SECTION 8.2:THE COTSWOLD
WATER PARK SURVEY SITES:THE FINDS
THE COINS (Cathy King)
Leaze Farm
Cottage Field
Wigmore
Campfield
Buscot
Warrens Cross
Kempsford Mill
THE SMALL FINDS (Hilary Cool)
Introduction
Personal ornaments
Toilet Equipment
Household Equipment
Weighing Equipment
Writing Equipment
Transport
Structural Finds
Tools
Fasteners
Agriculture
Military Equipment
Metalworking
Miscellaneous
Overview
Bibliography
Top of Page
The coins By Cathy King
Leaze Farm (Table 1)
The coins from Leaze Farm were recovered during field walking
and metal detecting. The site lies within 1 km of the excavated areas
of Fairford Claydon Pike and Thornhill Farm. The number of coins found
(249 in total) of which two are post-Roman is much larger than those from
any of the other survey sites and they form the third largest group of
the Cotswold Water Park coin assemblages discussed in this publication.
The coin loss pattern is interesting in having a small but significant
proportion (6.4%) of early material, including silver, minted before AD
193. There are nine silver coins in total ranging in date from the Iron
Age to the late fourth or early fifth century AD. They include a Dobunnic
silver piece, a denarius of AD 69 to AD 96 (Vespasian), two second-century
denarii (Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius), two from the years AD 193
to AD 260 (Septimius Severus, Julia Soaemias) as well as the core of a
plated piece of Macrinus. In addition there was a mid-fourth century siliqua
of Julian and two clipped siliquae, one each of Gratian minted between
AD 375 and AD 378 and Magnus Maximus minted between AD 383 and AD 388.
The clipped siliquae will have been cut down after they were minted but
exactly how long after is open to question.
There is a small but significant amount of bronze coinage of the first
and second centuries as well (4.8%) of which nine coins (3.6%) were minted
in the second century AD. The most unusual coin recovered was a semis
of Nero probably minted at Lugdunum although the obverse is too perished
to be absolutely certain of this mint attribution. Semisses are rare as
British finds although four were recovered in the excavations at Harlow
Temple and a barbarous piece was found at Hayling Island probably imitating
a piece from Rome (France and Gobel, 1985, 67-70; Briggs, Haselgrove,
and King, 1992, 23, no. 245). It is worth noting that both Hayling Island
and Harlow are ‘early’ temple sites from the South and East
of Britain respectively with very high proportions of coins from the Iron
Age to AD 192.
At Leaze Farm the actual number of coins found that were minted before
AD 260 is small and the site, like that of its near neighbour Claydon
Pike, is dominated by coins of the third and fourth centuries. Leaze Farm’s
pattern of peak coin loss for these years is somewhat unusual in having
a low proportion of radiates (9.6%) minted between AD 260 and AD 296 which
is the lowest percentage of any of the excavation and survey sites discussed
here with the exception of the shrine at Claydon Pike (4%). Leaze Farm
also has the highest number of coins (6.8%) minted in the years from AD
388 to AD 402 and in addition it has a relatively high percentage of coins
(25.7%) from the years AD 364 to AD 378 which is again exceeded only by
the shrine at Claydon Pike (43.5%) and Campfield (59.1%). As noted above,
the significance of this very high percentage at Campfield is nullified
by the fact that the site yielded only 22 coins in total and they probably
represent a small hoard (see below).
The possibility that this somewhat anomalous pattern of fourth century
coin loss at Leaze Farm may reflect the presence of an unrecognized fourth-century
hoard has to be considered but can be rejected since the coins were found
scattered over a settlement area of c. four hectares. The fourth century
coin loss pattern at Leaze Farm is most like that of the shrine at Claydon
Pike and leads one to query whether this site also had some sort of ritual
function. As noted above for Claydon Pike, Lockyear’s statistical
analysis of Reece’s data from 140 sites shows a link between temple
sites and coins minted between AD 348 and AD 378 and Leaze Farm’s
total of 40.9% for these years is compatible with this pattern. The small
but relatively higher proportion of coins from AD 388 to AD 402 at Leaze
Farm is not high enough to distort this picture and certainly does not
rule out the possibility that some part of the site may have had a ritual
function.
