072 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, HUT CIRCLE SE 1413 5538, AXE, BLOOMERY, BURIAL, CAIRN, SE 1415 5544 ENCLOSURE, OVAL ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT, WHETSTONE SE 142 521 FINDSPOT, OVAL ENCLOSURE, SCRAPER (TOOL), SETTLEMENT, STRUCTURE

BROMPTON ON SWALE; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

IRON AGE BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE BRONZE AGE

SE 17062 82898

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

NEOLITHIC

IRON AGE

SE 1485 5375 ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SETTLEMENT, ROUND HOUSE, ENCLOSURE

SE 1998 9964 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE

LAVERTON; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SE 205 716

OTLEY; LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, STOCK ENCLOSURE SE 127 382 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT SE 1304 3908 CUP MARKED STONE, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ENHANCED NATURAL FEATURE, FIELD SYSTEM

LAVERTON; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SE 1786 7318 BARBED AND TANGED ARROWHEAD, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, FIND, FINDSPOT, HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT COLBURN; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

SE 1213 6894 HUT CIRCLE, RING BANK

SE 1248 6659 HUT CIRCLE, ENCLOSURE

SHIPLEY; BRADFORD; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

SE 0925 4946 CINERARY URN, COIN, EARTHWORK, FIND, FINDSPOT, PROMONTORY FORT, SETTLEMENT, SWORD, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT SE 1014 3990 SETTLEMENT SE 1175 6158 EARTHWORK, HUT CIRCLE, OVAL ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT, STOCK ENCLOSURE SE 1199 8539 UNIVALLATE HILLFORT

STONEBECK DOWN; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SHIPLEY; BRADFORD; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

THORPE; CRAVEN; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BURTON CUM WALDEN; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND CULLINGWORTH; BRADFORD; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

HALIFAX; CALDERDALE; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

SE 2187 4457 EARTHWORK, ENCLOSED HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, FIND, FINDSPOT, HEARTH, HUT CIRCLE, QUERN, STRUCTURE, VESSEL SE 22467 SETTLEMENT 99443

164

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 41

Local HER/ SMR Number EH Pastscape 46739

NMR_NATINV-46739.

ROMAN

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 45

EH Pastscape 46755

NMR_NATINV-46755.

None Recorded

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph Excavated 1893-94

SD 96 NE 8

EH Pastscape 46612

NMR_NATINV-46612.

ROMAN

SD 96 NE 53

EH Pastscape 593890 NMR_NATINV-593890.

ROMAN

Excavated 1893

SD 96 NE 20

EH Pastscape 46652

NMR_NATINV-46652.

Excavated 1964-69

SD 95 SE 11

EH Pastscape 46527

NMR_NATINV-46527.

Yorkshire Archaeolgical Journal 41, 1965 APs (OS 73/460/30 g) Page(s)320 (A Raistrick) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 33, 1938 Page(s)166 (A Raistrick) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 31, 1934 Proceedings of the York Geological Society 12 1894 Page(s)378-91 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 33, 1938 The Yorkshire archaeological journal 42/1969/167:246 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42 1970 p246

Earthwork

SD 96 NE 14

NMR_NATINV-46638.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 33, 1937 Page(s)166-174 (A Raistrick)

Earthwork Excavated 1992

SE 06 SW 2 SE 08 NW 4

EH Pastscape Grassington Field System EH Pastscape 48521 EH Pastscape 48683

NMR_NATINV-48521. NMR_NATINV-48683.

None Recorded CBA Group 4 Newsletter, 1992

Excav ated 1911 and 1954, Geophyscial Survey 1980's Earthwork

SE 03 NE 13

EH Pastscape Castle Stead Ring

NMR_NATINV-47897.

SE 06 NE 1

EH Pastscape 48369

NMR_NATINV-48369.

Victoria County History York 2, 1912 Page(s)7 The Archaeology of None Recorded

Earthwork

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ADS Number

Bibliographic References RCHME: Yorkshire Dales Project, 1991 (D Macleod)

SE 02 NE 8

EH Pastscape 47662

NMR_NATINV-47662.

EH Pastscape 48655

NMR_NATINV-48655.

Catstones Ring

NMR_NATINV-47871.

Hunter Archaeological Society Transactions 19, 1997

EH Pastscape 48844

NMR_NATINV-48844.

None Recorded

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SE 04 NE 13

Castleberg

NMR_NATINV-48017.

Earthworks Eathwork

SE 13 NW 16 SE 16 SW 4

EH Pastscape 49534 Stony Rigg

NMR_NATINV-49534. NMR_NATINV-50705

Victoria County History York 2, 1912 Page(s)5-7 The Archaeology of Yorkshire, 1971 Page(s)119 Man and the changing landscape : a study of Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, 1965 Page(s)332 (S Feather)

Earthwork, Aerial Photographs Excavated 2003 - 4 trial trenches

30652*0

Aerial Photograph: Mainly East Witton Camp, Victoria County History York 2, 1912 29/07/1997 Page(s)7 York Archaeological Trust. 2004. The Information from North Yorkshire SMR Spinney, Sherburn in Elmet: Report on an Archaeological Watching Brief and Northern Archaeological Associates. 02/2008. North Yorkshire SMR Information from ENY3620 North Yorkshire SMR Allerton Park Quarry, North Yorkshire. Archaeological Investigation. Specialist Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 53, 1981 EH Pastscape 50652 NMR_NATINV-50652. Page(s)144 National Trust SMR

Man and the changing landscape : a study of occupation and palaeo environment in the None Recorded

APs (RAF F22/540/1476 0080-1 15.11.54) 541/117/3339-3340, 29-Jul-1948 NMR MAL/68028 0224 26-Apr-1968 NMR MAL/71150 0037 06-Oct-1971

NMRC SE0949/13 31-Mar-1998

NTSMR-NA1581.

North Yorkshire SMR ENY3086

Excavated 2007

ROMAN

Earhtwork

Soldiers Trench

NMR_NATINV-49552.

Man and the changing landscape : a study of occupation and palaeo environment in the None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork, Excavated SE 13 NW 75 1930 SE 13 NW 22 Earthwork, Aerial photograph, Geophysical Survey 1996 Earthwork SE 17 SW 10

EH Pastscape 50819

NMR_NATINV-50819.

None Recorded

Earthwork

SE 15 NW 1

EH Pastscape 50339

NMR_NATINV-50339.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 34, 1938-39, Page(s)120-8 (A Raistrick)

Earthwork

SE 15 SW 4

EH Pastscape 50464

NMR_NATINV-50464.

None Recorded

Earthwork

SE 15 SW 3

EH Pastscape 50461

NMR_NATINV-50461.

None Recorded

Northern Archaeological Associates. 03/2006. Information from North Yorkshire SMR A1 Dishforth to Barton, Healam Bridge, Pickhil NMR_NATINV-50756. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 46, 1974 Page(s)23-33

SE 16 NW 10

EH Pastscape 616566 NMR_NATINV-616566.

ROMAN

Excavated 2005

North Yorkshire SMR ENY3723

ROMAN

SE 17 SE 2 Excavated 1973, archive preserves only soil sample analyses

Fortress Dyke

ROMAN

Excavated 2005

North Yorkshire SMR ENY3729

SE 27 SW 2 May have been excavated 1936-7. Probably a far simple investigation Evaluation 1997, SE 24 SW 15 Aerial Photograp

Cast Hills

Northern Archaeological Associates. 03/2006. Information from North Yorkshire SMR A1 Dishforth to Barton, N Yorks, Archaeological Evaluation Trenching in Non NMR_NATINV-52167. None Recorded

EH Pastscape 51667

NMR_NATINV-51667.

Excavated 2005

North Yorkshire SMR ENY3732

ROMAN

(RAF F22/540/1476 0085-6 15.11.54 RAF/541/117 4049 29-JUL-1948 RAF/541/117 4336 29-Jul-1948

Earthwork, Aerial SE 08 NE 8 Photograph Earthworks, Excavated SE 03 NE 7 1963, Aerial Photograph Cropmark SE 09 SE 3

ROMAN

ROMAN

Aerial Photograph Reference if any

West Yorkshire Archaeological Services: Archaeological Survey Report No 828, 2000 (R Holbrey)

Northern Archaeological Associates. 03/2006. Information from North Yorkshire SMR A1 Dishforth to Barton, N Yorks, Archaeological Evaluation Trenching in Non

165

NMR OS/90231 0154 01-Aug-1990

RAF CPE/UK/25574306 28-Mar-48

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION CATTERICK RACE COURSE; CATTERICK; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

GRID REF OSGB SE 23 97

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

BURIAL CAIRN, CIST, METAL WORKING SITE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, AMPHITHEATRE, INHUMATION CEMETERY PALISADED SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, GRANARY, ROAD SETTLEMENT,POTTERY

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

NEOLITHIC

IRON AGE

CATTERICK QUARRY/DERE STREET; CATTERICK; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND CRAKEHALL; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 23 98

CATTERICK; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 232 984

CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT

BAINESSE; CATTERICK; RICHMONDSHIRE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 23622 97406

SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, POTTERY

LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 255 391

EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT

NORTH RIGTON; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 2585 5101 AXE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, FIND, FINDSPOT, HUT CIRCLE, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, VESSEL

LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 260 387

CAIRN, EARTHWORK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, SITE

IRON AGE

NORTH RIGTON; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

NORTH STAINLEY WITH SLENINGFORD; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 2905 5032, COIN, CORN DRYING OVEN, ENCLOSURE, SE 2917 5030 FIELD SYSTEM, FIND, QUERN, SETTLEMENT, SHIELD SE 2915 7555 BATH HOUSE, EARTHWORK, HILLFORT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, VILLA

EXELBY; LEEMING & NEWTON; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 29549 88296

POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT, IA POTTERY

IRON AGE

HEALAM BRIDGE; BURNESTON;HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 32295 83810

SETTLEMENT, TRENCH, ENCLOSURE, INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

IRON AGE

DANBY WISKE WITH LAZENBY; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 340 967

SETTLEMENT, ROUND HOUSE, CIRCULAR ENCLOSURE, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE

LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 341 350

CULTIVATION TERRACE, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HILLFORT

IRON AGE

LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 374 331

IRON AGE

SWILLINGTON; LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 383 315

CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD BOUNDARY, SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT CROPMARK, DITCH, ENCLOSURE, FIELD BOUNDARY, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC)

KIRK DEIGHTON; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 385 501

IRON AGE

NORTON GRANGE; LANGTHORPE; HARROGATE

SE 38561 67163

CROPMARK, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, FIND, FINDSPOT, LITHIC IMPLEMENT SETTLEMENT, DITCH

LAND AT ROECLIFFE LANE; BOROUGHBRIDGE; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 39 66

SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

WAKEFIELD; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 390 238

BARWICK IN ELMET AND SCHOLES; LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 233 894

DITCH, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT SE 3983 3749, COIN, EARTHWORK, FIND, FINDSPOT, SE 3989 3769 UNIVALLATE HILLFORT, BURH

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

RING DITCH, FARMSTEAD, ENCLOSURE WHITWOOD COMMON LANE; NORMANTON; WAKEFIELD; SE 40 23 WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND DALTON PARLOURS; COLLINGHAM; LEEDS; WEST SE 4027 4453 SETTLEMENT, VILLA, BUILDING, YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND INHUMATION

LATE IRON AGE IRON AGE

NEAR PARK HOUSE; ALDBOROUGH; BOROUGHBRIDGE; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 40 66

ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), FIELD BOUNDARY

IRON AGE

FLAXBY; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 400 583

BUILDING, DITCH, FARMSTEAD, FIELD SYSTEM, INHUMATION, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, TRACKWAY, YARD

IRON AGE

ALLERTON PARK QUARRY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 40581 60998

SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, PIT, TRACKWAY

IRON AGE

COLLINGHAM; LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 408 455

CROPMARK, CURVILINEAR ENCLOSURE, DITCH, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, INHUMATION, MACULA, OVEN, PIT, STOCK ENCLOSURE, STRUCTURE, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT

IRON AGE

166

PREHISTORIC

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

ROMAN

Watching brief 1990

1304754

Local HER/ SMR Number N/A

EHNMR-1304754.

ROMAN

Excavated 1969-70

635451

ROMAN

Excavated 2005

ROMAN

ROMAN

Excavation 1969-70, SE 29 NW 22 Geophysical Survey 1984 Geophysical Survey, Excavated 2007 - trial trenching Excavated 1977-78 SE 23 NE 20

Bibliographic Aerial Photograph References Reference if any East Riding Archaeological Research Committee [assessment & evaluation reports] Stephens M R/1990/Catterick Racecourse Crossing: Archaeological Watching Brief and Excavations. EHNMR-635451. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its N/A hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958Northern Archaeological Associates. 04/2006. North Yorkshire SMR Information from ENY3744 North Yorkshire SMR A1 Dishforth to Barton, Bainesse, Catterick, N Yorkshire, Archaeological Evaluation Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its EH Pastscape 52349 NMR_NATINV-52349. hinterland. Excavations and research, 19581997. Part 1 (P.R.Wilson) Northern Archaeological Associates. North Yorkshire SMR Information from ENY4122 North Yorkshire SMR 30/12/2007. Gale Common Ash Disposal Site, Phase III, Womersley, North Yorkshire. None Recorded EH Pastscape 51311 NMR_NATINV-51311.

ROMAN

Excavated 1956

SE 25 SE 2

EH Pastscape 51763

NMR_NATINV-51763.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Earthwork

SE 23 NE 18

EH Pastscape 51309

NMR_NATINV-51309.

None Recorded

SE 25 SE 10

None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-51789.

None Recorded

SE 27 NE 15

Castle Dykes

NMR_NATINV-52079.

None Recorded

ROMAN

ROMAN

Excavated 1866-74, Aerial Photographs

ROMAN

Trial treching - 2004

North Yorkshire SMR ENY2465

Excavated 2000

North Yorkshire SMR MNY23959

Excavated 1978

North Yorkshire SMR MNY607

ROMAN

ADS Number

(J K St Joseph JH76) (J K St Joseph I77 & AZ91) NMR SE2975/9 (12178/37) 16-Aug-1991

MAP Archaeological Consultancy Ltd. Information from North Yorkshire SMR 11/2004. Land behind 30-32 Scarborough Road, Report: Northern Archaeological Associates. Information from North Yorkshire SMR 11/2000. Teesside to Saltend Ethylene Pipeline Sites 719 & 720, Skeugh Farm, Stillington, Information from Yorkshire Archaeological Journal. 1978. The North Yorkshire SMR Yorkshire Archaeogical Register: 1977. P 8 Archaeologial Journal 32, 1875 Page(s)135-54 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 32, 1875 Page(s)134-154 (W C Lukis) SE3733/2 WAS (11737/WY149/7) 08-AugYorkshire Archaeological Society : Roman Antiquities Section bulletin 12,1995 1985

Earthwork

SE 33 NW 60

EH Pastscape 53006

NMR_NATINV-53006.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SE 33 SE 133

EH Pastscape 1150241

NMR_NATINV-1150241.

ROMAN

Excavated 1991-2

658421

ROMAN

ROMAN

Cropmark, Excavated SE 35 SE 19 1974, Aerial Photographs Aerial Photograph

Council for British Archaeology: Archaeology in Britain for 1991, 1992 Page(s)115 Yorkshire Archaeological Society : Roman NMR SE 3850/183 (20357/10) 14-JUL-2005 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 47, 1975 EH Pastscape 53415 NMR_NATINV-53415. NMR SE 3850/138-147 (NMR 12998/25-28; Page(s)11 Yorkshire Archaeological Register,CBA Group NMR 17034/5-10) Aerial Photograph: 17/07/72. North Yorkshire SMR Information from Aerial Photograph: 04/08/80. MNY831 North Yorkshire SMR

ROMAN

Evaluation 1997- ten trenches following eophysical survey Excavated 1995

N/A

EHNMR-658421.

1330676

N/A

EHNMR-1330676.

SE 32 SE 38

EH Pastscape 1097672 Hall Tower Hill and Wendel Hill

NMR_NATINV-1097672.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Evaluation SE 33 NE 7 1991, Excavation 1912 (no further inforamtion), Aerial Photograph Excavated 1996 1110657

ROMAN

Excavated 1976-79

ROMAN

ROMAN

NMR_NATINV-52862.

N/A

EHNMR-1110657.

N/A

EHNMR-631047.

1321197 Excavated 1994 (University of Durham training dig) Evaluation 1994- trial 1038351 trenching following geophysical survey

N/A

EHNMR-1321197.

N/A

EHNMR-1038351.

ROMAN

Cropmark

North Yorkshire SMR MNY926

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

631047

SE 44 NW 20

EH Pastscape 54896

Roecliffe Lane, Boroughbridge: an archaeological evaluation, Northern Archaeological Associates, 1998 Medieval archaeology : Journal of the Society for Medieval Archaeology 40,1996 Page(s)294 Barwick-in-Elmet Iron Age Hillfort: RAF F21/58/1209 0027 14-Aug-1953 CBA Group 4 newsletter, 1991 Page(s) 17

Yorkshire Archaeological Society : Roman Antiquities Section bulletin 14, 1997 Page(s)22 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 49,1977 Page(s)6-8 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 50,1978-7 Page(s)9 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 51, 1979 Gazetteer of Archaeological Investigations in England, 1994 Page(s)756 CBA Group 4 Newsletter, 1994 Page(s)39-41 An archaeological evaluation of an Iron Age and Later Romano-British Settlement with associated field systems near Flaxby, North Information from North Yorkshire SMR

NMR_NATINV-54896.

167

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 49, 1977 Page(s)22

(OS 79/050 19.6.79 172-3) NMR SE 4045/104 (20354/07) 14-JUL-2005 NMR SE 4045/109 (20357/04) 14-JUL-2005 NMR SE 4045/112 (20272/04) 14-JUL-2005 NMR SE4045/67 (5799/2) 19-Mar-1989 NMR SE4045/24-26 (876/32-34) 04-Jul-1976

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION GRID REF OSGB ALLERTON; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHITE; ENGLAND SE 40911 56523

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT; DITCH; WELL

IRON AGE

DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT, ANIMAL BURIAL COIN, CROPMARK, DITCH, ENCLOSURE, EXTRACTIVE PIT, FIELD BOUNDARY, FIELD SYSTEM, FIND, GRUBENHAUS, PIT, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT, SQUARE ENCLOSURE, TRACKWAY, VESSEL MESOLITHIC BRACELET, FIND, FINDSPOT, HILLFORT, MACE, PALISADED HILLTOP ENCLOSURE, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, TWEEZERS, VESSEL, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC

METHLEY TERRACES; GARFORTH; LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND BRAMHAM CUM OGLETHORPE; LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 41 27

MARTON CUM GRAFTON; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 420 631

LEDSTON; LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 433 298

CROPMARK, DOUBLE DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSURE, FIELD BOUNDARY, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, PIT, PLATFORM, RECTANGULAR ENCLOSURE, RING DITCH, TRACKWAY, SETTLEMENT, INHUMATION

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

LEDSHAM; LEEDS; WEST YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 44 28

ANNEXE ENCLOSURE, CROPMARK, CURVILINEAR ENCLOSURE, DITCH, ENCLOSURE, FIELD BOUNDARY, FIELD SYSTEM, MACULA, PIT, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY

IRON AGE

PREHISTORIC OR ROMAN

NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 4495 5565 CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT SE 4524 6724 CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC) SE 4532 4540 ANIMAL REMAINS, CROPMARK, FARMSTEAD, FIND, INHUMATION, PALISADED ENCLOSURE, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, VESSEL SE 4518 4344 CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC) SE 4520 4202 CROPMARK, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SQUARE ENCLOSURE

MYTON ON SWALE; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND NEWTON KYME CUM TOULSTON; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

NEWTON KYME CUM TOULSTON; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND TADCASTER; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 418 419

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

HELPERBY; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SE 4539 6907 BOUNDARY, CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, SETTLEMENT NEWTON KYME CUM TOULSTON; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND HUDDLSETON WITH NEWTHORPE; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

SE 4541 4532 CROPMARK, ROUND BARROW, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC) SE 4553 3211 SETTLEMENT

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

MYTON ON SWALE; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 4554 6769 BOUNDARY, CROPMARK, CURVILINEAR ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE HELPERBY; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SE 4575 6836 BOUNDARY, CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

HUTTON SESSAY; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 4686 7710 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

TADCASTER; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 4735 4359 CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), TRACKWAY

IRON AGE

THOLTHORPE; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND RASKELF; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 4756 6591 CROPMARK, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC)

IRON AGE

SE 4808 6938 BOUNDARY, CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC) SE 49538 SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURES 33511

IRON AGE

CASTLE HILL; KIRK SMEATON; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 4987 1724 ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD

IRON AGE

LOW STREET (AREAS A & B); SHERBURN IN ELMET; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 50 33

IRON AGE

BOLTBY SCAR FORT; BOLTBY; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 5059 8565 EARTHWORK, FIND, FINDSPOT, PROMONTORY FORT, ROUND BARROW, UNIVALLATE HILLFORT, VESSEL

YORK DROUGHT RELIEF PIPELINE; MOOR MONKTON; HARROGATE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 51 56

HUSTHWAITE; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND CASTEN DYKE; KILBURN HIGH AND LOW; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 51 72

SHERBURN IN ELMET; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

SETTLEMENT

SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE, FARMSTEAD

ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), GULLY, POST BUILT STRUCTURE SE 5149 8152, CROSS DYKE, EARTHWORK, PROMONTORY FORT SE 515 818, SE 517 817, SE 518 816, SE 522 816

168

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

ROMAN

Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

Excavation 1996

1082689

N/A

EHNMR-1082689.

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 44 SW 25

EH Pastscape 55052

NMR_NATINV-55052.

ROMAN

Earthwork, Excavated SE 46 SW 5 1949

Grafton Hills

NMR_NATINV-55292.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 49, 1977 Page(s)2

ROMAN

Excavated 1976

631022

N/A

EHNMR-631022

None Recorded

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

SE 42 NW 22

EH Pastscape 922032 EHNMR-631022

None Recorded

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 45 NW 19

EH Pastscape 1321784 EH Pastscape 1327117 EH Pastscape 1008347

NMR_NATINV-1321784.

None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-1327117.

None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-1008347.

Monaghan JM. A Roman marching camp and Yvonne Boutwood/31-JULnative settlement site at Newton Kyme, 1995/RCHME:Newton Kyme Project Tadcaster. 63 (1991) Page(s)51-58

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

SE 44 SE 60

EH Pastscape 1199892 EH Pastscape 54976

NMR_NATINV-1199892.

None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-54976.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 45, 1973 Page(s)210 (D Riley)

NMR_NATINV-1326201.

None Recorded

ROMAN ROMAN

ROMAN

NMR Number

SE 46 NE 34 SE 44 NE 33

SE 44 SE 25

Local HER/ SMR ADS Number Number North Yorkshire SMR MNY 1140

Bibliographic References Information from North Yorkshire SMR Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 45, 1973 Page(s)212 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 38, 1955 Page(s)383-94

Aerial Photograph Reference if any Aerial Photograph: 01/01/77. Aerial Photograph. Aerial Photograph: 01/01/77. Aerial

NMR SE 4141/70 (17100/07) 31-MAR-1998 NMR SE4141/70 (17100/7) 31-Mar-1998

NMR SE4428/127 (12120/37) 24-Jul-1991 NMR SE4428/138 (2145/3036) 22-Jul-1983 NMR SE4428/134 (2145/3030) 22-Jul-1983 NMR SE4428/182 (19368/20) 11-Jul-1984 NMR SE4427/1 (2145/3050) 22-Jul-1983 Jane Stone/20-DEC-1994/RCHME: AP NMR SE 4455/4 02-AUG-1995 NOY (AJC 78/6) 23-JUL-1986 NOY (ANY 360/04) 27-JUN-1989

NMR SE 4641/4 (12120/75) 24-JUL-1991 CRA (AJC 185/24) 11-MAR-1989 CRA (AJC 245/13) 29-JUL-1990 CRA (AJC 295/2) 17-APR-1992 CRA (AJC 356/13) 06-AUG-1994 NOY (ANY 353/02) 21-JUN-1989 NOY (ANY 358/12) 27-JUN-1985 Yvonne Boutwood/28-JUL1995/RCHME:Newton Kyme Project

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

SE 46 NE 30

EH Pastscape 1326201

Crop Mark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark

SE 44 NE 28

NMR_NATINV-1007713. EH Pastscape None Recorded 1007713 Transactions of the Scarborough North Yorkshire SMR Information from MNY1264 North Yorkshire SMR Archaeological and History Society. 1980

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 46 NE 22

EH Pastscape 1323517

NMR_NATINV-1323517.

None Recorded

NOY (ANY 359/03) 27-JUN-1989

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 46 NE 23

EH Pastscape 1326118

NMR_NATINV-1326118.

None Recorded

NMR SE 4568/16 (12638/18) 27-JUN-1995 NOY (ANY 352/12) 21-JUN-1989

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 44 SE 48

EH Pastscape 1199326

NMR_NATINV-1199326.

None Recorded

Aerial Photograph: 05/07/76. Aerial Photograph: 07/07/76. Aerial Photograph: 05/07/76. NMR SE 4743/4 (723/404) 09-JUL-1996

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 46 NE 44

EH Pastscape 1327340 EH Pastscape 1327590

NMR_NATINV-1327340.

None Recorded

NOY (ANY 361/01) 27-JUN-1989

NMR_NATINV-1327590.

None Recorded

NOY (ANY 358/10) 27-JUN-1989

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

North Yorkshire SMR MYN695

SE 46 NE 46

Information from North Yorkshire SMR

Cropmark

North Yorkshire SMR MNY726

Information from North Yorkshire SMR

Cropmark

North Yorkshire SMR MNY814

Information from North Yorkshire SMR

1330702 Evaluation 1997 sample excavation before development Earthwork, Excavated 635193 1938-9

N/A

EHNMR-1330702.

None Recorded

N/A

EHNMR-635193.

1083015

N/A

EHNMR-1083015.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 5, 1939 Page(s)253 Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 1938 Page(s)319-20 CBA Group 4 Newsletter, 1996 Page(s)28-9

Excavated 2000 ahead 1339189 of BP pipeline Earthwork, Excavated 635661 1969-70

N/A

EHNMR-1339189.

CBA Group 4 Newsletter, 2000 Page(s)11

N/A

EHNMR-635661.

Ryedale historian 5, 1970 Page(s)72

Excavated 1996 monitoring of topsoil stripping and rapid rescue excavation

169

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

HAWNBY; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

LOCATION

GRID REF OSGB SE 527 950

GALE COMMON; WOMERSLEY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 53563 20980

GATEFORTH; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 5459 2927 CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT SE 5618 3506 BOUNDARY, CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

CAWOOD; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 564 361

CROPMARK, FARMSTEAD

IRON AGE

WISTOW; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 5685 3456 BOUNDARY, CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY

IRON AGE

CAWOOD; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 574 851

IRON AGE

RIEVAULX; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 5841 8448 CROPMARK, ROUND BARROW, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC) SE 588 390 CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD, HUT CIRCLE, TRACKWAY

CAWOOD; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

KELFIELD; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 592 563

DESCRIPTION

MESOLITHIC

CAIRN, CLEARANCE CAIRN, EARTHWORK, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, HUT CIRCLE SETTLEMENT, SQUARE BARROW

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE BRONZE AGE

SETTLEMENT, ENCLOSURE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

CROPMARK, FARMSTEAD BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

RAWCLIFFE MOOR WIGGINGTON; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND RIEVAULX; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 5965 8596 PROBABLE SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SUTTON ON THE FOREST; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 5986 6412, CROPMARK, FARMSTEAD, FIELD SYSTEM, SE 5996 6400 ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC)

IRON AGE

SUTTON ON THE FOREST; HAMBLETON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND DAVYGATE/SPURRIERGATE;YORK; NORTH YORKSHITE; ENGLAND SKEUGH FARM; STILLINGTON; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 5987 6538 CROPMARK, ROUND BARROW, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC) SE 60 51 ROUND BARROW, HILLFORT, BULDINGS SE 60151 67536

HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BRONZE AGE BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

SETTLEMENT, ROUND HOUSE

IRON AGE

NABURN; YORK; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6066 4704 CROPMARK, FIELD SYSTEM, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC)

IRON AGE

STILLINGFLEET; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6094 4010 CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

LINGCROFT FARM; NABURN; YORK; NORTH YORKSHIRE; SE 61 46 ENGLAND

IRON AGE

HAXBY; YORK; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SETTLEMENT, FIELD SYSTEM, HUT CIRCLE, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, ENCLOSURE, STRUCTURE SE 6113 6119, CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD, SE 6129 6108, FIELD, FIELD SYSTEM SE 6132 6132

IRON AGE

COULTON; RYDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE

SE 6210 7305 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

GRIMSTON; RYDEALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6212 7502 HUT CIRCLE, RING DITCH

IRON AGE

DEIGHTON; YORK; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6234 4455 BOUNDARY, CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY

IRON AGE

ESCRICK; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6246 4053 CROPMARK, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC)

IRON AGE

POLLINGTON; EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE; HUMBERSIDE; ENGLAND

SE 6250 2040 CROPMARK, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

RICCALL SHAFT (SELBY COALFIELD); RICCALL; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 63 36

IRON AGE

RICCALL; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6319 3676 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

BARLBY; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6325 3553 CROPMARK, CURVILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC)

IRON AGE

RICCALL; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6340 3726 CROPMARK, FIELD SYSTEM, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, RING DITCH, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

ESCRICK; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6405 4027 CROPMARK, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC)

IRON AGE

SKIPWITH; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6442 3793 CROPMARK, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, RING DITCH, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY

IRON AGE

CAWTON; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6465 7638 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

ESCRICK; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6476 4071 BOUNDARY, CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

HUT, CREMATION, DITCH

170

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

Earthwork, Aerial Photograph

SE 59 NW 7

Local HER/ SMR Number EH Pastscape 57468

ADS Number NMR_NATINV-57468.

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 52 NW 15

EH Pastscape 1319631

NMR_NATINV-1319631.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 53 SE 18

EH Pastscape 1320295

NMR_NATINV-1320295.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 53 NE 41

EH Pastscape 1323101 EH Pastscape 1319404

NMR_NATINV-1323101.

None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-1319404.

None Recorded

EH Pastscape 1323128 EH Pastscape 1379458 EH Pastscape 1322441

NMR_NATINV1323128. NMR_NATINV-1379458.

None Recorded None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-1322441.

None Recorded

1102948

N/A

EHNMR-1102948.

None Recorded

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Excavated 1996

North Yorkshire SMR MNY1140

Bibliographic Aerial Photograph References Reference if any History of Helmsley, 1963 Page(s)15, 39, 401 APs (RAF 540/572 4152-3 30.7.51 (J McDonnell)

SE 53 SE 16

SE 53 NE 42 SE 58 SE 73 SE 53 NE 32

Information from North Yorkshire SMR

Aerial Photograph: 01/01/77. Aerial Photograph: 01/01/77. Aerial Photograph: 26/07/71. NMR SE 5429/12-13 (17629/25-26) 27-JUL2001 CRA (AJC 27/2) 05-JUL-1984 CRA (AJC 74/34) 15-JUL-1986

NMR SE 5636/12 (20068/28) 27-JUL-2004 NMR SE 5636/13 (20068/29) 27-JUL-2004 CRA (AJC 245/5) 29-JUL-1990 NMR SE 5634/22 (12724/29) 26-JUL-1995

NOY (AJC 020/07) 03-JUL-1984 NOY (AJC 020/06) 03-JUL-1984 NMR SE 5884/16 (NMR 12856/22) 18-JUL1996 NMR SE 5839/6 (12717/02) 25-JUL-1995 NMR SE 5839/2 (12723/02) 25-JUL-1995

SE 58 NE 9

EH Pastscape 57054

NMR_NATINV-57054.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 56 SE 4

EH Pastscape 1184797

NMR_NATINV-1184797.

None Recorded

NMR SE 5964/63 (12505/70) 8-JUL-1994 NMR SE 6064/5 (4401/20) 10-AUG-1989

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 56 NE 35

EH Pastscape 1332290 N/A

NMR_NATINV-1332290.

None Recorded

CRA AJC246/2 29-JUL-1990

NMRMIC-3383.

None Recorded

ROMAN

3383 Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 64 NW 31

EH Pastscape 1184496

NMR_NATINV-1184496.

None Recorded

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 64 SW 7

EH Pastscape 1315681

NMR_NATINV-1315681.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Excavated 1982

1048108

N/A

EHNMR-1048108.

British Archaeological Reports 193, 1988 Page(s)163-70

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

SE 66 SW 26

EH Pastscape 1183612

NMR_NATINV-1183612.

None Recorded

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

North Yorkshire SMR MNY3730

Information from North Yorkshire SMR

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

North Yorkshire SMR MNY4451

Information from North Yorkshire SMR

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

North Yorkshire SMR MNY1407

Aerial Photograph: 05/07/76. Aerial Photograph: 09/07/75.

ROMAN

NMR SE 6047/7/37 (DNR 983/37) 10-JUL1976 YAT (PVA 4:4/33) XX-XXX-1984 NMR SE 6140/17 (12699/49) 19-JUL-1995

YAT PVA 3/3 33 XX-XXX-1984 YAT PVA 3/14 24 XX-XXX-1984 YAT PVA 3/3 35 XX-XXX-1984 Aerial Photograph: 18/07/70. Aerial Photograph: 20/07/82. Aerial Photograph: 07/07/71. Aerial Photograph: 13/07/84. Aerial Photograph: 13/07/84. Aerial Photograph: 05/07/75. NMR SE 6244/9 (17912/17) 20-AUG-2003 NMR SE 6244/1/157 07-AUG-1975

SE 64 SW 25

EH Pastscape 1316538

NMR_NATINV-1316538.

None Recorded

SE 64 SW 16

EH Pastscape 1315836 EH Pastscape 1303548

NMR_NATINV-1315836.

None Recorded

NMR SE 6240/17 (12552/28) 27-JUL-1994

NMR_NATINV-1303548.

None Recorded

NMR SE 6220/11 (12322/35) 11-AUG-1992

N/A

EHNMR-1038573.

None Recorded

SE 62 SW 27

Excavated 1977 resuce excavation in advnace of mineworkings Earthworks

1038573

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

SE 63 NW 45

EH Pastscape 1314264

NMR_NATINV-1314264.

None Recorded

NMR SE 6335/74 (12667/31) 29-JUN-1995

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

SE 63 NW 48

EH Pastscape 1314453

NMR_NATINV-1314453.

None Recorded

SE 64 SW 39

EH Pastscape 1316725 EH Pastscape 58026

NMR_NATINV-1316725.

None Recorded

NMR SE 6237/13 (17593/23) 16-JUL-2001 NMR SE 6337/111-112 (17593/26-27) 16JUL-2001 NMR SE 6337/56 (12493/67) 01-JUL-1994 NMR SE 6340/25 (12724/23) 26-JUL-1995

NMR_NATINV-58026.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 49, 1977 Page(s)27 (D Riley)

(SE 6437/1, 2, 5 25.7.71 D N Riley) NMR SE 6437/61 (12493/83) 01-JUL-1994 NMR SE 6437/26/30 (DNR SF880/30) 07JUL-1976

None Recorded

NMR SE 6440/4 (DNR 1269/17) 24-JUL1978

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

North Yorkshire SMR MNY5810

SE 63 NW 8

Earthworks

ROMAN

Information from North Yorkshire SMR

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

North Yorkshire SMR MNY5819 SE 6476 4071

EH Pastscape 1317196

Information from North Yorkshire SMR

Information from North Yorkshire SMR NMR_NATINV-1317196.

171

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE LOCATION WHELDRAKE; YORK; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

ESCRICK; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

LILLINGS AMBO; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SKIPWITH; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND ESKRICK; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SKIPWITH; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

HOVINGHAM; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

WHELDRAKE; YORK; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

GRID REF DESCRIPTION MESOLITHIC OSGB SE 6505 4635 CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SQUARE BARROW, TRACKWAY SE 6458 4084 CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, PIT, SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY

NEOLITHIC

BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

SE 6568 6281 CROPMARK, DITCH, ENCLOSURE, PIT, SETTLEMENT SE 657 389 CROPMARK, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT SE 66244 SETTLEMENT 42466

IRON AGE

SE 6634 3965 CROPMARK, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY SE 6634 7490 ENCLOSED SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

HAROME; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6680 4672 CROPMARK, DITCHED ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SQUARE BARROW SE 668 814 LINEAR SETTLEMENT

THORGANBY; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 670 415

IRON AGE

CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT

DUNNINGTON; YORK; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

IRON AGE

SE 670 507 CROPMARK, DITCH, ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY NORTH DUFFIELD; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SE 6706 3984 CROPMARK, DITCH, FIELD SYSTEM, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT, SQUARE BARROW, TRACKWAY NORTH DUFFIELD; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SE 6733 3917 CROPMARK, DITCH, FIELD SYSTEM, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT DUNNINGTON; YORK; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND SE 674 513 CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY KIRKBYMOORSIDE; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; SE 6835 8630 SETTLEMENT, QUERN ENGLAND

IRON AGE

CLIFFE; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6853 3277 ENCLOSURE, FARMSTEAD

IRON AGE

FRYNTON; RYDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGALND

SE 6878 7509 HOUSE PLATFORM

IRON AGE

CLIFFE; SELBY; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6883 3231 CROPMARK, DOUBLE DITCHED ENCLOSURE, FIELD SYSTEM, RECTILINEAR ENCLOSURE, ROUND HOUSE (DOMESTIC), SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY SE 6893 6311 CROPMARK, ENCLOSURE, PIT, SETTLEMENT, TRACKWAY SE 6929 5130 FARMSTEAD, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

FOSTON; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 6952 6503 HUT CIRCLE, SETTLEMENT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT

LATE IRON AGE

KEXBY; YORK; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 700 540

IRON AGE

BARTON-LE-STREET; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 716 746

FLAXTON; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND KEXBY; YORK; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SHIPTONTHORPE; EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND RILLINGTON; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

DITCH, FIELD SYSTEM, FIND, GULLY, HUT, SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT, TRACKWAY, VESSEL SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE IRON AGE

IRON AGE

IRON AGE

SE 852 433

CROPMARK, SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

SE 85500 74425

SETTLEMENT, CROUCHED INHUMATION

IRON AGE

LOW FARM; KIRBY GRINDALYTHE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 90520 67590

SETTLEMNET

IRON AGE

FOXHOLES; RYEDALE; NORTH YORKSHIRE; ENGLAND

SE 9937 7209 SETTLEMENT

IRON AGE

172

PREHISTORIC

APPENDIX A ROMAN

Type of Evidence

NMR Number

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

SE 64 NE 1

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial Photographs Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

ROMAN

Cropmark

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph

ROMAN

Excavated 1977

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

ROMAN

Local HER/ SMR Number EH Pastscape 1073804

ADS Number NMR_NATINV-1073804.

Bibliographic References None Recorded

SE 64 SW 40

EH Pastscape 1317187

NMR_NATINV-1317187.