Top of Page
Cottage Field (Table 2)
Although the nature of the site at Cottage Fields is unknown
and the number of coins recovered small (37) they range in date from a
first-century bronze coin of Vespasian to two coins of the years AD 388
to AD 402. There are no silver coins and only two bronze coins minted
before AD 192. The majority of the coins (79.5%) are concentrated in the
periods of peak loss as follows: AD 260- AD 296 (10 coins, 27%); AD 330-AD
348 (15 coins, 40.5%); AD 364-AD 378 (2 coins; 5.4%); AD 388-AD 402 (2
coins, 5.4%). This pattern is not incompatible with that for rural sites
established by Lockyear in his statistical analysis of the data from Reece’s
140 sites (Lockyear, 2000, 415 and 416, fig. 14; Reece 1991).
Wigmore (Table 3)
The 51 coins from Wigmore are surface finds collected from
a known cropmark site. Their chronological distribution is concentrated
in the years between AD 260 to AD 296 and AD 330 to AD 348 and declines
in the later fourth century with no finds securely datable after AD 378
and only one illegible coin of third or fourth century date. There is
one silver coin, the core of a plated denarius of Caracalla, minted between
AD 193 and AD 260 and two illegible bronzes of the first and second centuries
AD.
Top of Page
Campfield (Table 4)
The number of coins from Campfield (22) is small and we
do not know what sort of the site it was but since all of the coins are
from the fourth century and were minted between AD 330 and AD 378 and
the chronological distribution is concentrated in the years AD 364 to
AD 378 (13 coins, 59.1%) it seems likely that this group is a small hoard.
This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the finder has stated that
the coins were recovered from a small area. Of the remaining coins, three
(13.6%) belong in the years AD 330 to AD 348 and three (13.6%) in the
years AD 348 to AD 364. The rest are illegible fourth-century pieces.
There are no silver or early bronze coins.
Buscot (Table 5)
The nature of the site at Buscot is undetermined and only
four coins have been recovered which is far too small a sample on which
to base a valid chronological pattern of loss. However, the fact that
three of the four coins were minted between the years AD 330 and AD 360
and the last is an illegible fourth century piece may be worth noting.
Top of Page
Warrens Cross (Table 6)
We do not know what sort of site Warrens Cross was and the
small number of coins retrieved (18) gives little indication as to its
character although they do concentrate in the later third and fourth centuries.
They range in date from an illegible bronze coin of the second century
AD to the later fourth century AD. The only silver coin is an illegible
plated third century denarius minted between AD 193 and AD 260. In terms
of the periods of peak loss, three coins (16.6%) can be dated to the years
to AD 260 to AD 296 and four (22.2%) to the years AD 330 to AD 348. The
group ends with a piece of Valens from the period AD 364 to AD 378. There
are five illegible coins (27.7%) from the third or fourth centuries.
Kempsford Mill (Table 7)
The group of coins (42) from this site whose nature is
not known represent a small hoard since 81% of the identifiable coins
(34) were minted in the years between AD 260 and AD 296. There are no
silver coins, no early bronze coins and no identifiable fourth century
coins but some, if not all, of the eight illegible coins (19%) almost
certainly belong in the later third century as well.
Top of Page
The small finds by Hilary Cool
Introduction
Analysing the finds from the survey sites presents some
difficulties as it has not been possible to locate them for re-examination.
During the initial post-excavation campaign they had been recorded using,
as far as can be established, the same typology as was used for the Claydon
Pike finds. Approximately 20% of them also had some form of drawn record,
although the views drawn do not always provide the information needed
to identify the object. The methodology adopted in studying them has been
first to use the drawn record and then the typology where no illustration
existed. The particular type of item recorded as, for example, ‘Rivet
A’ or ‘Bracelet D’ was established by reference to the
Claydon Pike finds which had been studied by the author prior to examining
the records from these sites. In some cases the identity could rapidly
be established as there was a one to one correspondence between the original
type and the name I had assigned to those objects. Thus items identified
as Weights C and D were clearly steelyard weights. In other cases an identity
could be suggested on a balance of probabilities. Thus all but one of
the category ‘Weight H’ at Claydon Pike were lead whorls and
so that identification has been advanced here. In some cases though, the
same type had been used to identify a wide range of different artefact
types. In those cases no identification can be advanced.