None Recorded

SE 66 SE 23

EH Pastscape 1182932 EH Pastscape 58007

NMR_NATINV-1182932.

None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-58007.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 46, 1974 Page(s)156 (D Riley)

APs (SE 6538/1,3 25.7.71 D N Riley) NMR SE 6539/46 (17307/31) 16-JUL-1999 Aerial Photograph: 30/07/1971. Aerial Photograph: 08/06/74.

None Recorded

CRA (AJC 242/31) 13-JUL-1990 CRA (AJC 239/14) 19-JUN-1990 NMR SE 6639/105 12871/10 18-JUL-1996

None Recorded

NMR SE 6646/27 (12729/35) 01-AUG-1995

NMR SE 6740/36 (12258/71) 7-JUN-1992 NMR SE 6741/33 (12705/02) 20-JUL-1995 NMR SE 6642/10 (12130/29) 28-JUL-1991 NMR SE 6750/3 (DNR 730/31) 02-SEP-74 NMR SE 6650/12-16 (17588/01-04) 09-JUL(SE 6639 9-13 25-JUL-1971 D N Riley) NMR SE 6639/26 DNR504/29 30-JUL-1973 NMR SE 6640/14 4973/14 20-JUL-1990 NMR SE 6739/49 12174/75 19-SEP-1991 NMR SE 6739/69 12258/67 07-JUL-1992 NMR SE 6739/91 12675/79 29-JUN-1995 NMR SE 6738/27 12759/63 14-AUG-1995 NMR SE 6751/10 (12887/04) 30-JUL-96

SE 63 NE 14

North Yorkshire SMR MNY9624 SE 63 NE 17

EH Pastscape 58010

Information from North Yorkshire SMR NMR_NATINV-58010.

North Yorkshire SMR MNY10576 SE 64 NE 9

EH Pastscape 1168153

Information from North Yorkshire SMR NMR_NATINV-1168153.

North Yorkshire SMR MNY12163

Information from North Yorkshire SMR

SE 64 SE 17

EH Pastscape 1317609

NMR_NATINV-1317609.

None Recorded

SE 65 SE 22

EH Pastscape 1172420 EH Pastscape 58011

NMR_NATINV-1172420.

None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-58011.

NMR_NATINV-1312667.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 46, 1974 Page(s)154, 156 (D Riley) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 47, 1975 Page(s)14 (D Riley) None Recorded

SE 63 NE 18

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

SE 63 NE 35

EH Pastscape 1312667

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark 1976, Aerial Photograph

SE 65 SE 23

NMR_NATINV-1172477. None Recorded EH Pastscape 1172477 North Yorkshire SMR Information from MNY13270 North Yorkshire SMR

ROMAN

ROMAN

Cropmarks, Survey 2003

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph, Geophysical Survey Cropmark, Aerial Photographs

ROMAN

ROMAN

Aerial Photograph: 06/07/48. Aerial Photograph: 17/07/76.

Information from North Yorkshire SMR North Yorkshire SMR MNY18346

Report: Northern Archaeological Associates. Information from North Yorkshire SMR 02/1994. An Archaeological Evaluation of a Romano-British Farmstead Site at Bayram Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 49, 1977 NMR_NATINV-58043. Page(s)27 (D Riley)

SE 63 SE 9

EH Pastscape 58043

SE 66 SE 29

EH Pastscape 1183071 EH Pastscape 1094376

NMR_NATINV-1183071.

None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-1094376.

None Recorded

652479

N/A

EHNMR-652479.

SE 75 SW 73

EH Pastscape 1136513

NMR_NATINV-1136513.

CBA Group 4 Newsletter 1985, Page(s) 16 Council for British Archaeology: Archaeology in Britain 1984, 1985 Page(s) 12 Council for British Archaeology: Archaeology None Recorded

ROMAN

Cropmark, Aerial Photograph Cropmark, Aerial Photographs, Excavated 1997 - no archived material Excavated 1984-85 (rescue excavation at St Mary's Abbey York) Excavated - open settlement - no further record Earthworks

ROMAN

Excavated 1967

None Recorded

ROMAN

Evaluated 1994,Excavated 1994

North Yorkshire SMR MNY23563

ROMAN

Excavated 1980 in advance of gas pipeline

North Yorkshire SMR MNY23652

ROMAN

Earthworks, Surveyed 1998

North Yorkshire SMR MNY23675

ROMAN

Aerial Photograph Reference if any NMR SE 6446/21-4; SE 6546/31-46 YAT (PVA 2/7 10,13,14) XX-XXX-1979 NMR SE 6546/50 (12893/20) 02-AUG-1996 NMR SE 6440/4 (DNR 1269/17) 24-JUL1978 NMR SE 6440/5/96 08-AUG-1975 NOY ANY 366/15 10-JUL-1989

SE 65 SE 13

North Yorkshire SMR MNY23552 None Recorded

Information from Report: NYCC. 2003. Site visit notes re. North Yorkshire SMR Black Plantation, Aske. Report: English Heritage. 2005. A Late Millett, M. et al. Shiptonthorpe East Yorkshire. None Recorded YAS, Yorkshire, 2006 Report: Northern Archaeological Associates. Information from North Yorkshire SMR 01/1994. A1 Motorway: Walshford to Dishforth Post Excavation Assessment of Information from North Yorkshire SMR Information from Report: Harrogate Museums & Arts. 1998. North Yorkshire SMR Harrogate Community Archaeology Project Ellingstring Parish Pilot Project Harrogate

173

AP (NMR SE 6832/1/290 29.4.70) SE 6832/52 (12538/37) 19-JUL-1994 NMR SE 6931/36 (12382/77) 13-JUL-1993 NMR SE 6832/78 (12667/61) 29-JUN-1995 NMR SE 6833/12 (12667/56) 29-JUN-1995 NMR SE 6863/1 (12771/10) 18-AUG-1995 NMR SE 6951/1-11 RCHME Aerial Reconnaissance/23-JUN-1997

ROMAN PLACE-NAMES AND THEIR MODERN DERIVATIONS Note: not all places mentioned here necessarily have evidence of habitation in the Iron Age Key to table Bold = Name in Roman period has British derivation Italic= Latin derivation Bold Italic = Modern name recognises previous Roman presence but not name Underlined = Modern name derives or may contain link to a pre-Roman ‘Celtic’ name derivation: ie name know by in Roman period. Underlined Bold = Modern name has British element added after Roman period (may also be pre-Roman element) CAPITALS = modern name from Celtic but not directly linked to pre-Roman Celtic name Underlined Italic = Scandinavian/ Old Irish CAPITALS BOLD =Old Scand+ OE

?Morbium Could also be name for Durham or Greta Bridge Lavatris

Vinovia

Longovicium

Concangis (NoteGabrantovices supposed to mean horse people isn’t ir?) Vindomora

Known Roman place-names and modern names in County Durham Derivation Modern Name Derivation None- no obvious British Piercebridge OE ‘bridge where osiers grow’ OR roots or analogues in ‘osier bridge or causeway’ ie. other provinces causeway made up of faggots across marshy ground Probably- latinisation of Bowes OE or OScand – the river bends and existing British name lauatro/i whose sense Perhaps here AS substituted a word was ‘river bed’ but using they knew with the same kind of a plural form (i) meaning? OE – ‘the cattle-stall fort’ Possible earlier and later Binchester form but using British Name identical with Vein in Germany. suffixes making up -ouioWould normally produce Win in OE so Roman name does not seem to be No clear British origin of Binchester BUT possible that derivation- unsolved Vettones (unit stationed there) pronounced V like B thus may have called the fort Binobia so there could be a link between the Roman and OE name (V.Watts). Also could be that Vin and Bin were close enough that AS ‘binn’- manger was substituted for Vin- continuity clear via ‘chester’ Probably – place of the Lanchester OE – ‘long roman fort or stronghold’ ship-fighters from Celtic BUT first element may preserve longo- ship reduced form of old Romano-British (elements attached to name vices do not have to be literal) Probably from BritishOE – Roman fort on the Roman road Chester-leoriginally an ethnic (street- straet comes from latin strata) Street name, perhaps ‘horsepeople’ either in a literal or totemic sense British-‘Bright Waters’

OE – Roman fort of a man called Ebba or a woman called Aebbe

Ebchester

Vindo- white/ bright fair Mora- plur. of mori sea – here would mean broadening of river waters or small lake

174

Source Rivet & Smith (R&S) R&S

R&S

R&S

R&S

R&S

APPENDIX B Known Roman place-names and modern names in Northumberland and Hadrian’s Wall (HW) Roman Name Arbeia Segedunum

Derivation Unknown – eia -British rivers or places built on rivers. Suffix derivation unclear British – strong fort or possibly victory fort

Modern Name South Shields HW Wallsend

Derivation ME-(south) temporary sheds or huts used by fishermen Refers to end of Hadrian’s Wall at Segedunum

Source Rivet & Smith (R&S) R&S

OE – new castle (upon Tyne- pre-Celtic river name- ‘flowing one- river’)

R&S

HW

Pons Aelius Condercum

Segh- Indo-European becomes British sego perhaps – ‘power, force’ Dunum from Celtic dunos – developed from hill to fort Latin – Hadrian’s Bridge (place for) looking around/ (place with a) wide view

Newcastle HW Benwell

R&S

HW

Vindobala

Celtic – com ‘with’ + derc/ derco ‘to see’ Note Benwell overlooks neighbourhood for miles in every direction White peak perhaps bright peak

Rudchester

R&S Rud

Onnum

Coria Probably known as:

Coriosopitum

Vindo- British- white/ bright/ fair Bala- British- less certain- may be ‘peak’ British onna – ‘stream, water’

HW

May have been borrowed from more ancient pre-Celtic language

HW

British = hosting place ie. tribal centre

Note- Coria probably refers to Corbridge but interesting link in name with nearby Hexham.

Corio- British- host/ army (Welsh cor – host/ tribe) =

Name Corrupt- meaningless in British so no derivation can be suggested

Ceaster- old fortification Halton

CorchesterCorbridge

OE- possibly ‘farmstead at the look-out hill’ (may reflect presence of Roman fort) Hexham : OE- ‘the warriors homestead’

R&S

R&S

May reflect earlier usetribal centre/ hosting place

OE Bridge near CorchesterBridge+ shortened form of old name

HW + town Cilurnum

Cauldron pool OR large deep pool known as ‘the Inglepool’

Chesters

Must be from OE – ceaster – old fortification

R&S

Carra seems to have a connection to rocks in Irish – could possibly have link to earlier name?

R&S

HW

Brocolitia

British – cilurno – bucket/ cauldron. Seems to refere to natural feature full of pointed rocks OR (better) heathery, covered with heather

Carrawburgh HW

Vindolanda

Broc- pointed/ rock/ sharp peak OR (better) heather litu- feast (as in lots of) Bright moor or fair moor Vindo- British- white/ bright/ fair Landa- British- moor/ heath

Chesterholm

Burgh – OE- fortified place OE- ceaster- old fortification

HW Holm – Oscand water meadow/ river meadow/ island/ dry ground in marsh?

175

R&S

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Vercovicium

Place of the Vercovices – effective fighters

Housesteads

R&S

HW

Aesica

Magnis

Verco/ vergo- work ie. efficient Vic-fight(ers) Need not be a tribe- name could be one applied by the British to the first Roman garrison of the fort Connected to Celtic god – Esus or Hesus – equated with Mars, Apollo and Mercury. British magno plur magni – stone rock(s)

Great Chesters HW

Great Chesters- OE ceasterfortified place ie. large fortified place

Carvoran

R&S

R&S

HW

Banna

Camboglanna

Likley Britsh word was neuter magnon/ magnia – would naturally be Magnis in latin locative plural horn/ spur/ promontory of rock

Birdoswald

British – banno/ banna- peak/ horn

HW

Note- ban/ben may well be preindo-European- sense evolved from hauteur to pointe- fits neatly with horn/ peak curved bank OR bank at the bend

Castlesteads

Cambo – Celtic- curved/ crooked British Glanna now Welsh glann ‘bank/shore’

HW

R&S

Castle- must refer to old fortification Steads

R&S

Known Roman place-names and modern names in Cumbria Roman name Uxeldunum

Aballava Concavata

Derivation High fort

Modern Name Stanwix

Uxo: British-high Dunum: from Celtic dunos – developed from hill to fort Celtic- aballa orchard (poss. Sacred tree) + suffix ava

HW

Latin – hollwed/ scooped outcoastline or natural featre

Burgh-by-sands HW Drumburgh

Derivation

OE- Fortification/ stronghold (by the sands)

Source Rivet & Smith (R&S)

Mills

Drum Burgh- fortification

R&S

Bowness- OE or OScand Rounded headland Solway -O Scand Probably ‘estuary of the pillar ford’

Mills

HW

Maia

Luguvalium

Latin name exceptional among forts in this region- may show fort built in exceptional circumstances Could be from British- maioscomparative of maros ie. ‘larger one or ones’ – may refer to promontaries or Bowness & Drumburgh

Town of Luguvalos

Bowness-onSolway HW

Carlisle

Based on British personal nameLuguvalos

Pillar refers to Lochmaben Stone marking the ford Old Celtic – ‘place belonging to a man called Luguvalos’ Cair ‘fortified town’ added after the Roman period Note- British name added in Post-Roman period

176

Mills

APPENDIX B Magalona

NOT in R&S see p.405Magalonium-

Old Carlisle

(Old) plus see above

R&S

Celtic – hill ford/ chief ford Brough – OE stronghold/ fortification

Mills R&S

See above Voreda Brocavum

Magalona- British ‘place on the noble river’ British- Uoreda- horse stream heathery place

OLD PENRITH Brougham

British- uroico – heather.

Derventio

Bibra

Not certain but fits topography of the place British- Derventiu – oak river, river in the oak wood Fort named from river Either ‘the brown one’ or ‘beaver – river’- no reason why not literal

Ham- OE- farmstead/ village/ estate PAPCASTLE

Beckfoot

Feminine form of British word for Beaver- strictly river name transferred to settlement

OScand- papi + OE caester Beck – seems mainly linked to OE pers name Becca

Mills

R&S

Note site- mouth of little stream coming from Wolsty Springs

?Magis

British bebros/ bibros ‘shining’ or ‘brilliant one’ –range of senses esp. rivers Note here- at mouth of river Ellen At the plains

Gabrosentum

Fossilised Latin locative plur. of name formed on British magos British – goat path

Moresby

?Mediobogdum

Presumably steep path up sea cliffs. Place in the middle of the curve

Hardknott

Alauna

OScand – Roman fort occupied by a Hermit

Maryport Burrow Walls

Modern- 18th C harbour built by Humphrey Senhous- named after wife May have link to OE burghfortified place cf. Nether Burrow Lancs.

Mills

Farmstead or village of a man called Maurice OFrench pers+ OScand by

Mills

R&S

R&S

Exactly fits site in relation to Esk valley

Galava OS Glanibanta

Celtic – medio middle + beugh bend curve ‘vigorous stream’

Ambleside

OScand –Shieling or summer pasture by the river sandbank

Mills

Burwens, Kirkby Thore

Kirkby- OSand – village with a church Thore – OScand manorial prefix from ‘Thorir’- early owner OE – stronghold or fortification OIrish- lot or share of man called Glas

Mills

Verteris

name of stream transferred to fort on banks Estate of the quern man or possibly querny place: quarry or place full of quern like rocks British- pers name- ‘quern man’ + aco- estate of British – upper part, summit

Glannoventa

Shore field poss. Shore market

Ravenglass

‘shining’ or ‘brilliant one’ –range of senses esp. rivers Note- on Kennet so name not derived from river. British- poss. ‘noisy stream’ – again name of stream transferred to site

Watercrook

Bravoniacum

Itunocelum- OS says Ravenglass R&S say location unknown ?Alavna

?Calacum

Brough

Burrow-inLonsdale

177

R&S Mills

R&S

Fortified place (OE burgh) in Lonsdale

R&S

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Known Roman place-names and modern names in the north-east below the Tees Roman name Cataractonium

?Virosidium ?Olenacum

Verbeia

Derivation British- caturactonion- ‘place of the battle ramparts’ – could well refer to Roman fort not native one. Later mistakenly assimilated with latin cataracta via mistaken association with rapids on River Swale British- unclear A sense of ‘seat’, vaguely ‘place’

Modern Name Catterick

British: poss. ‘property of’ a man whose name was Olen

Elslack

OE- stream or valley of a man called El(l)i

Mills

Ilkley

OE- poss. Woodland clearing of a man called Yllica or Illica

Mills

Calcariam (Bede) Tadcaster

OE- Roman town of a man called Tata or Tada

Mills

York

Celtic- estate of a man called Eburos or more probably ‘yew-tree estate’

Mills

Stamford Bridge

Mills

Malton

OE- stone ford or stony ford Bridge- ford replaced by bridge at an early date OE – poss. Farmstead where an assembly was held or first element may be OScand middle

Brough- on Humber

Brough – OE stronghold/ fortification

Mills

No easy etymology. Could have personal name as base ‘winding river’ British- Uerb to twist, turn- name of the River Wharfe and thus applied to the fort

Calcaria

Note: British name later interpreted into OScand as hverfr- windingbecame Wharfe Latin for ‘lime works’

Eburacum

Name survived for a time within the British kingdom of Elmet with AS adjustments- Still Calcariam in Bede. British Eburacon 2 possible senses:

Brough

‘place of the yews/ place abounding in yews’

Derivation From Latin Cataractathough apparently through a misunderstanding of the original Celtic place-name meaning ‘(place of) battle ramparts’ Brough – OE stronghold/ fortification

Source Mills

Mills

or ‘estate of Eburos’ ?Derventio ?Derventio

Petuaria

R&S gives Dervention- Malton and nothing for Stamford Bridge British Deruventiui ‘oak river, river in the oak wood’May be partly literal partly reference to sacred site Name of various British rivers Feminine of British- petuario- fourthsuggestion is ‘fourth part’ – Parisi perhaps divided into four pagi

Mills

Comparison- Known Roman place-names and modern names in Kent and the south-east Roman name Portus Lemanis

Derivation Portus- latin Lemanis based on river name: Lemana-‘River in the elm wood’ or more probably ‘marshy river’

Modern Name Lympne

(Portus) Dubris

British Dubras ‘waters, stream’

Dover

178

Derivation Celtic- ‘wood place’ or ‘marshy place’- linked to River Limen- old name for East Rother ‘elm-wood river’ or ‘marshy river’ Name from stream now called Dour- Celtic rivername Dubras meaning ‘the waters’

Source Mills

Mills

APPENDIX B Cantium Promontorium

British cantium probably ‘corner land, land on the edge’

South Foreland

(south) OE- promontory

Mills

Richborough

Stronghold called Repta – reduced form of ancient Celtic name – probably ‘muddy waters or eastuary’ + burh Celtic name possibly meaning ‘bright island’ – may refer to a beacon

Mills

Ancient Celtic name meaning ‘great headland’ ‘Stronghold or fortified town of the people of Kent’ Ancient Celtic name+OEwara+burh

Mills

Promontorium- latin- headland, spur, promontory Rutipiae

Tanatus Ins.

Regulbium Durovernum Cantiacorum

British Rutupiias Perhaps ‘muddy (waters, estuary, shallows)’plur. more than one stream runs into Richborough creek British tanet – fire may be- ‘ bright island or fire island’- from beacon or lighthouse. Also note Shropshire River Tanet- ‘brilliant river’ so would give literal meaning to island and metaphorical one to rivers British ro- great and gulbio – beak ie. headland ‘Alder fort or walled town by the alder-swamp’ Duro ‘fort, walled town’ Vernum ‘alder, alder swamp, marsh’. Fort here probably preRoman settlement’

Thanet

Reculver Canterbury

Mills

Mills

Anderitum

Cantiacorum – may be Roman name given to people of this area rather than reflecting name of an ancient tribe of Kent. Great ford(s)

Pevensey

OE pers+ eg – ‘River of a man called Pefen’

Mills

Durobrivae

Ande- great/ big Ritu- ford Britsh -Bridges fort

Rochester

Probably ‘Roman town or fort called Hrofi’ – ancient celtic name reduced from durobrivis ‘the walled town with the bridges’ +OE ceaster Presumably topographical reference- mouth of a spring

Mills

CRAYFORD

‘ford over the River Cray’ – Celtic river name + OE ford

Mills

London

Something like ‘place at the navigable or unfordable river’

Mills

Durobrivas – duro – fort, walled town Briva- bridge ?Vagniacis

?Noviomagus

Londinium

‘marhsy place, marshy-place estate’ Poss: vagna- marsh and gwawnmeadow, moor plus aco- sense of ‘place’ ‘new place’ perhaps ‘new market’ Celtic – novio-new and magus ‘field or plain- later market’ British etymon unsure. Definitely British but R&S prefer to make no guesses as to the derivation

Springhead

Pontibus

Latin ‘at the bridges’

?Staines

Calleva Atrebatum

Calleua- town in the woods Atrebates- Celtic tribe of S Britain. Name means- settlers/

Silchester

179

May be derived fro two preCeltic roots with added Celtic suffixes describing a location on the lower course of the Thames (below lowest fordable place at Westminster) OE –place at the stonesnote stones could be collapsed bridges Poss. OE ‘Roman station by a willow copse’ OR 1st element could be reduced

Mills

Mills Mills

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE inhabitants

?Leucomagus

?Onna

Clear plain (ie. no trees) or bright/ white plain (ie. chalky) Leuca- bright, shining, white magus ‘field or plain- later market’ Probably ‘Stream, water’

East Anton

Iping

OR

form of Celtic Calleva ‘place in the woods’original name (R&S like this) Presumably OE

OE- settlement of the family or followers of a man called Ipa

Mills

Mills

Probably ‘Stream, water’ Neatham

?Onna Venta Belgarum

‘Market of the Belgae’

Winchester

Venta ‘market’ Belgae- proud ones ie puffed upCeltic tribe of the area ?Clausentum

?Portus Ardaoni or Ardaonium Noviomagus Regnorum

Perhaps ‘nailed’ or ‘hewn’ path eg. causeway/ quay or something similar

Portus may not indicate river here. Ardu- height seems to be involved- referring to Portsdown Hill behind the harbour Noviomagus- new place/ new market Regini- proud ones, stiff ones

Bitterne Curbridge

Portchester

Chichester

Celtic tribe but probably clients of the Atrebates

Mills ‘Roman town called Venta’ pre-Celtic name – possibly ‘favoured or chief place’+OE ceaster Note R&S- venta market Bitterne- prob. OE Building near a riverbend Curbridge- OE bridge of a man called Creoda Note- curbridge taken from other places OE ‘Roman fort by the harbour called port’ Probably OE – ‘Roman town of a chieftain called Cissa’ Note- still used as a centre

180

Mills

Mils

Mills

Mills

APPENDIX C Querns from the North Yorkshire Area Sorted by Area Site Name

Barden Craven

Grid Ref

SE 0508 5719

Area

Lithology (where

Type

recorded)

State of Excavation

Quern

Find spot

EH Pastscape

ADS

Number/Keys

Reference

to the Past SE 05 NE 08

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

NMR No.

48261

Yorkshire Dales National

York

SE 0800

Wilsden

3660

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 03 NE 14

47902

Beehive

Find spot

SE 03 NE4

47860

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

York Vales of

Harden and

SE 0862

Wilsden

3820

Cloughton

SE 010 961 Mowbray and Channel Sandstone

Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of York

Bingley

Bingley

Huddersfield

Bingley

Shipley

Ilkley

SE 1031 3969 SE 1053 3948 SE 1078 1596 SE 1282 3909 SE 1307 3909 SE 1330 4590

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Quern

Find spot

SE 13 NW 10

49516

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 13 NW 3

49493

Querns x2

Find spot

SE 11 NW 9

49097

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 13 NW 27

49567

Beehive - several Find spot

SE 13 NW 28

49570

SE 14 NW 34

49958

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Quern

York

Excavated 19881990

Vales of Shipley

SE 14 40

Mowbray and None Recorded

Rotary?

Find spot

SE 14 SW 17

50188

Beehive

Find spot

SE 13 NW 24

49558

Beehive

Found in field wall

SE 14 SE 20

50102

Quern

Find spot

SE 11 NE 16

49052

Beehive

Find spot

SE 14 SE 15

50087

Beehive x4

Find spot

SE 14 SE 17

50093

Beehive

Found in wall

SE 14 SE 7

50063

Beehive

Find spot

SE 14 SE 13

50081

Beehive

Find spot

SE 13 NE 7

49363

Querns x 23

Find spot

SE 24 NW 26

51569

York Shipley

Leeds

Huddersfield

Leeds

Leeds

Leeds

Leeds

Bradford

Otley

Norwood

Denby Dale

Otley

SE 1485 3812 SE 1525 4138 SE 1635 1793 SE 1603 4198 SE 1661 4176 SE 1683 4080 SE 1822 4102 SE 1904 3976 SE 2006 4539 SE 2095 5035 SE 2182 0839

SE 2281 4595

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 25 SW 3

51833

Querns x3

Find spot

SE 20 NW 5

51033

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York

Cowling. Rombolds Way, (1946) p.173.

NMR_NATIN V-47902 NMR_NATIN V-47860 None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded Hayes et al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

NMR_NATIN Speight, H. Old Bingley . V-49516 NMR_NATIN V-49493

(1898) p.49

None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Bradford Archaeological V-49097 NMR_NATIN V-49567 NMR_NATIN V-49570

Group Bulletin 9, (1964) p.10

None Recorded

Baildon, W. P. 1912 p.1, 83

NMR_NATIN BAR British Series 20. V-49958 NMR_NATIN V-50188 NMR_NATIN V-49558 NMR_NATIN V-50102. NMR_NATIN V-49052 NMR_NATIN V-50087 NMR_NATIN V-50093 NMR_NATIN V-50063 NMR_NATIN V-50081 NMR_NATIN V-49363

(1975) p.43

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Naturalist, (1916) p.376

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Cowling, E. T. Rombalds V-51569

Way (1946) p. 158

NMR_NATIN Cowling, E. T. Rombalds V-51833 NMR_NATIN V-51033

Way (1946) p. 158 None Recorded Yorkshire Archaeological

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

V-48261

MYD4316

MYD4316 Harden and

NMR_NATIN

YDNPA05-

Park Authority HER:

Bibliography

Number

Beehive x2

Find spot

SE 24 NW 6

874083

York

NMR_NATIN Survey: Roman Antiquities V-51499

Section Bulletin 4, (1986-7) p.30-33 Gwilt, A., Heslop, D.

Moorland Monuments (1995) pp.38-45 Vales of Catterick

SE 22 99

Mowbray and None Recorded York

Lava, Flat, Saddle, Beehive

Excavated 1958-97 6117

None Recorded

NMRMIC6117

Wilson, P.R. Cataractonium:

Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research, 1958-1997 . Volume 1, 2002. CBA Research Report 128

181

‘TRIBALTERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Querns from the North Yorkshire Area Sorted by Area Site Name

Grid Ref

Area

Lithology (where

Type

recorded)

State of Excavation

NMR No.

EH Pastscape

ADS

Number/Keys

Reference

to the Past

Vales of Leathley

SE 23 47

Mowbray and None Recorded

Querns

Find spot

SE 24 NW 14

51527

York

Bibliography

Number NMR_NATIN Cowling, E. T. Rombalds V-51527

Way (1946) p. 158 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 48, (1976) p.3-4, Journal of Roman Studies 19, (1929) p.190, 30, 1940 p.166, Yorkshire

Catterick

SE 242 972

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Quern

Excavated 1974-5

SE 29 NW 4

52319

York

NMR_NATIN V-52319

Archaeological Journal 10, (1952) p.166 Wilson, P.R. C ataractonium:

Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations and research , 1958-1997. Volume 1, CBA Research Report 128SE, 2002 Leeds

Pannal

Pannal

North Rigton

Barnsley

Arthington

Pannal

North Rigton

North Rigton

Wakefield

Wakefield

SE 2527 3665 SE 2527 3665 SE 2685 5240 SE 2708 5155 SE 2746 1061 SE 2783 4341 SE 2792 5230 SE 2820 4918 SE 2905 5032 SE 3073 2311 SE 3353 2288

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Beehive x2

Find spot

SE 23 NE 1

51260

Quern

Find spot

SE 25 SE 16

51807

Quern

Find spot

SE 25 SE 17

51810

Querns

Find spot

SE 25 SE 5

51774

Querns x2

Find spot

SE 21 SE 4

51144

Beehive x2

Find spot

SE 24 SE 1

51585

Querns

Find spot

SE 25 SE 18

51813

Beehive

Find spot

SE 24 NE 8

51461

Quern

Find spot

SE 25 SE 10

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 32 SW 2

52743

Beehive

Find spot

SE 32 SW 4

52749

Beehive x2

Find spot

SE 31 NW 5

52520

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of

Wakefield

SE 33 17

Mowbray and None Recorded York

Wakefield

Wakefield

Leeds

Scarcroft

Langthorpe

SE 3367 2114 SE 3420 2211 SE 3609 3556 SE 3738 4139 SE 382 674

Kearby with

SE 3468

Netherby

4686

Thorner

Thorner

Sharlston

Upsall Castle

Wakefield Sutton-underWhitestone Cliffe

SE 3880 4177 SE 3948 4160 SE 3965 1859 SE 454 869 SE 4604 2647 SE 465 820

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 32 SW 25

52812

Beehive

Excavated 1971-74

SE 32 SW 15

None Recorded

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Rotary?

Find spot

SE 33 NE 2

52841

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 34 SE 4

53128

Quern

Find spot

SE 36 NE 18

53523

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York

Querns: five upper, two lower

Find spot

SE 34 NW 8

53083

Find spot

SE 34 SE 10

53152

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

None Recorded

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 34 SE 11

53155

Beehive

Find spot

SE 31 NE 4

52493

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and Crinoid Grit – beehive Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

SE 42 NE 5

54309

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Quern

York Vales of Mowbray and Millstone Grit – flat

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

York

182

None Recorded

NMR_NATIN V-51260 NMR_NATIN V-51807 NMR_NATIN V-51810 NMR_NATIN V-51774

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded Wood, E. S. Archaeology of Nidderdale typescript 1952. p.7

NMR_NATIN Bradford Archaeology V-51144 NMR_NATIN V-51585 NMR_NATIN V-51813

Group Bulletin 9, (1964) p.10

None Recorded

None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Cowling, E. T. Rombalds V-51461 NMR_NATIN V-51789 NMR_NATIN V-52743 NMR_NATIN V-52749

Way (1946) p. 160, 173 None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Walker, J. W. History of V-52520. NMR_NATIN V-52812. NMR_NATIN V-52784. NMR_NATIN V-52841. NMR_NATIN V-53128.

Wakefield 1 (1939) p.18 None Recorded

Unpublished Kitson Clark, M. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 34, (1938-9) p.95 None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Yorkshire Archaeological V-53523. NMR_NATIN V-53083.

Journal 47, (1975) p.3

None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Yorkshire Archaeological V-53152. NMR_NATIN V-53155. NMR_NATIN V-52493. None Recorded

Journal 41, (1969) p.329

None Recorded

None Recorded Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

NMR_NATIN Journal of Roman studies V-54309. None Recorded

47, (1957) p.209-10 Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

APPENDIX C Querns from the North Yorkshire Area Sorted by Area Site Name

Thirkelby

Thorpe Audlin

Husthwaite

Hawnby

Grid Ref

SE 482 780

SE 483 179 SE 512 752 SE 514 962

Area

Vales of Mowbray and York

Lithology (where

Type

recorded)

State of Excavation

NMR No.

EH Pastscape

ADS

Number/Keys

Reference

to the Past

Millstone Grit x6 – beehive Channel Sandstone x2

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

– beehive

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

SE 41 NE 6

54178

York Vales of Mowbray and Crinoid Grit – beehive Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 59 NW 24

57513

York

Bibliography

Number Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

NMR_NATIN Yorkshire Archaeological V-54178. None Recorded NMR_NATIN V-57513.

Journal 45, (1973) p.202 Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 None Recorded Hayes, R. H. Transactions

Oldstead

SE 534 800

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

SE 58 SW 22

57352

York

NMR_NATIN V-57352.

of the Scarborough and District Archaeological Society 2 No 16, (1973) p.40

Coxwold

SE 535 772

Vales of Mowbray and York

Coarse Millstone Grit – flat

Beehive

Find spot

SE 57 NW 45

907411

NMR_NATIN V-907411.

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 MCDONNELL,J.(ED)/1963/

Oldstead

SE 5378 8158

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded

Quern

Excavated 1956-7

SE 58 SW 17

57339

York

NMR_NATIN V-57339.

HISTORY OF HELMSLEY,RIEVAULX AND DISTRICT/48,53,40813

Cold Kirby

Askern

Doncaster

SE 53 85 SE 574 129 SE 5985 0062

Vales of Mowbray and

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 58 NW 46

57180

Beehive

Find spot

SE 51 SE 4

56105

None Recorded

Find spot

SE 50 SE 14

55910

Saddle

Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York Vales of Mowbray and None Recorded York

NMR_NATIN Hayes, R. H. Ryedale V-57180. NMR_NATIN V-56105.

Historian 7, (1974) p.35 None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Yorkshire Archaeological V-55910.

Journal 37, (1948-51) p.238. Journal of Roman studies

New Earswick

SE 6086

Vale of

5475

Pickering

None Recorded

None Recorded

Excavated 1928-9

SE 65 SW 45

58245

NMR_NATIN V-58245.

19, (1929) p.188-90, Leicester Archaeology MonographsNo.1 – NK 24 no.1, (1993) p.151

SE 631

Vale of

785

Pickering

Beadlam

SE 634

Vale of

Roman Villa

842

Pickering

SE 6382

Vale of

Oswaldkirk

Cantley

Harome Hawe

0086

Pickering

SE 645

Vale of

809

Pickering

Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Moor Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Find spot

SE 68 SW 12

58783

Vale of Pickering

SE 6514

Vale of

0927

Pickering

SE 685

Vale of

864

Pickering

Hutton-le-

SE 714

Vale of

Hole

889

Pickering

Little

SE 715

Vale of

Edstone

848

Pickering

Great

SE 708

Vale of

Crinoid Grit

Edstone

841

Pickering

Channel Sandstone

SE 716

Vale of

805

Pickering

SE 720

Vale of

Rook Barugh

822

Normanby

SE 72 82

Brawby

SE 73 78

Normanby

Great Barugh

Pickering Vale of Pickering Vale of Pickering

SE 733

Vale of

816

Pickering

SE 750

Vale of

790

Pickering

Riseborough

SE 756

Vale of

Hill

833

Pickering

57837

Find spot

822

Salton

SE 60 SW 18

Beehive

Farm

Welburn

Find spot

Sandstone

Harome Cross SE 646

Hatfield

Quern

None Recorded

Quern

Find spot

SE 60 NE 6

57715

None Recorded

Beehive x2

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

SE 78 NW 49

60241

Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Corallian

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Querns

Find spot

SE 78 SW 17

60410

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

SE 77 NW 1

59770

Crinoid Grit x2

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded None Recorded NMR_NATIN V-57837. None Recorded NMR_NATIN V-58783.

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Dolby, M. J. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42, (1969) p. 240 Hayes, R. H. (1974) Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1980. pp.314-324

NMR_NATIN Yorkshire Archaeological V-57715.

Journal 36, 1944-7. p.3

None

Hayes, R. H. Ryedale

Recorded NMR_NATIN V-60241. None Recorded

Historian 7, (1974) p.35 None Recorded Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

None

Hayes et. al. Journal of

Recorded

Archaeological Science,

None Recorded None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

NMR_NATIN Hayes, R. H. Ryedale V-60410. NMR_NATIN V-59770 None Recorded None Recorded

Historian 7, (1974) p.40 None Recorded Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

None

Hayes, R. H. Ryedale

Recorded

Historian 7, (1974) Hayes, R. H. Ryedale Historian 7, (1974) Proceedings of the

Costa Beck

SE 778

Vale of

806

Pickering

? several

Beehive

Find spot

635839

None Recorded

EHNMR-

Yorkshire Geological and

635839.

Polytechnic Society NS 13.1, (1895) p.21-4 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 30, (1931) p.157-9

183

‘TRIBALTERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Querns from the North Yorkshire Area Sorted by Area Site Name

Grid Ref

Area

Norton on

SE 793

Vale of

Derwent

709

Pickering

SE 830

Vale of

830

Pickering

Thornton Dale

Seamer Moor TA 023

Vale of

House

Pickering

860

Lithology (where

Type

recorded)

None Recorded

None Recorded

State of Excavation

Find spot

NMR No.

EH Pastscape

ADS

Number/Keys

Reference

to the Past SE 77 SE 41

59868

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Millstone Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Bibliography

Number NMR_NATIN V-59868.

Manby, T. G. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42, (1968) p.115

None

Hayes, R. H. Ryedale

Recorded

Historian 7, (1974)

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Hayes et. al. Journal of

Seamer Crossgates Farm

Crinoid Grit TA 028

Vale of

843

Pickering

Archaeological Science, Beehive

Find spot

906575

None Recorded

EHNMR-

(1980) pp.314-324

906575.

Yorkshire Archaeological

Corallian Limestone

Society annual reports 18, (1989)

Wass Grange

SE 562

Howardian

784

Hills

Nr. Newburgh SE 556

Howardian

Priory

Hills

768

Gilling Castle SE 611 768

Grimston

Howardian Hills

SE 620

Howardian Hills

Manor Farm

755

Kilburn High

SE 5269

and Low

7948

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Calcareous Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Calcareous Grit

Calcareous Grit

Tabular Hills None Recorded

Beehive

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Beehive x multiple Find spot

SE 57 NW 12

56861

Beehive

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded None Recorded None Recorded None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

NMR_NATIN Hayes, R. H. Ryedale V-56861.

Historian 7, 1974. p.39

Calcareous Grit x4 Channel Sandstone Oldstead

SE 527 799

Tabular Hills

Middle Jurassic Sandstone

Find spot

None Recorded

Millstone Grit

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Moor Grit Cold Kirby Bransdale

SE 533 854 SE 654 933

Tabular Hills Millstone Grit Tabular Hills None Recorded

Beehive Saddle Saddle

Find spot

SE 58 NW 46

57180

Find spot

SE 69 SE 44

59086

NMR_NATIN Hayes et. al. Journal of V-57180. NMR_NATIN V-59086.

Archaeological Science, None Recorded Hayes et. al. Journal of

Gillamoor

SE 682 899

Tabular Hills Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Find spot

SE 68 NE 26

58664

NMR_NATIN V-58664.

Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324, Hayes, R. H. Ryedale Historian 7, (1974) p.36

Keld Head

SE 683

Farm

863

Hutton-le-

SE 7051

Hole

8989

Hutton/ Spaunton boundary Spaunton

SE 715 893 SE 715 893

Tabular Hills

Channel Sandstone x2

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 78 NW 38

60220

Tabular Hills Channel Sandstone x2 Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Tabular Hills

Crinoid Grit x2 Crinoid Grit Channel Sandstone x3

Tabular Hills Sandstone

Beehive

Excavated 1961-2

None Recorded

None Recorded

None

Hayes et. al. Journal of

Recorded

Archaeological Science,

NMR_NATIN Hayes et. al. Journal of V-60220. None Recorded

Archaeological Science, Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

None

Hayes, R. H. Ryedale

Recorded

Historian 7, (1974) p.35 Ryedale Historian 2, (1966) Hayes et. al. Journal of

Spaunton

SE 7163 8937

Tabular Hills None Recorded

Quern

Excavated 1961-62

SE 78 NW 14

60174

NMR_NATIN Archaeological Science, V-60174

(1980) pp.314-324 Ryedale Historian 13, (1986)

Crinoid Grit

Ryedale Historian 2, (1966) Hayes et. al. Journal of

Spaunton

SE 721 893

Tabular Hills

Channel Sandstone x3

Beehive

Archaeological Science,

Excavated 1961-2

(1980) pp.314-324 Ryedale Historian 13, (1986) Ryedale Historian 2, (1966) Hayes et. al. Journal of

Spaunton

SE 7249 8997

Tabular Hills None Recorded

Quern

Excavated 1960-76 SE 78 NW 15

60177

NMR_NATIN Archaeological Science, V-60177

(1980) pp.314-324 Ryedale Historian 13, (1986)

Spaunton

SE 725

Lane

890

Appleton-le-

SE 735

Moors

878

Appleton

SE 735

Common

878

Kirby

SE 776

Tabular Hills Channel Sandstone

Tabular Hills Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Beehive

Find spot

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Hayes et. al. Journal of

Tabular Hills Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Excavated 1947-50 635825

None Recorded

EHNMR635825.

Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 50, (1978) p.31

Misperton Cawthorn

Pickering

Saintoft

809 SE 776 891 SE 7920 8939 SE 795 890

Tabular Hills None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

SE 78 SE 33

60367

Tabular Hills Shap Granite

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Tabular Hills None Recorded

Quern

Find spot

SE 78 NE 24

60009

Tabular Hills Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

184

NMR_NATIN Yorkshire Archaeological V-60367. None Recorded NMR_NATIN V-60009. None Recorded

Journal 51, (1979) p.2 Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 None Recorded Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

APPENDIX C Querns from the North Yorkshire Area Sorted by Area Site Name

Grid Ref

Breckenborou SE 800 gh Blansby Park

905 SE 831 924

Area

Lithology (where recorded)

Type

State of Excavation

NMR No.

EH Pastscape

ADS

Number/Keys

Reference

to the Past

Tabular Hills None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Tabular Hills None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Bibliography

Number None

Hayes, R. H. Ryedale

Recorded

Historian 7, (1974)

None

Hayes, R. H. Ryedale

Recorded

Historian 7, (1974) Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, (1963)p.161-8 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, (1964) p.162-172 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, (1965) p.163327 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, (1966) p.164-561

Levisham

SE 831

Moor

924

Tabular Hills Limestone x2

Beehive

Excavated 1957-65 635986

None Recorded

EHNMR635986

Journal of Roman Studies 49, (1959) p.108 Bulletin of the Historical Metallurgy Group 12.1, (1978) p.25 Hayes, R. H. Levisham Moor Archaeological Investigations 1957-8, 1983 Hayes, R. H. North-East Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers 53, 1988 Scarborough and District Research Report 4, (1964) p.46 Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, (1963)p.161-8 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, (1964) p.162-172 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, (1965) p.163327 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, (1966) p.164-561

Levisham

SE 833

Moor

904

Tabular Hills Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Excavated 1957-65 None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Journal of Roman Studies 49, (1959) p.108 Bulletin of the Historical Metallurgy Group 12.1, (1978) p.25 Hayes, R. H. Levisham Moor Archaeological Investigations 1957-8, 1983 Hayes, R. H. North-East Yorkshire Studies: Archaeological Papers 53, 1988 Scarborough and District Research Report 4, (1964) p.46 Hayes et. al. Journal of

Lockton

SE 844 902

Tabular Hills Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

SE 844 902

63237

NMR_NATIN V-63237.

Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324, Hayes, R. H. Ryedale Historian 7, (1974) p.39

Corallian Limestone x Wykeham

SE 968 838

Tabular Hills

numerous in floor pavings of huts

Beehive

Excavated from site None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Sandstone

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

North Yorks Bilsdale

SE 968

Stingamires

838

Moors including

Channel Sandstone x2 Beehive x3

Find spot

SE 59 NE 26

57453

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-57453.

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Bilsdale Low

SE 574

Crosset

944

Moors including

Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Find spot

SE 59 SE 30

57596

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-57596.

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland Hayes et. al. Journal of

North Yorks Bilsdale Ewe Cote

Archaeological Science,

Moors SE 561 921 including

Millstone Grit

Beehive

Find spot

SE 59 SE 25

57591

Coast and

NMR_NATIN (1980) pp.314-324, V-57591.

Transactions of the Scarborough Archaeological

Cleveland

Society 3 No 19, (1976) p36

North Yorks Helmsley

SE 607 831

Moors including

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

SE 68 SW 10

Coast and Cleveland

185

58779

NMR_NATIN V-58779.

History of Helmsley, Rievaulx and District, (1963) p.406

‘TRIBALTERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Querns from the North Yorkshire Area Sorted by Area Site Name

Helmsley

Grid Ref

Lithology (where

Area

recorded)

SE 610

North Yorks Moor Grit

836

Moors

Crinoid Grit

Type

Beehive

State of Excavation Find spot

NMR No.

EH Pastscape

ADS

Number/Keys

Reference

to the Past None Recorded

None Recorded

Bibliography

Number None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science,

North Yorks Hartoft

SE 755 952

Moors including

Millstone Grit

Beehive

Find spot

SE 79 NE 25

60473

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-60473.

(1980) pp.314-324, Transactions of the Scarborough and District Archaeological Society 1 No

Cleveland

8, (1965) p.35 North Yorks Pickering

SE 8001 9041

Moors including

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

SE 89 SW 56

63223

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 31 NE 7

25569

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-63223.

None Recorded

Cleveland North Yorks Longnewton

NZ 364 175

Moors including Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-25569.

None Recorded

Cleveland Hayes et. al. Journal of

North Yorks Hutton Rudby

NZ 447 034

Moors including

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 40 SW 3

26841

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-26841.

Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 50, (1978) p.8

Cleveland North Yorks Crathorne

NZ 450 077

Moors including

Yoredale Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Swainby

NZ 468 011

Moors including

Millstone Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Potto

NZ 475 037

Moors including

Millstone Grit

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 40 SE 16

26828

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-26828.

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Sexhow Park

NZ 477

Farm

058

Moors including Coast and

Yoredale Sandstone x3

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Scugdale

NZ 488 008

Moors including

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Stainton and

NZ 500

Thornton

134

Moors including

None Recorded

Beehive

Millstone Gritx2

Beehive

Coast and

Field walking and excavation

NZ51 SW12

874083

None Recorded

None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Yorkshire Archaeological V-874083.

Society 4, (1986-7) p.30-33

Cleveland North Yorks Drumonby

NZ 529 052

Moors including

Find spot

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Stanley Grange

Moors NZ 535 111 including

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland Nunthorpe

NZ 535 155

North Yorks Jurassic Sandstone Moors

Millstone Grit

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 51 NW 21

874075

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Hayes et. al. Journal of V-874075

Archaeological Science,

North Yorks Upsall

NZ 548 164

Moors including

Channel Sandstone

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Moors Upsall

NZ 55 15

including

? X4

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 51 NE 48

874082

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 51 SE 34

27729

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

NMR_NATIN Hayes, R. H. Ryedale V-874082.

Historian 7, (1974)

Cleveland Great Ayton

NZ 560 116

North Yorks Crinoid Grit Moors

Channel Sandstone

NMR_NATIN Hayes et. al. Journal of V-27729.

Archaeological Science,

North Yorks Ingleby

NZ 576

Greenhow

042

Moors including

Crinoid Grit x2

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Kildale

NZ 593 084

Moors including

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

None Recorded

Close, R. S. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 44, (1972)

Cleveland North Yorks Hutton

NZ 600

Lowcross

140

Moors including

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Lounsdale

NZ 613 107

Moors including

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Excavated from site None Recorded

Coast and Cleveland

186

None Recorded

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

APPENDIX C Querns from the North Yorkshire Area Sorted by Area Site Name

Grid Ref

Area

Lithology (where

Type

recorded)

State of Excavation

NMR No.

EH Pastscape

ADS

Number/Keys

Reference

to the Past

Bibliography

Number Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, (1963) p.8

North Yorks

Yorkshire Archaeological

Moors Percy Rigg

NZ 610 115 including

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Excavated 1962-68 None Recorded

635198

Coast and

EHNMR-

Journal 41,(1964) p.171

635198.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, (1965) p.326

Cleveland

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42, (1970) p.168243 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 44, (1972) p.23-31

North Yorks Kildale

NZ 6290 1022

Moors including

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

NZ 61 SW 9

28492

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 60 NW 37

28130

Crinoid Grit x3

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-28492.

None Recorded

Cleveland North Yorks Kildale

NZ 6221 0997

Moors including Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-28130.

None Recorded

Cleveland North Yorks Percy Rigg

NZ 629

Farm

099

Moors including Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland Hayes et. al. Journal of

North Yorks Crag Bank

NZ 630 098

Moors including

Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Excavated 1959-60 635178

None Recorded

Coast and

EHNMR635178.

Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 43, (1973) p.202

Cleveland North Yorks Westerdale

NZ 665 060

Moors including

Moor Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Commondale

NZ 665 105

Moors including

Millstone Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Danby

NZ 6823 0860

Moors including

None Recorded

Quern

Built into wall

NZ 60 NE 8

27869

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-27869.

None Recorded

Cleveland North Yorks Botton Hall

NZ 699 040

Moors including Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland Danby Dale

NZ 697 030

North Yorks Channel Sandstone Moors

Moor Grit

Beehives

Find spot

NZ 60 SE 33

28210

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Hayes et. al. Journal of V-28210.

Archaeological Science,

North Yorks Liverton

NZ 712 145

Moors including

Moor Grit

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Loftus

NZ 712 150

Moors including

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 71 NW 8

29041

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

NMR_NATIN Hayes, R. H. Rydale V-612068.

Historian 7 (1974)

Cleveland North Yorks Ainthorpe

NZ 718 079

Moors including Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland Boulby

NZ 734

North Yorks Millstone Grit x2

182

Moors

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Millstone Grit

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 71 NW 18

612068

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Excavated 1973-81

None Recorded

None Recorded

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 70 NE 6

28767

Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Channel Sandstone

None

Hayes et. al. Journal of

Recorded

Archaeological Science,

North Yorks Ripon

NZ 735 192

Moors including Coast and

None Recorded

None Recorded

Cleveland Roxby

NZ 763

North Yorks

145

Moors

Glaisdale Low NZ 767

North Yorks

Wood

Moors

066

None

Hayes et. al. Journal of

Recorded

Archaeological Science,

NMR_NATIN Hayes et. al. Journal of V-28767.

Archaeological Science,

North Yorks Port Mulgrave

NZ 792 177

Moors including Coast and Cleveland

187

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

‘TRIBALTERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Querns from the North Yorkshire Area Sorted by Area Site Name

Grid Ref

Area

Lithology (where

Type

recorded)

State of Excavation

NMR No.

EH Pastscape

ADS

Number/Keys

Reference

to the Past

Bibliography

Number

North Yorks Lease Rigg

NZ 811 032

Moors including

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Julian Park

NZ 810 010

Moors including

Not identifiable x2

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland Hayes et. al. Journal of

North Yorks Moors Grosmont

NZ 82 05

including

Porphyritic granite

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 80 NW 43

29269

Coast and

West Barnby

NZ 823 132

NMR_NATIN V-29269.

Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324, Hayes, R. H. Ryedale Historian 7,

Cleveland

(1974) p.36

North Yorks

Hayes et. al. Journal of

Moors including

Channel Sandstone x2 Beehive

Find spot

NZ 81 SW 25

29544

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-29544.

Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 51, (1979) p.13

Cleveland North Yorks Aislaby

NZ 8347 0728

Excavated 1964-5.

Moors including

None Recorded

None Recorded

Querns included in

NZ 80 NW 45

29273

flooring

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-29273.

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42, (1968) p.120-5; 44 and (1970) p.120-125

Cleveland North Yorks Moors Eston Hills

Unknown

including

Crinoid Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Moors Whitby

NZ 89 11

including

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 81 SE 5

29454

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-29454.

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Whitby

NZ 897 109

Moors including

Volcanic Tufa

Quern

Find spot

NZ 81 SE 20

29466

Channel Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

None Recorded

Coast and

NMR_NATIN V-29466.

None Recorded

Cleveland North Yorks Sleights

NZ 867 082

Moors including Coast and

None Recorded

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland North Yorks Sneaton

NZ 895 078

Moors including Coast and

Middle Jurassic Sandstone

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 80 NE 21

29206

NMR_NATIN V-29206.

Hayes et. al. Journal of Archaeological Science, (1980) pp.314-324

Cleveland NMR_NATIN

SD 96 SW 14 Malham,

SD 918

West

Craven

635

Yorkshire

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

Yorkshire Dales National

V-47016. 47016

Park Authory HER:

Horton in

SD 8166

West

Ribblesdale

6928

Yorkshire

Querns

7 Possible Quern production site

Yorkshire Dales National

None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Yorkshire Archaeological

Site excavated 1966-SD 86 NW 9 None Recorded

YDNPA05MYD4138.

MYD4138

45657

Park HER: MYD3781

V-45657.

Journal 41, (1965) p.325;

YDNPA05-

42, (1967) p.4 and 42,

MYD3781.

(1968) p.113 Gwilt, A., Heslop, D.

Moorland Monuments (1995) pp.38-45 Vyner, B. E. Recent excavations in Cleveland, Thorpe

NZ 396

Durham and

Thewles

243

Tees Valley

None Recorded

Saddle, Beehive

Excavated 1980-82 646041

None Recorded

EHNMR-

(1983) p.16-26

646041

Heslop, D. H. The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement at Thorpe Thewles, Cleveland, 19801982, CBA Research Report 65 (1987) Gwilt, A., Heslop, D.

Moorland Monuments Catcote

NZ 491

Durham and

315

Tees Valley

None Recorded

Flat, Beehive

Excavated 1963-4 and 1987- ongoing

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

(1995) pp.38-45 Durham Archaeology Journal 4, (1988) p.13-35, Britannia 19, (1988) p.438-9 Gwilt, A., Heslop, D.

Moorland Monuments (1995) pp.38-45 Archaeologia Aeliana 10, Coxhoe

NZ 326

Durham and

360

Tees Valley

None Recorded

Flat, Saddle

Excavated 1979-80 646057

None Recorded

EHNMR-

(1982) p.25-51

646057.

University of Durham and University of Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeological Reports for 1979 (1980) p.58 Gwilt, A., Heslop, D.

Moorland Monuments Binchester

NZ 211 310

Durham and Tees Valley

None Recorded

Lava, Flat,

Excavated circa

Beehive

1954

None Recorded

Durham SMR: D1425

Lava querns:

(1995) pp.38-45, Ferris and

DURSMR-

Jones in Jones, R. F.

1425

Britain in the Roman Period: recent Trends (1991) pp.103-11

188

APPENDIX C Querns from the North Yorkshire Area Sorted by Area Site Name

Grid Ref

Area

Lithology (where

Type

recorded)

State of Excavation

NMR No.

EH Pastscape

ADS

Number/Keys

Reference

to the Past

Bibliography

Number Gwilt, A., Heslop, D.

West Brandon NZ 19 39

Durham and Tees Valley

None Recorded

Saddle

Excavated 1960-61

629225

None Recorded

EHNMR629225.

Moorland Monuments (1995) pp.38-45 Archaeologia Aeliana 40, (1962) p.1-34 Gwilt, A., Heslop, D.

Moorland Monuments (1995) pp.38-45, Fairless and Coggins Transactions Forcegarth

NY 875

Pasture North 286

Durham and Tees Valley

None Recorded

Flat, Saddle

Excavated 1972-74 628972

None Recorded

EHNMR628972.

of the Architectural and Archaeological Soceiety of Durham and Northumberland (1980) p.31-8 University of Durham Archaeological Report for 1977, (1978) p.13 Gwilt, A., Heslop, D. Moorland Monuments (1995) pp.38-45, Fairless and Coggins, Durham

Forcegarth

NY 872

Pasture South 282

Durham and Tees Valley

None Recorded

Saddle

Excavated 1974-5

628960

Durham SMR:

EHNMR-

D2390

628960..

Archaeological Journal 2(1986) p.25-40 Durham Archaeology Journal 2, (1986) p.25-40 University of Durham Archaeological Report, (1978) p.13

Greta Bridge

Piercebridge

NZ 084

Durham and

133

Tees Valley

NZ 221

Durham and

152

Tees Valley

None Recorded

None Recorded

Flat, Lava

Lava, Flat, Beehive, Millstone

Excavated 1972

None Recorded

Excavated 1969-70 1905

Durham SMR:

DURSMR-

D1927

1927.

None Recorded

NMRMIC1905.

Gwilt, A., Heslop, D.

Moorland Monuments (1995) pp.38-45 Gwilt, A., Heslop, D.

Moorland Monuments (1995) pp.38-45 Gwilt, A., Heslop, D.

Moorland Monuments (1995) pp.38-45 Wheeler, M. Reports of the Stanwick

NZ 183 118

Durham and Tees Valley

None Recorded

Millstone, Flat,

Excavated 1951-52

Beehive

and 1981-89

645718

None Recorded

EHNMR-

Research Committee of the

645718.

Society of Antiquaries of London. Oxford. (1954) p.51 and Haselgrove 1982-1990 (see bibliography for further details)

Eggleston,

NZ 0087

Durham and

Teesdale

2338

Tees Valley

Lanchester,

NZ 1085

Durham and

Derwentside

4395

Tees Valley

NY 913

Durham and

None Recorded

Saddle

Find spot

NZ 02 SW 4

20053

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

NZ 14 SW 1

22441

NMR_NATIN V-20053.

None Recorded Proceedings of the Society

NMR_NATIN of Antiquaries of V-22441

Newcastle 4S 9, (1942) p. 69

Holwick

264

Tees Valley

Forest and

NY 8800

Durham and

Frith

2904

Tees Valley

Forest and

NY 8600

Durham and

Frith

3022

Tees Valley

Forest-in-

NY 879

Durham and

Teesdale

289

Tees Valley

Witton

NZ 228

Durham and

Gilbert Easington Heighinton, Darlington Frosterley

Butsfield

Wolsingham

454

Tees Valley

NZ 434

Durham and

340

Tees Valley

NZ 229

Durham and

239

Tees Valley

NZ 0132

Durham and

3761

Tees Valley

NZ 1085

Durham and

4395

Tees Valley

NZ 1292

Durham and

3392

Tees Valley

NZ 1298

Durham and

1468

Tees Valley

Millstone Grit

Beehive x2

In wall

None Recorded

D2388

None Recorded

Quern

Find spot

NY 82 NE 2

15975

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

NY 83 SE 5

16142

? Lava – now lost

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

D573

Millstone Grit

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

D955

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

NZ 43 SW 6

27168

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

NZ 22 SW 12

24073

None Recorded

None Recorded

Garden wall

None Recorded

D2215

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

None Recorded

D1825

None Recorded

Beehive x2

Find spot

NZ 13 SW 12

22247

DURSMR2388.

None Recorded

Beehive x2

Garden

NZ 11 SW 4

D1655, 21913

V-15975. NMR_NATIN V-16142. DURSMR573. DURSMR955. NMR_NATIN V-27168

Durham and Tees Valley

None Recorded

Quern

Find spot

NZ 11 SW 14

21935

(1986) p.130 No 16, (1948) p.8 None Recorded Coggins, D. Upper Teesdale. BAR British Series 150, (1986) p.133 None Recorded None Recorded

NMR_NATIN Archaeologia Aeliana 2nd V-24073 DURSMR2215. DURSMR1825.

Ser 14, (1891) p.22 None Recorded Proceedings of the Society of Antiquities of Newcastle 9, (1924) p.69

NMR_NATIN Archaeology of Weardale V-22247. 1655., NMR_NATIN V-21913

Hutton Magna NZ 11 11

BAR British Series 150,

NMR_NATIN Teesdale Records Society

DURSMROvington

Coggins, D. Upper Teesdale.

NMR_NATIN V-21935.

6th Summary (1950) p.2-12 Victoria County History Yorkshire North Riding vol.1, (1914) p.65 None Recorded Proceedings of the Society

Seaham

NZ 424

Durham and

488

Tees Valley

NZ 0125

Durham and

None Recorded

Querns – multiple fragments

NMR_NATIN of Antiquaries of Newcastle Find spot

NZ 44 NW 5

27192, D75

V-27192.,

New Series 10, (1902) p.19,

DURSMR-75. Archaeologia Aeliana 4th Series 1 (1925) p.27

Edmundbyers Marwood Stanhope Wearhead

5011

Tees Valley

NZ 0273

Durham and

1906

Tees Valley

NY 8674

Durham and

3900

Tees Valley

NY 8674

Durham and

3900

Tees Valley

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

None Recorded

D3936

None Recorded

Beehive

Find spot

NZ 01 NW 17

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

NY 83 NE 1

None Recorded

Red Sandstone

None Recorded

Find spot

None Recorded

189

D2258

DURSMR3936.

None Recorded

NZ 01 NW 17 None Recorded NMR_NATIN V-16074. DURSMR2258.

None Recorded None Recorded

‘TRIBALTERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Querns from the North Yorkshire Area Sorted by Area Site Name

Grid Ref

Area

Lithology (where recorded)

Type

State of Excavation

NMR No.

EH Pastscape

ADS

Number/Keys

Reference

to the Past

Possible Roman Bishop Auckland

NZ 21 31

Durham and

Andernach tufa

Tees Valley

quernstones found in

None Recorded

Find spot

NZ 23 SW 19

24275

None Recorded

1878-9 Eggleston

NZ 0087

Durham and

2338

Tees Valley

None Recorded

Saddle

Find spot

None Recorded

D2015

Bibliography

Number

DURSMR2015

Journal of the British Archaeological Association 46, (1890) p.272 None Recorded Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne 3 Vol 5, (1912)

Bedburn

NZ 1035

Durham and

3307

Tees Valley

None Recorded

None Recorded

Find spot

None Recorded

D3904

DURSMR3904.

p.195; Ball, T. 'Warden Hill Camp and the Castles in Weardale' Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne 3 Vol 10, (1921) p.148

190

APPENDIX C Metal work sorted by grid ref Pastscape/Loca Site Name

Grid Ref

Area

Finds

Context

NMR Reference

l SMR, HER

ADS Reference

Bibliography

Reference MacGregor, M. (1962, 76) 172, Hazelgrove, C. and Turnbull, P. (1987) Stanwick: Excavation and Research Interim Report 1985-86 Univ of Durham Dept of Archaeol Occ Pap 6, Hazelgrove C and Turnbull P 1983 Stanwick: Excavation and Research, Interim Report,

Stanwick, Yorkshire

NZ 182 116

Metalwork Hoards

W (1) – sword and scabbard

1981-83, Haselgrove, C. and Turnbull, P.

Site B entrance ditch terminal – NZ 11 SE 2

None Recorded

NMR_NATINV-21862.

excavated site

(1984) Stanwick: Excavation and Research Interim Report 1984 Univ of Durham Dept of Archaeol Occ Pap 5, Univ of Durham Dept of Archaeol Occ Pap 4, Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of LondonNo.1 (1913) - no.17, BAR British series1 (1974) - 1,3.5,17, 20-1, 74,86,91-3,9699,114-5,124,134,147-8,153,157,159,185 (A J Challis and D W Harding) 20(i)

MacGregor (1962). Haselgrove et al (1990),

Melsonby (Stanwick)

NZ 198 099 Metalwork Hoards

HH, PO, W, V

Field 1km SE of

(possible chariot)

Stanwick

c .150

earthworks

W(1)

River?

Archaeological Journal 6 1849 339 fn 3, map NZ 10 NE 6

21545 NMR_NATINV-21545.

213 (H Maclauchlan), The Stanwick Fortifications 1954 2-3 (R E M Wheeler), Proceedings of the Royal Archaeological Institute York, 10, 1846

Sadberge, Co. Durham NZ 34 16

Metalwork Hoards

None Recorded

None Recorded

9379 NMR_NATINV-9379.

W (5) inc. EIA Embleton, Cumberland NY 177 292 Metalwork Hoards

Sword and 1st C AD Field

Lake District National

NY 12 NE 3

5496 Park Authority HER:

scabbard Place Fell, Westmorland

NY 406 167 Metalwork Hoards

HH (1)

None Recorded

Hill

None Recorded

None Recorded

MacGregor, M. (1976) p.156 MacGregor, M. (1976) p. 145, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society New

LDNPHER08-5496.

Series 23, 1923 p.251 (WG Collingwood), BAR

None Recorded

MacGregor, M. (1976) p. 8 MacGregor, M. (1976) p. 283-4, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmoreland

Crosby Ravensworth, Westmorland

NY 63 17

Metalwork Hoards

‘Ritual Spoons’ (2)

Wet

NY 61 NW 9

13325 NMR_NATINV-13325.

Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 2(OS) 1876 215 (G F Weston), Iron Age in N Britain (Ed A L F Rivet) 1966 25 (R B K Stevenson)

Great Asby,

NY 68 13

Metalwork Hoards

W (1)

SD 43 46

Metalwork Hoards

W (1)

Worton, Lancashire

SD 49 72

Metalwork Hoards

Ingleton, Yorkshire

SD 69 73

Metalwork Hoards

Cumberland Pilling Moss, Lancashire

Crummackdale, Yorkshire

Lancashire Holme, Lancashire Stansfield Moor, Yorkshire

None Recorded

Wet –

None Recorded

633733 None Recorded

excavated site

None Recorded EHNMR-633733

MacGregor, M. (1976) p. 155, Kate’s Pad excavated 1949 MacGregor, M. (1976) 158, Proceedings of

SD 47 SE 14

PO (1)

Field

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

MacGregor, M. (1976) p. 269

V (1)

Wet

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

MacGregor, M. (1976) p. 310

Metalwork Hoards

W (1)

Moor

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

MacGregor, M. (1976) p. 143

SD 84 27

Metalwork Hoards

PO (1) gold torc

Other

SD 82 NW 4

45218 NMR_NATINV-45218. MacGregor, M. (1976) p. 205

SD 87 28

Metalwork Hoards

PO (1) gold torc

Unknown

SD 82 NE 7

45210 NMR_NATINV-45210.

HH (2)

Moor

None Recorded

SD 776 722 Metalwork Hoards

SD 924 280 Metalwork Hoards

Scabbard

41557 NMR_NATINV-41557. the Prehistoric Society 16, 1950. p. 17-27 (S Piggott)

None Recorded

None Recorded

46471 NMR_NATINV-46471. Flasby, Yorkshire

Unpublished sword and scabbard

Cairn

Cotterdale, Yorkshire SD 83 95 Rawtenstall,

W (1) Sword and

Fell

SD 94 56

Metalwork Hoards

W (1) – IA Sword and Scabbard

Moor

Yorkshire Dales

SD 95 NW 17

National Park Authority

MYD3962

HER: YDNPA05-

Thompson Watkin W. Roman Lancashire 1883. p.230 Barnes (1982), no.325

MacGregor, M. (1976) p. 147, BAR 20 pt2 1975,42(A J Challis & D W Harding), Proceedings of the Archaeological Institution1846, 11

MYD3962. 48338 NMR_NATINV-48338. Embsay, Yorkshire

SE 005 535 Metalwork Hoards

PO (1) – La Tene Bronze Collar

Moor (edge)

Yorkshire Dales

SE 05 SW 4 MYD4343

National Park Authority

MacGregor, M. (1976) p. 200

HER: YDNPA05MYD4343.

HH (75+) – including Fremington Hagg, Yorkshire

SE 054 989 Metalwork Hoards

pendants, roundels and other elements

Moor

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Other

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Field

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Webster in Butler, R. M. (ed.) Soldier and

Civilian in Roman Yorkshire. 1971. p.107

of horse harness Honley, Yorkshire

SE 13 11

Lightcliffe, Yorkshire SE 14 25

Metalwork Hoards Metalwork Hoards

PO, coins straprings, seal box (5) Celtic and Roman Coins (1)

MacGregor, M. (1976) p. 52-3, Petch 1924, 79-85 Allen, D. F. Sylloge of coins of the British

Isles, 1963. p.22-25

ROMAN HOARDS Harwood, Northumberland Matfen, Northumberland Capheaton, Northumberland

NZ 006 904 NZ 036 715 NZ 036 804

Roman Metalwork Hoards Roman Metalwork Hoards

Enamelled vessel

Field

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

2 paterae

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

None Recorded

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Roman Metalwork

4 patera handles,

Hoards

medallion

191

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE Metal work sorted by grid ref Pastscape/Loca Site Name

Grid Ref

Area

Finds

Context

NMR Reference

l SMR, HER

ADS Reference

Bibliography

Reference Prestwick Carr, Northumberland Backworth, Northumberland South Shields, Northumberland Stokesley, Yorkshire Clifton, Cumbria Shap, Cumbria Whitfield Moor, Northumberland Corbridge, Northumberland Manchester, Lancashire Stalmine Moss, Lancashire Knaresborough, Yorkshire Marston Moor, Yorkshire River Ouse, York

NZ 195 734

NZ 295 721 NZ 365 664 NZ 525 084 NY 536 265 NY 566 155 NY 735 534

NY 982 647

SJ 866 985 SD 396 454

SE 355 574

SE 496 534 SE 584 526

Stittenham, Yorkshire SE 676 674

Finningly, Yorkshire

Malton, Yorkshire

SE 686 004

SE 794 720

Roman Metalwork

Cauldron, 7 paterae,

Hoards

5 bowls and basins

Roman Metalwork

Patera, mirror,

Hoards

jewellery, coins

Roman Metalwork Hoards Roman Metalwork Hoards

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

None Recorded

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Patera

Sea

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Pewter jug

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

None Recorded

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Roman Metalwork

Patera and 2

Hoards

strainers

Roman Metalwork Hoards

Patera

None Recorded

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

None Recorded

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Flanged strainer

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Camp kettle

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

5 paterae

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

None Recorded

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Patera, basin

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Pewter patera

Wet

Hunter, F. (1997) p.127

Roman Metalwork

3cauldrons, handled

Hoards

strainer

Roman Metalwork Hoards Roman Metalwork Hoards

5 pieces of silver plate (lanx, ‘basin’, cup, bowl, vase) 4 pewter plates

Roman Metalwork

Pewter handled

Hoards

strainer

Roman Metalwork Hoards Roman Metalwork Hoards Roman Metalwork Hoards Roman Metalwork Hoards Roman Metalwork Hoards Roman Metalwork Hoards Roman Metalwork

Old Malton

SE 795 724

HH

Horse Harness

PO

Personal Ornament

Hoards

W

Weapon

V

Vessel

O

other - any other object

Large number of vessels also some ironwork

2 hanging bowls, 2 other late Roman vessels

Hunter, F. in Gwilt, A. and Haselgrove, C. Reconstructing Iron

Age Societies . 1997. pp.108-133 Mac Gregor, M. Early Celtic Art in

North Britain . 1976

192

APPENDIX C DRAGONESQUE BROOCHES SORTED BY GRID REF Pastscape Site Name

Grid Ref

Finds

State of Excavation

NMR

or Local

Number

SMR/HER

ADS reference

Bibliography

reference The Lawe (Arbeia) South Shields, Co.

NZ 366 679

Dragonesque

Excavated 1933 (and

None

Brooch x2

ongoing)

Recorded

6026 NMRMIC-6026.

Feacham, R. (1965) p.36, Antiquaries Journal 18 (1938) p.149, MacGregor, M. (1976)

Durham Carlisle, Cumbria

NY 402 568

Stanwix, Cumbria NY 41 58

Dragonesque Brooch Dragonesque Brooch

Kirkby Thore,

NY 6354

Dragonesque

Cumbria

2529

Brooch x2

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

NY 45 NW

EH Pastscape NMR_NATINV-

13

11423

None

None

Recorded

Recorded

NY 62 NW

EH Pastscape NMR_NATINV-

Feacham, R. (1965) p.40, Proceedings of the

28

13591

13591.

Archaeological Institute (1846) p.7 and 35

N/A

EHNMR-628846.

11423.

MacGregor, M. (1976) MacGregor, M. (1976)

None Recorded

Feacham, R. (1965) p.36, Archaeologia Aeliana 4 (1935) p.342

Feacham, R. (1965) p.38, Archaeologia Aeliana 4 Milking Gap, Northumberland

NY 77 67

Brough, Yorkshire NY 79 14 Brough under Stainmore,

NY 79 14

Cumbria

Dragonesque Brooch

Dragonesque Brooch Dragonesque Brooch

Excavated 1937 - National Trust Project Reference

Northumberland

Number 102

None Recorded

None Recorded

(1935)p.342, Journal of Roman Studies 28, (1938) p.174-5

628846

6587 SMR: NSMR03-

NY 71 SE 19

14960

None

None

Recorded

Recorded

Feacham, R. (1965) p.38, Archaeologia Aeliana 4 (1935) 342,

6587.

Journal of Roman Studies 28, 1938. p.174-5

NMR_NATINV-

MacGregor, M. (1976), Antiquaies Journal 31, (1951). p.

14960.

40-41 (illus) (RW Feachem)

None Recorded

Feacham, R. (1965) p.40, Collingwood, R.B. Archaeology

of Roman Britain (1930) p.112 Feacham, R. (1965) p.38, Archaeologia Aeliana 3

EHNMR-629037 Corbridge, Northumberland

NY 982 648

Dragonesque Brooch

(1934) p.244 Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971) p.1-28

Excavated 1946-73

629037

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955). p.218-252 KTTP: N9002 NSMR03-9002

Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953). p.205-253 Bishop,M. and Dore,J. Corbridge Excavations 1947-80. 1988 Feacham, R. (1965) p.38, Antiquaries Journal 18 (1938)

EHNMR-629037 Corbridge, Northumberland

NY 982 648

Dragonesque Brooch

p.149 Archaeologia Aeliana 49,(1971). p.1-28

629037

Excavated 1946-73

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955).p.218-252 KTTP: N9002 NSMR03-9002

Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953). p.205-253 Bishop,M. and Dore,J. Corbridge Excavations 1947-80. 1988 Feacham, R. (1965) p.38, Archaeologia Aeliana 3,

EHNMR-629037 Corbridge, Northumberland

NY 982 648

Dragonesque Brooch

(1933) p.403 Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971). p.1-28

Excavated 1946-73

629037

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955). p.218-252 KTTP: N9002 NSMR03-9002

Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953). p.205-253 Bishop,M. and Dore,J. Corbridge Excavations 1947-80. 1988

EHNMR-629037 Corbridge, Northumberland

NY 982 648

Dragonesque Brooch

Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971). p.1-28 Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955). p.218-252

629037

Excavated 1946-73

Feacham, R. (1965) p.38

KTTP: N9002 NSMR03-9002

Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953). p.205-253 Bishop,M. and Dore,J. Corbridge Excavations 1947-80. 1988 Feacham, R. (1965) p.38, Archaeologia Aeliana 3,

EHNMR-629037 Corbridge, Northumberland

NY 982 648

Dragonesque Brooch

(1934) p.188 Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971). p.1-28

Excavated 1946-73

629037

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955). p.218-252 KTTP: N9002 NSMR03-9002

Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953). p.205-253 Bishop,M. and Dore,J. Corbridge Excavations 1947-80. 1988

Templebrough, Yorkshire Norton, Yorkshire Doncaster, Yorkshire

SK 41 91 SE 563 121 SE 57 03

Dragonesque Brooch Dragonesque Brooch Dragonesque Brooch

Tanner Row,

Dragonesque

York, Yorkshire

Brooch

SE 602 524

None

Recorded

Recorded

None

None

Recorded

Recorded

None Recorded None Recorded

Dragonesque Brooch

Templebrough, 1922. p.71 Feacham, R. (1965) p.40, Collingwood, R. Archaeology

of Roman Britain (1930) p.113 MacGregor, M. (1976)

Feacham, R. (1965) p.40, Archaeologia Aeliana 3, (1934) p.422 None Recorded

None

None

Recorded

Recorded

None Recorded

Feacham, R. (1965) p.40, Antiquaries Journal 18 (1938) p.149

Dragonesque

Feacham, R. (1965) p.40, Archaeologia Aeliana 3,

Brooch

(1934) p.422 Feacham, R. (1965) p.42

Brooch SE 87 25

Feacham, R. (1965) p.40, May, T. The Roman Fort at

Feacham, R. (1965) p.40

Dragonesque

York, Yorkshire

Yorkshire

None Recorded

None

EHNMR-630203.

Brooch

York, Yorkshire

Faxfleet,

None Recorded

630203 N/A

Dragonesque

York, Yorkshire York, Yorkshire

Excavated 1877-78

Dragonesque Brooch

Excavated 1962

630323 N/A

EHNMR-630323.

193

MacGregor, M. (1976) Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 41, (1964) p.165

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE DRAGONESQUE BROOCHES SORTED BY GRID REF Pastscape Site Name

Grid Ref

Finds

State of Excavation

NMR

or Local

Number

SMR/HER

ADS reference

Bibliography

reference Feacham, R. (1965) p.40, Reliquary (1907) p.62, Watercrook, Cumbria

SD 51 90

Dragonesque Brooch

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Excavated 1930-32

631137 N/A

EHNMR-631137.

Antiquarian & Archaeological Society 32, (1932) pp.11623 Journal of Roman Studies 22, (1932) p.202-3 Feacham, R. (1965) p.40, Lancaster University Archaeological Unit [assessment

Victoria Cave Settle, Yorkshire

Dragonesque

1159454

Brooch x2

(1996)

SD 83 65

N/A

EHNMR-1159454.

& evaluation reports] (1997) Victoria Cave, North Yorkshire. Archaeological Excavation Report/PRN

Excavated 1870-72 and

1809, Report 1997-98(018)/7632. British Association

1996

Annual Reports 1870-2 Yorkshire Archaeological Society : Prehistory

Dragonesque

1044631 N/A

Brooch

EHNMR-1044631.

Research Section bulletin 15, (1977) p. 2-3 Yorkshire Archaeological Society : Prehistory Research Section bulletin 25, (1988) p.10-11

Dragonesque Kelco Cave, Settle, Yorkshire

SD 83 64

Brooch Dragonesque Brooch

None Recorded None Recorded

None

None

Recorded

Recorded

None

None

Recorded

Recorded

None Recorded None Recorded

Feacham, R. (1965) p.40, Yorkshire Achaeological Journal 34 (1939)p.137 Feacham, R. (1965) p.42 Feacham, R. (1965) p.42, Feacham, R. (1965) p.40,

Attermire Cave,

SD 8415

Settle, Yorkshire 6417

Dragonesque

Excavated 1870, 1920’s,

SD 86 SW

Brooch x2

1930-31

13

EH Pastscape NMR_NATINV-

Yorkshire Achaeological Journal 34 (1939)p.137, King,

45760

A. Romano-British Metalwork from the Settle District

45760

of West Yorkshire 42, (1969) pp.410-15, Yorkshire Dales National Park MYD3822

Authority HER:

BAR British series1 (1974) - 128 Page(s)79,90,262

YDNPA05MYD3822. Feacham, R. (1965) p. 42, Archaeologia Aeliana 3,

Dowkerbottom Cave, Kilnsey,

SD 95 68

Yorkshire

Dragonesque Brooch

635335 N/A

Excavated 1850-59

EHNMR-635335.

(1934) p.423 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London 4, (1856-1859). p.111-2

S SHAPED FIBULA South Shields, Co. Durham Corbridge, Northumberland Victoria Cave, Settle -

NZ 366 679 S Shaped Fibula None Recorded NY 98 64 SD 83 65

Attermire Cave,

SD 8415

Settle

6417

Sewell’s Cave, Settle

SD 85 64

S Shaped Fibula None Recorded S Shaped Fibula x4

None Recorded

S Shaped Fibula None Recorded S Shaped Fibula None Recorded

None

None

Recorded

Recorded

None

None

Recorded

Recorded

None

None

Recorded

Recorded

None

None

Recorded

Recorded

None

None

Recorded

Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Feacham, R. The North Britons:

The Prehistory of a Border People . Hutchinson, London. 1965 Mac Gregor, M. Early Celtic Art

in North Britain . 1976

194

APPENDIX C GLASS BANGLES SORTED BY GRID REF Site Name

Grid Ref

Finds

State of Excavation

NMR Reference

ADS Reference

Bibliography Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.45-

Ebchester Roman Fort, Durham

54 NZ 10 55

3A

Excavated 1886

629236 EHNMR-629236.

FAWCETT,J.W. HISTORIC PLACES...DERWENT VALLEY (1990) p.142-5 Archaeologia Aeliana 38, (1960) p.201

Piercebridge Roman Fort, Durham South Shields, Co. Durham

NZ 21 15

2 3A

NZ 366 679

3F x2 3I

Excavations 1938 and periodically afterwards

None Recorded

None Recorded

Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1954-6) pp.208-21 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland

Excavated 1933 and

6026 NMRMIC-6026.

ongoing

(1938) pp.366-395. Feacham, R. (1965)p.36, Antiquaries Journal 18, (1938) p.149, MacGregor, M. Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.45-

Ambleside Roman Fort, Cumbria

NY 372 034

3J

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

54, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1915) p.58 Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.45-

2

54 Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.45-

English Street Carlisle, Cumbria

NY 402 568

3A

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

54, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society (1964) p.27-8

3F

Journal of Archaeological Science (1938) p.1-30 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1938) pp.366-395

Gilsland, Cumbria

NY 60 60

3J

Excavated 1898

645956 EHNMR-645956.

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society 15, (1899) p.363

3A

Vindolanda Roman Fort,

NY 770 663

Northumberland

3G

2449 NMRMIC-2449. Excavated 1974 - ongoing

54. Northumberland SMR:

3G

Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.45-

6566

NSMR03-6566. Archaeologia Aeliana 15, (1938) p.345 Archaeologia Aeliana 15, (1938) pp.303-50

3A x3

628846 EHNMR-628846.

Journal of Roman Studies 28 (1938) p.174-5 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1938) pp.366-395 Archaeologia Aeliana 15, (1938)p.346

Milking Gap, Northumberland

NY 77 67

3H

Archaeologia Aeliana 15, (1938) pp.303-50

Excavated 1937

Journal of Roman Studies 28, (1938) p.174-5 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Northumberland SMR: 6587

NSMR03-6587.

(1938) pp.366-395 Archaeologia Aeliana 15, (1938) pp.303-50 Journal of Roman Studies 28, (1938) p.174-5

3I

Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1938) pp.366-395 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland

3A

Housesteads Roman Fort,

NY 78 68

Northumberland

NY 9117 7016

2

Northumberland Corbridge (bypass excavations),

None Recorded

2 x1 3Ax1

Archaeologia Aeliana 25 (1904) p.286 Journal of Archaeological Science (1938) pp.1-30

2

Chesters Roman Fort,

(1938) pp.366-395 9628909 EHNMR-62890

Excavated 1800-99

Archaeologia Aeliana 25 (1904) p.286 Excavated 1843 and

4462 NMRMIC-4462.

onward None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1938) pp.366-395 None Recorded Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1938) pp.366-395

Corbridge, Northumberland

Archaeologia Aeliana 49 (1971) pp.1-28 NY 98 64

2

Excavated 1946-73

629037 EHNMR-629037.

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955) pp.218-252 Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953) pp.205-253 BISHOP,M. and DORE,J. CORBRIDGE:EXCAVATIONS...1947-80. 1988 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1954-6) pp.208-21

Corbridge, Northumberland

Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971) pp.1-28 NY 98 64

2

Excavated 1946-73

629037 EHNMR-629037.

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955) pp.218-252 Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953) pp.205-253 BISHOP,M. and DORE,J. CORBRIDGE:EXCAVATIONS...1947-80. 1988

195

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE GLASS BANGLES SORTED BY GRID REF Site Name

Grid Ref

Finds

State of Excavation

NMR Reference

ADS Reference

Bibliography Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1954-6) pp.208-21

Corbridge, Northumberland

Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971) pp.1-28 NY 98 64

3A x3

Excavated 1946-73

629037 EHNMR-629037.

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955) pp.218-252 Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953) pp.205-253 BISHOP,M. and DORE,J. CORBRIDGE:EXCAVATIONS...1947-80. 1988 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1938) pp.366-395

Corbridge, Northumberland

Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971) pp.1-28 NY 98 64

3A x3

Excavated 1946-73

629037 EHNMR-629037.

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955) pp.218-252 Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953) pp.205-253 BISHOP,M. and DORE,J. CORBRIDGE:EXCAVATIONS...1947-80. 1988 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1938) pp.366-395

Corbridge, Northumberland

Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971) pp.1-28 NY 98 64

3B

629037 EHNMR-629037.

Excavated 1946-73

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955) pp.218-252 Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953) pp.205-253 BISHOP,M. and DORE,J. CORBRIDGE:EXCAVATIONS...1947-80. 1988 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1938) pp.366-395

Corbridge, Northumberland

Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971) pp.1-28 NY 98 64

3C x2

Excavated 1946-73

629037 EHNMR-629037.

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955) pp.218-252 Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953) pp.205-253 BISHOP,M. and DORE,J. CORBRIDGE:EXCAVATIONS...1947-80. 1988 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1938) pp.366-395

Corbridge, Northumberland

Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971) pp.1-28 NY 98 64

3F

Excavated 1946-73

629037 EHNMR-629037.

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955) pp.218-252 Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953) pp.205-253 BISHOP,M. and DORE,J. CORBRIDGE:EXCAVATIONS...1947-80. 1988 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1938) pp.366-395

Corbridge, Northumberland

Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971) pp.1-28 NY 98 64

3G x4

629037 EHNMR-629037.

Excavated 1946-73

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955) pp.218-252 Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953) pp.205-253 BISHOP,M. and DORE,J. CORBRIDGE:EXCAVATIONS...1947-80. 1988 Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1938) pp.366-395

Corbridge, Northumberland

Archaeologia Aeliana 49, (1971) pp.1-28 NY 98 64

3J x3

Excavated 1946-73

629037 EHNMR-629037.

Archaeologia Aeliana 33, (1955) pp.218-252 Archaeologia Aeliana 31, (1953) pp.205-253 BISHOP,M. and DORE,J. CORBRIDGE:EXCAVATIONS...1947-80. 1988

Scarborough, Yorkshire Rudston Roman Villa, Yorkshire

TA 05 89

2

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

TA 086 667

2 x3

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

SK 411 918

2

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

SE 084 174

3A

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.4554 Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.4554

Templeborough Roman Fort,

May,T. Templeborough Roman Forts (1922) p.30

Yorkshire Slack Roman Fort, Huddersfield,

Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.45-

Yorkshire

54 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal (1922) p.74 Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.4554, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal (1970) p.125

Ashberry Windypit, Rydale, Yorkshire

SE 57 85

3A

Excavated 1943 - 1949

1044571 EHNMR-1044571.

MCDONNELL, J. HISTORY OF HELMSLEY RIEVAULX AND DISTRICT 24. 1963 p.362-3 Cave Science 12, (1950). Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42, (1969) p.167-245 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 45, (1973) p.172

York, Yorkshire Levisham Moor, Yorkshire Walkington, Beverley, Yorkshire

SE 602 524

2 x3

None Recorded

SE 83 92

2

Excavated 1957 - 1965

None Recorded

None Recorded

Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (1954-6) pp.208-21 Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.45-

635986 EHNMR-635986.

54, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal (1970) p.125

SE 990 360

2

None Recorded

None Recorded

196

None Recorded

Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.4554,

APPENDIX C GLASS BANGLES SORTED BY GRID REF Site Name

Grid Ref

Finds

State of Excavation

NMR Reference

ADS Reference

Dowkerbottom Caves, Arncliffe,

Bibliography Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland

SD 917 723

3F

None Recorded

None Recorded

None Recorded

Yorkshire

(1954-6) pp.208-21, Archaeological Journal 25, (1868) p.160 Glasgow Archaeological Journal volume 3, (1974) p.4554,

Bainbridge Roman Fort, Yorkshire

SD 93 90

3G

Excavated 1950 - 1953

635367 EHNMR-635367.

Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society (1960) p.128 Journal of Roman Studies 42, (1952) pp.91-92 Journal of Roman Studies 44, (1954) p.89-90

197

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Finds

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

Bibliography

NORTH EAST Excavations by Sir Mortimer Wheeler Samian Sherds: 6x Form 29 1x Form 15 1x Form 18 1x Form Ritterling 18 1x Form 22 2x Form 31 1x Form 18 or 15/17 17x Other undiagnostic but almost certainly 1st Century AD Other non-local: 49x sherds Butt-Beaker of which 10 everted rims 35x sherds Beaker ware 4x sherds Jugs of which 2x

Wheeler , M ‘The

Creamware

Stanwick

5x sherds Jars (1x beaded rim)

Fortifications’,

1x Goblet (imitation samian)

Society of

Total number of non-local sherds

Antiquaries 17,

not stated but majority from Stanwick

NZ 178

Wheeler Site A (100 non-local

115

sherds) Local Coarse Wares: Total number

1954 Page(s)31-43

Excavated 1954 and

645718 N/A

EHNMR-645718.

1981-89

of sherds not listed but 128 from Wheeler site A (main source of pottery sherds). 39x rim/base sherds from whole assemblage 3x sherds Jars 5x sherds Bowls 2x sherds Pots 25x sherds undiagnostic rims 4x sherds undiagnostic bases Wheeler comments pottery roughly 60 to 40 in favour of nonlocal wares Haselgrove excavations:

Haselgrove, C. C. e

5x sherds Samian (only one

al. ‘Stanwick North

diagnostic- Ritterling form 9

Yorkshire parts 1,

7x sherds Butt Beaker

2 and 3’ in The Archaeological Journal 147. 1990

3x sherds Flagon 3x sherds Jars 19x sherds Undiagnostic

(microfiche 1)

Coarseware 337x sherds at least 9 vessels may be as many as 12. 95% native Iron Age tradition. No definite Roman pottery. 8 fabric forms – all native and relatively coarse. Rock

NZ 18

Castle

06

1x large Jar (280x sherds making up 83% of total sherd count)

Durham Excavated 1987

1032277 N/A

EHNMR-1032277

Archaeological Journal 10, 1994 Page(s) 13-42

24x sherds Barrel Jars 1 or 2x Jar or Bowl slightly incurving rim (5x sherds) 28x sherds of undiagnostic form – 5 different fabrics – of which 16 from the same vessel are of a wheel-thrown vessel.

198

APPENDIX C POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Finds

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

Bibliography

709x sherds Iron Age style: 5x Jars (23 sherds) Roman style: 5x Flagons (53 sherds) 5x Beakers (46 sherds) 4x Amphora (515 sherds) 3x Mortarium (3 sherds) 62x sherds South Gaulish Samian Ware – various forms Durham

5x sherds ‘closed’ Melsonby

NZ 197

2x sherds Crambeck Ware –

Excavated

086

unkown form

1992-5

1032282 N/A

EHNMR-1032282

Archaeological Journal 14-15, 1999 Page(s)1-52

Roman fabrics include: SGSW, Terra Rubra and Terra Nigra. Amphora fabrics –South Gaulish, Baetican, Rhodian Native fabrics include: White ware, Orange Ware fabrics, Crambeck Ware, Grog tempered ware Mortarium fabrics: Orange-brown (northern) Hartshill-Mancetter Assemblage heavily biased towards tableware. Much fine quality. Amphora likely to have carried wine. 141x sherds including: Samian: 3x sherds (2x Dr 29,1x Dr 24/25) Watching Scotch

NZ 2127

Corner

0527

Native wares: 1x Amphora (3x sherds) 2x Flagons (5x sherds)

brief over development

Durham 1048127 N/A

EHNMR-1048127

1995

Archaeological Journal 11, 1995 Page(s)7-18

1x Butt Beaker (1x sherd) 4x Beakers (31x sherds) 3x Jars (28x sherds) 1 sherd ‘appears Roman’ 50x sherds of other ‘native’ vessels Samian Sherds AD70-110 majority 140-200 Not yet fully published Samian CGSW- 49x sherds EGSE- 11x sherds

Excavated

Also

1969-81

http://www.barbic anra.co.uk/Piercebr idge.htm

1x sherd Spanish colour coated ware

Holme House,

NZ 220

Piercebri 148 dge

Coarseware: only potter of 628007 N/A

interest is listed:

EHNMR-628007.

2x sherds jars 2xsherds cups 2x sherds dish 1x beaker 1xBB1 cooking pot 5xBB1 flat rimmed bowls and dishes 4x Greyware bowls and dishes

Note tendency

Full online digital

towards non

publication 2008

local wares

1x Amphora stamp 1x small Cologne hunt cup

199

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Finds

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

Bibliography

Iron Age and native pottery: 1522 sherds of which 289 were diagnostic and 178 could be given profiles. 2 imported Iron Age vessels the rest all local wares. Barrel Jars: by far the most common vessel. Many everted rims Other jar forms are also common and again a number have everted rims Shouldered Jars and bowls are relatively few. 15x decorated vessels: 11: have finger tipping. 2: stamped roulette vessels (presumably imports into the Thorpe Thewles

NZ 3967 2445

region) Romano-British pottery (given as

Excavated

% of roman pottery in periods 3

1980-82

646041 N/A

EHNMR-646041

Heslop, D. H. The Excavation of an Iron Age Settlement at Thorpe Thewles, Cleveland, 198082 . CBA Research

and 4– total sherd count not

Report 65,

listed) Vessel forms given where

Cleveland

available.

Archaeology and

Romano British wares make up

the CBA, London.

36% of total sherds from phase

1987

3and 68% of phase 4. Samian Ware: SGSW:7% CGSW:11% Terra Nigra:2% Dressel 20 Amphora: 52% Cream ware 3% (but beaker) Greywares: 36% BB1: 1% Other coarsewares: 12% including 1 possible hoffheim flagon and one possible Dressel 28 amphora Mortaria are all 2nd C. 73x sherds 30x sherds native Coarse Wares Durham

Roman/ Romano-British: 4x sherds Ingleby

NZ 455 Samian Ware

Excavated

Archaeological

Barwick

134

1979

Journal 1, 1984

1x sherd Amphora

Page(s)23-34

2x sherds Colour Coated Wares 32x sherds Greywares 4x sherds Mortaria.

200

APPENDIX C POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Finds

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

Bibliography

Iron Age Pottery....all made locally and probably on site. Over 1000 sherds including 133 rims representing approximately the same number of vessels. These rims are divided into 7 types with only five being undiagnostic. Barrel jar( incurving rim): 19x rim sherds Beaded Rim vessel: 11x sherds Jars with short everted rims(most common type): 28x rim sherds indicating no less than 28 vessels Jars with wide everted rims; 11x rim sherds representing 10 vessels Upright rims: Plain: 20x rim sherds Decorated: 27x rim sherds Catcote

NZ 490 Wheel turned pottery (unclear 315

whether or Iron Age or postconquest origin): 12 x rim sherds Gallo-Belgic Pottery and Roman Fineware:

Excavated 1963-4, 1967, 19982002 and ongoing University of

Durham NZ 43 SE 6

EH Pastscape Catcote NMR_NATINV-27142.

Archaeological Journal 4, 1988 Page(s)13-36

Durham Summer Training Dig

7x sherds eggshell ware (1 vessel – fine straight sided beaker) 30x sherds Samian Ware 8x sherds SGSW (1x Dr 29, 4x Dr 18, 2x Dr33, 1x Dr27) 10x sherds CGSW (4x Dr 37, 5x Dr 13/31, 1x Dr 33) 7x sherds EGSW (2x Dr 37, 4x Dr 18/31, 1x Dr 45) including 4 pieces figured samian with graffiti 1x sherd Terra Nigra 1x sherd Butt-Beaker Gallo-Belgic Romano-British Pottery: Over 700x sherds much of it 4th Century Calcite Gritted Wares. 61x sherds of which 50 were undiagnsotic wall sherds. All sherds coarse local material. Dating indicative of late Iron Age with possible continuity Diagnostic fragments: 1x sherd Jar everted, finger tipping decoration 300-100BC Great

NZ 597

Ayton

117

1x sherd Jar small upright rim 1x sherd Jar small beaded rim 300100BC

Yorkshire Excavated

N/A

1977

EHNMR-630066.

Archaeological Journal 50, 1978 Page(s) 49-56

8xsherds of 1 Barrel Jar 1x sherd coarse local undiagnostic rim 1x base of Pot 1x base Grass Tempered undiagnostic 1x base of Bowl 1x base undiagnostic

201

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Finds

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

Bibliography

Acidity prevented survival of metal and bone. House 1- 140x sherds including: 3 rims (upright and flat,7 concave rims (native copy of Roman style), 4 bases, all native Coarse Wares Roxby

NZ 7601 1393

House 2- 9x sherds including: 2 rims, native Coarse Wares.

Proceedings of the Excavated

NZ 71

1973-81

SE 6

EH Pastscape 29059

NMR_NATINV29059.

Prehistoric Society 51, 1985 Page(s)181213

House 3- 7x sherds including: 2 bases, native Coarse Wares. House 4- 33x sherds including: 1 upright rim, 1 everted rim, 2 base fragments, all native Coarse Wares. Pre-Roman Iron Age and possible native Roman period pottery Iron Age: 9 fabric types (all coarsewares). Identified forms: 1x Bowl

Considerable

11x Jar (of which 2 have beaded

further

rims)

information in:

2x Shouldered Jar

Wilson, P.

Roman: Some small undiagnostic

Cataractonium:

sherds of Samian, Crambeck and Catterick SE 23 Bridge

97

Roman Catterick

Greywares suggest a second st

period of activity i the 1 -3

and its hinterland

rd

excavations and

century.

research 1954-77 Part1, CBA

Phase: 1 80-90 to AD 160 approx

Research Report

652x sherds

128, 2002

Imported:

Page(s)468-79

Preference for SGSW among the Samian Wares (30 out of 43 sherds- (5%) of period 1 sherds). Dressel 20 forms 144 sherds (24%) Native:

Watching brief 1990

1304754 N/A

EHNMR-1304754

>70% of the entire collection is 2 nd century local products in particular 192x sherds Greywares 72x sherds BB1 84x sherds Oxidised wares 66x sherds Mortaria 15x sherds White Wares 36x

Catterick se

SE 229

starting

989

date AD80-90

For other (non-

sherds Other undiagnostic

Racecour

native) sites and

Totals are given as % of sherd

settlements

count by rims (87):

excavated around

22x sherds Jars (24%)

Catterick see report part 1.

15x sherds Bowls (16%) 19x sherds Dishes (22%) 8x sherds Flagons (9%) 6x sherds Cups (7%) 4x sherds Mortaria (all local) (5%) 1x sherd Amphora (1%) 6x sherds Other vessel(7%) 6x sherds unknown (7%)

202

APPENDIX C POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Finds

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

Bibliography

Iron Age: 300sherds representing at least 40vessels all coarse wares. Also 3 fragments of SGSW forms 37 and 30 which may be related to the Iron Age and early Roman period on the site. Information only available on 15 vessels: 12x Jars of which 3 with beaded

Wrathmell, S.

rims

Dalton Parlours:

3x Bowls of which one beaded rim

Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa.

Roman: 14840 sherds of which Dalton

SE 403

6990 from the villa buildings.

Excavated

Parlours

447

Pottery is not divided into periods 1976-79

631047 N/A

EHNMR- 631047

Yorkshire Archaeology

and therefore data includes

3,West Yorkshire

pottery from throughout Roman

Archaeology

occupation of site and it is not

Service, 1990

possible to restrict information to

pp.128-130, 135-

that from the period of study.

146

15x Mortarium 10x Dish 2x Amphora 16x Jar 18x Bowl Where source identified mostly local wares, Huncliffe, Crambeck and BB1 also represented

Normanb SE 747

1x rim sherd flanged Dish

Excavated

SE 78

y

Crambeck Ware

1945-77

SW 6

826

EH Pastscape Thornton Riseborough NMR_NATINV-60391. deserted village

Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 165, 1967 Page(s)8

1946x sherds very few decorated and where they are this is cabling or thumbing which was used for many centuries from the Iron Age through the Roman Period. Thus a lack of diagnostic and datable material. Romano-British material late 1st-mid 2nd C AD. Native wares could date between 3rd century and later Roman period. Limited number of

Hayes, R. H.

fragments are listed in published

Levisham Moor

report.

Archaeological

Iron Age: Levisham SE 830 Moor

925

15x sherds Jars including 13x sherds Barrel Jars all with everted rims 1x sherd Handled Jar 6x sherds Bowl 1x everted rim

Investigations

Excavations periodically between 1957 and

1957-1978. North Not in

Yorks Moors

AHDS

National Park Committee and

1978

Scarborough Archaeological and

Several Cooking Pots

Historical Society,

3x undiagnostic rim sherds with

1983.

thumbing or cabling decoration Romano-British Ware: 1x sherd Mortarium 2x sherds Crambeck Ware 1x sherd Samian Ware 2x sherds Undiagnostic materials appearing later than Iron Age

203

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Finds

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

Bibliography

(other sherds of samian and Romano-British coarse wares have been found on Levisham Moor). SITES OUTSIDE OF STUDY AREA Yorkshire Staxton

TA 027 788

Archaeological

Out of Study Area

Journal 64, 1992 Page(s)74-5 Evans, J. in Vyner, B. ed. Moorland

Flixton

TA 039 801

Monuments. CBA

Out of Study Area

Research report 101, 1995. Page(s)46-68

Rudston

TA 087 667

Stead, I.M.

Rudston Roman Villa , 1980

Out of Study Area

Brewster, T.M. The excavation of Garton and Garton

TA 265

Slack

355

Wetwang Slacks. East Riding

Out of Study Area

haeological Research Committee. Yorkshire, 1980 Yorkshire

Beadlam

SE 649

Villa

845

Archaeological

Out of Study Area

Journal 43, 1971 Page(s)178-86 A Roman Villa at

Langton

SE 794

Fortlet

670

Longton near Malton. YAS Roman

Out of Study Area

Malton and district 4, 1932 Evans, J. in Vyner, B. ed. Moorland

Ousethor SE 815 pe

515

Monuments. CBA

Out of Study Area

Research report 101, 1995. Page(s)46-68

Thornton- SE 839 le-Dale

Rillington

826 SE 849 742

Yorkshire Out of Study Area

Archaeological Journal 30, 1931 CBA Archaeology in

Out of Study Area

Britain, 1980 Page(s)96

Hawling Road, North Humbersi

SE 86 40

Archaeological Out of Study Area

Journal 143, 1988 Page(s)141-56

de Wetwang SE 922 Slack

598

Antiquity 59, 1985

Out of Study Area

Page(s)85-92 Loughlin, N. A Survey of

South

SE 929

Cave

313

Archaeological

Out of Study Area

Sites in Humberside, Hull 1979

204

APPENDIX C POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Finds

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

Bibliography Yorkshire

Costa

SE 77

Beck

80

Archaeological

Out of Study Area

Journal 30, 1931 Page(s)157-9 Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 42, 1968

Faxfleet

SE 863 241

Page(s)166 Out of Study Area

Ellis, S.E. Humber Perpectives, Hull University Press, 1990. Page(s)15871 Millett, M. et al.

Shiptont SE 852 horpe

433

North

SE 985

Ferriby

258

Shiptonthorpe East Yorkshire.

Out of Study Area

YAS, Yorkshire, 2006

Dragonby

SE 905 138

Willis, S. Britannia

Out of Study Area

27, 1996. Page(s) May, J. Dragonby .

Out of Study Area

Oxford, Oxbow. 1996

NORTH 28x sherds from 9 contexts across site. Much dates from 4th Century AD and is of local manufacture (Calcite Gritted Ware). No more than ten vessels

Ewanrigg

NY 033 352

represented by assemblage. 4x

Transactions of

sherds suggest possible 1 st and 2nd

the Cumberland

century occupation. Pottery relevant to this thesis ie. earlier period:

Excavated

Not in

1986-7

AHDS

and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 92, 1992

2x sherds from 1 undiagnostic

Page(s) 23-47

vessel 1x body sherd of wheelmade Greyware vessel (probably jar) 1x body sherd from wheelmade Bowl or Jar (2x Mortaria 3-4th C) 65 sherds very few safely stratified. Coarsewares mainly 3rd

Higham, N.J. and

century however single sherd of

Jones, R. The excavation of two

samian may indicate activity in Silloth

NY 1135 earlier periods. The only stratified Excavated 5403

sherds are:

1976-77

NY 15 SW 21

EH Pastscape 9687

NMR_NATINV-9687.

Romano-British Farm sites in

3x sherds of mortaria

North Cumbria.

1x sherd beaker

Britannia 14, 1993

1x sherd small jar

Page(s)45-72

1x sherd undiagnostic 18 sherds all dating to late 3 rd 2x sherds undecorated Samian

Transactions of

Ware

the Cumberland

4x sherds Mortaria (at least 2 Fingland Farm

NY 278 vessels) 1x sherd Bowl Greyware 575

Excavated

Not in

1973

AHDS

5x sherds Amphora

and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 77, 1977

1x base Red Ware

Page(s)53-9

3x sherds local undagnostic coarseware Pottery gives evidence for occupation from AD120 to late 3rd Century

205

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Finds

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

3x sherds BB1 Cooking Pots (3

Transactions of

vessels)

the Cumberland

2x sherds Hammerhead Mortarium Oughterb NY290 y

556

plus

Bibliography

and Westmorland Excavated

Several other mortaria fragments 1982-84

Not in

Antiquarian and

AHDS

Archaeological Society 89, 1989

1x sherd Amphora

Page(s)25-31 and

1x sherd Greyware

39

1x Jar 1x footring from Samian Bowl Several undiagnostic sherds of Orange Ware/ Red Ware

Transactions of

3x sherds Romano-British Boustead NY 295 Hill

590

1x sherd undiagnostic 1x sherd Amphora 1x Flagon base the latter probably

1982-84

AHDS

the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological

Mostly greyware sherds. Other

Transactions of

Dobcross NY 396 century in date but including: 456

Not in

earlier Roman sherds largely undiagnostic 2 nd Hall

Excavated

2x sherds Samian Ware 2x sherd Jar Nene Valley ware

Excavated 1977 (trial) and 1979

the Cumberland Not in

and Westmorland

AHDS

Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 81, 1981

1x sherd Bowl local orange ware

206

APPENDIX C POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Finds

Carlisle:

Relevant periods: 2-6 (AD 70 – mid

Note this

3929x sherds. Types of vessel not

is a

2353x sherds Coarsewares

comparat

81x sherds BB1

ive site

7x sherds ?North Gaulish Fabric

(Strongly

26x sherds Lyons Ware

militarise

Samian:

d

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

Bibliography

611x sherds SGSW

settleme

60x sherds CGSW

nt)

198x sherds Terra Nigra 12x sherds Cologne Ware 134x sherds Amphorae 68x sherds Mortaria 379x sherds Residual Over 20 000 sherds covering

Taylor, J. The

Roman pottery: Other than a few

Roman Pottery

st

Period 2: AD75-late 1 C – no 137 sherds

from Castle Street, Carlisle:

Little detail given but all samian is Castle

NY 399 Period 3: Late 1st C to AD 120 559 1960 sherds of which

Street

Vessel types (total fabric sherd

Excavatio

SGSW 377x sherds:

ns

Excavations 1981-

Excavated

2. in Transactions

1981-2

of the Cumberland and Westmorland Archaeological and Antiquarian Society , 5(iv). 1991

8x form 15/17 14x form 18 2x form 22 15x form 27 14x form 29 3x form 30 1x form 18/31 4x form 35/36 15x form 37 2x form 67 CGSW 7x sherds 1x form 27 2x form18/31 RB Oxidized Wares 345x sherds: 2x Flagon 13x Jars 1x Beaker 10x Bowls RB Reduced Wares 799x sherds: 29x Jars

Mc Carthy, M. A

6x Bowls

Roman, Anglian and Medieval Settlement at Blackfriars Street .

Verulamium Region 34x sherds: 1x Jar 1x Bowl Blackfria

4x Mortaria

rs Street NY 400 North Lincolnshire 1x sherd:

Excavated

Excavatio 558

1x Jar

1977-9

ns

1x Mortaria

Cunmberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and

BB1 9x sherds:

Archaeological

1x Jar

Society Research

Local 15x sherds:

Series 4, 1990

3x Mortaria

Page(s) 197-300

NE France 4x sherd: 2x Mortaria South Spanish 393x sherds: 4x Amphorae 3x sherds Samian Ware: 2x sherds CGW (1 is from 33 the other cannot be determined) 1x sherd SGSW form 37

207

‘TRIBAL TERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Finds

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

Bibliography

Roman period native coarse ware 156x sherds Including diagnostic rim sherds from: Phase 1 (most relevant to this

Higham, N.J. and

thesis)

Jones, R. The excavation of two

27x sherds Jars Penrith

NY 502 2x sherds Bowls

Excavated

Not in

Romano-British

Farm

333

1976-77

AHDS

Farm sites in

Phase 2 3x sherds Bowls

North Cumbria.

1x sherd Beaker

Britannia 14, 1993

5x sherds Mortaria

Page(s)45-72

Unstratified 3x sherds Dishes 1x sherd Bowl 3x sherds Jars 1x sherd Greyware 1x sherd BB1 1x sherd Mortarium 1x sherd Beaker 1x sherd Amphora Grey Hill

NY 569 760

Pottery dates to late 4th Century – 5x sherds Stibbington Mortaria

Excavated

Not in

1987

AHDS

Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Transactions of the Cumberland

Waitby

NY 757 A few fragments of mid to late 4 083

th

century Huntcliffe Ware

Excavated

Not in

1967

AHDS

and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 72, 1972 Page(s) 66-73

Samian Ware: 1x Dr 33sherd 2x Dr 18 sherds 3x Dr 37 sherds Milking

NY 7724

Gap

6779

2x Plain sherds 11x sherd Beakers (representing 3 vessels)

Excavated 1937

Archaeologia 628846 KTTP N6587

EHNMR-628846.

Aeliana 15, 1938 Page(s)303-50

10x sherds Jars 2x sherds Pots 3x sherds Jugs 1x sherd ?Amphora

Eller

SD 98

Beck

54

Stainmor e

All pottery from late 2nd and 3rd

Transactions of

Centuries AD

the Cumberland

5x sherds Cooking Pot (possiblyBB1) 4x sherds Mortaria

Excavated

Not in

1961-3

AHDS

and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological

1x sherd Dish

Society 64, 1964

4x sherds Cooking Pot

Page(s) 6-13

280 sherds, nearly all BB1. Unknown Unpublished site; no further information available.

SITES OUTSID E OF STUDY AREA Moss Brow Farm

Excavated by SJ 690 590

Channel 4 Time

Out of Study Area

Team 2006: Time Team website

208

APPENDIX C POTTERY SORTED BY GRID REF Site

Grid

Name

Ref

Timperle y Old Hall

Finds

State of

NMR

Local HER/SMR

ADS Reference (if

Excavation

Number

Number

applicable)

Bibliography Timperley Old Hall,

SJ 78 87

South Trafford

Out of Study Area

Archaeological Group, 1990. Journal of the

Werneth SJ 958 Low

926

British Archaeological

Out of Study Area

Association140, 1987 Page(s)18-35

209

‘TRIBALTERRITORIES’ FROM THE HUMBER TO THE TYNE

ANIMAL BONES SORTED BY GRID REF Site Name

Grid Ref

Finds

State of Excavation

Bibliography

1170 fragments including those of medieval and post medieval layers. Bone fragments from 4 contexsts in

Stanwick

NZ 183 118

most cattle bones predominate however overall there

Excavated. Other smaller

are more sheep bones due to a large number in one

sites in the Stanwick area –

context (site 4)

Rock Castle ( Fitts et. al.

Haselgrove, C. C. e al. ‘Stanwick North

1994), Melsonby (Haselgrove Yorkshire parts 1, 2 and 3’ in The Horse: 79 fragments, mainly from one head

et al #) and Scotch Corner

Archaeological Journal 147. 1990

Cattle: 249 fragments

(#) have failed to preserve

(microfiche 1)

Sheep: 281 fragments

animal bones in any

Pig: 45 fragments

quantities.

Dog: 17 fragments Unknown mammal: 97 fragments Park viewOx:1 bone Pig: 2 bones

Chester-leStreet

NZ 275 514

Sheep/Goat: 1 bone

Note:this is a very limited

Large ungulate: 227 bones

assessment and no further

Gidney, L. Evans et al. ‘Excavations at

Small ungulate: 3 bones

investigation of the very

Chester-le-Street Co. Durham 1978-79’

Horse: 30 bones

small Roman bone

in Durham Archaeological Journal 7,

Middle Chare;

assemblage appears to have

1991. pp.5-48 and microfiche

Ox: 1 bone

taken place

Pig: 3 bones Sheep/ Goat: 1 bone Large Ungulate: 4 bones No further information No further information available: Publication cancelled

available: Publication cancelled

Stallibrass, S. The animal bones from

Church Chare, Chester-le-Street. Co. Durham 1990-91. Ancient Monuments PUBLICATION CANCELLED

Nearly 8000 fragments Three periods: Phase 2: 2669 Phase 3: 3759 Phase 4: 463 986 fragments of indeterminate phasing Only phases 2 and 3 are of sufficient size for comparison.

Thorpe Thewles

Animal bone (in descending order of fragments) NZ 396 243

Excavated. The only

Rackham, D. J. ‘The animal bone’ in

published report of a major

Heslop, D. H. The Excavations of an Iron

Late Iron Age animal bone

Age Settlement at Thorpe Thewles,

Cattle: majority of identified bones. Emphasis on cattle collection from the north of Cleveland, 1980-82. Cleveland County bones for meat: slaughtered at prime beef-production

England

Archaeology and the CBA, London. 1987

ages. Sheep: mostly adult or young adult – between 50 and 55% slaughtered after about 4years. Pig: mostly juvenile. Horse: quite common virtually all adult Also Goat: (including one complete animal - comprising 33 fragments), Dog: 33 bones virtually all adult, Fox: 5 bones, Domestic Fowl: 2 bones, Wild Goose: 2 bones, Red Deer: 2 fragments of antler, Hedgehog 1 bone, Cat: 1 bone 782 fragments identified to species. Limited amount Catcote

NZ 491 315

may limit the potential for comparison between subdivisions of material. Cattle – subadult and adult, sheep/goat, pig, horse

Excavated. The other IA site in northern England that has been fully published and produced a useful animal

Long (1988), Vyner and Daniels (1989), Hodgeson (1967 and 1968)

bone assemblage Stallibrass, S. Animal bones from

excavations at Annetwell Street, Carlisle, 1982-4, Period 3: the earlier timber fort . Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 132/91. English Annetwell Street Carlisle

No further information NY 399 559 No further information available: Publication cancelled

available: Publication cancelled

Heritage, London. 1991 Stallibrass, S. A comparison of

measurements of Romano-British animal bones from Periods 3 and 5, recovered from excavations at Annetwell Street, Carlisle . Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 133/91, English Heritage, London. 1991 PUBLICATIONS CANCELLED

210

APPENDIX C Bones periods 2-3 (972) Cattle 183 Sheep 11 Blackfriars Street

NY 400 558

Sheep/Goat 179 Pig 92 Horse 12 Dog 1 Deer 6

Excavated 1977-9 as a series of trenches. Site covered Roman, Anglian and Medieval Settlement. Roman buildings: 3. Relevant periods st = 2 and 3 (late 1 and early nd

2

century)

Mc Carthy, M. A Roman, Anglian and

Medieval Settlement at Blackfriars Street . Cunmberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society Research Series 4, 1990 Page(s) 320329

Other unidentified 488 Excavations at the General Accident Site, Tanner Row, York. Relevant periods: 3 – 7 (Roman) Periods are taken

York: Tanner

as one unit. Earliest occupation is 2nd century but

Row

Excavated 1983

report does not separate out individual periods within the overall Roman context.

Note this is

Cattle predominate but note

a

large numbers of pig bones

comparative site being

Large bone assemblage (7397 identified bones)

militarised

in comparison with native sites but small number of fish bones despite popularity

and urban in

of fish in the Roman diet .

context. SE 599 517

O’Connor, T. P. Bones from the General

Accident Site, Tanner Row. The

Cattle: 4663

Archaeology of York: The Animal Bones

Sheep: 1148

15/2 ,Council for British Archaoelogy,

Goat: 12

London. 1988. pp.75-76

Pig: 938 Horse: 27 Deer: 15 Wild Boar: 5 Cat: 2 Dog: 49 Hare: 15 Fish: 4 Fowl: 361 Goose: 79 Other Bird: 69 Unidentified: 1193

Other bone assemblages from native contexts within the area of study. Not discussed here because bones are too poorly preserved to be of use or reports contain insufficient detail. Excavated. Very limited data Coxhoe

NZ 326 360 N/A

– 382 fragments. Insufficient for detailed analysis.

Haselgrove and Allon Archaeologia

Aeliana 10,1982. pp.5-51(1982), Rackham (1981-1982)

Excavated. Only a few Ingleby Barwick

NZ 437 150 N/A

fragments of bone. Not

Heslop Durham Archaeological Journal 1,

discussed in publication

1984 Page(s)23-34

report. Roxby

NZ 760 139 N/A

Scarborough TA 051 892 N/A

Excavated. No bones but

Inman et. al. Proceedings of the

three horncores from

Prehistoric Society 51, 1985 Page(s)181-

domestic cattle found.

213

Excavated but bones not discussed in site report Only 46 sherds of which the majority are impossible to

Catterick Racecourse

SE 23 97

N/A

identify although cattle appear the most populous. Insufficient detail to be of real use.

Smith 1927 Moloney, C. et al. Archaeological Services (WYAS) Publications 4: Catterick Racecourse, North Yorkshire; the reuse and adaptation of a monument from prehistoric to Anglian times. Archaeological Services WYAS, Leeds. 2003

Excavated 1960’s. A large amount of animal bone but only a two page report. Much Staple Howe (early IA site)

of the bone appears to have SE 898 749 N/A

been denatured through the Brewster (1963), King (1963) acidity of the soil conditions and is therefore only useful for identification of species present.

211