The convention has been adopted that a simple name without brackets has
been identified from the drawing. One enclosed in single bracket (thus),
has been identified with a moderate degree of certainty from the typology
or because the identification is uncontentious such as (runoff) for melted
lead. For those cases where there is no way of checking the identification
and where the description may cover a variety of types the simple name
has been enclosed in double brackets ((thus)).
The material will be discussed as normal by functional category, though
given the constraints just outlined, the conclusions that can be drawn
from the material are more limited than they have been for the other assemblages
considered. The material is tabulated by functional category in Table
1. This includes all the metal small finds irrespective of suspected date.
The miscellaneous category is naturally very large. It contains not only
the items which might have a variety of functions such as rings and those
fragments for which no identification is possible, but also those items
that have to remain unidentified because of the constraints of the available
information.
Top of Page
Personal ornaments
The personal ornaments are summarised in Table 2. The absence
of hair pins, many of which would have been made of bone if present, and
the rarity of shoe furniture such as hobnails is to be expected in assemblages
which were primarily collected by metal detecting.
The earliest brooch present is a mid 1st century Hod Hill
brooch (260) of Hull type 63 with side wings at the top of the bow from
Leaze Farm. Interestingly the Colchester Derivative family which dominates
the brooch assemblages from the other sites that are part of this project
is entirely absent here. In this area it is the trumpet family that is
commonest. Leaze Farm produced two examples that are most likely to belong
to the local Hull Type 158D (247, 248) for which a 2nd century date seems
most likely, though dating evidence is scanty (see Somerford Keynes section
5.3, 95, 164 etc). Leaze Farm also produced one variant of a trumpet brooch
not otherwise represented at the Water Park sites (245). Hull initially
placed this type with the knee brooches (Hattatt 1985, 112 no. 444) but
as Webster has pointed out in discussing one from Usk the head form is
that of the Chester variant of trumpet brooch (Manning et al. 1995, 87
no. 57). It is a rare type with few from well-dated contexts. The Chester
type has a floruit of the late 1st into early 2nd century (see Somerford
Keynes section 5.3.3, 73, 75, 162 etc). The example from Usk was from
a pre-Flavian context. An elaborate example from Camerton was from a ditch
fill of the second half of the 2nd century (Wedlake 1958, 224 no. 17).
At present therefore only a broad 1st and 2nd century date can be proposed.
The other brooches that can be identified are 2nd century or later forms.
484 from Wigmore is a zoomorphic equal-ended brooch. This is a widespread
type found throughout the northern Roman provinces and may be dated to
the 2nd century (Hattatt 1987, 202 nos. 1099-1100). It is not a particularly
common find in Britain and though one was also found at Claydon Pike (2969)
is the only example from the Water Park sites. The discovery of 249 at
Leaze Farm is of some interest. Disc brooches with umbos such as this
(Hull Type 269 see Hattatt 1985, 147 no. 539) are a widespread type in
Britain, but seven were found in the Kingscote area. In discussing these
Mackreth (1998, 145 nos. 160-6) argued against considering them a south-western
type because there appeared to be no regional concentration on the area
if the Kingscote ones were disregarded. The form does, however, appear
to have been popular in this area. The one in the Hattatt collection was
found near Cirencester, for example. A 3rd century brooch is also present
at Leaze Farm (264). The combination of the drawing and the description
of the object being 'gilded and glass inlaid' strongly suggests that this
is a gilded disc brooch (Hattatt 1987, 253).
Other brooch fragments were found at Cottage Field (609 - 610) and Leaze
Farm (291). These are likely to have been fragments of pins and springs
or foot fragments. It is not possible to suggest any identification for
the only brooch from Whelford Mill (405).
Bracelets (Figs 8.2.1 and 8.2.2)
Cable twist bracelets were recovered on Leaze Farm (259, 280, 363, 364).
The same site produced fragments from light bangles (256-7) and also one
from a multiple unit bracelet (258). As discussed on the Claydon Pike
report, the last two categories are certainly of 4th century date and
cable twist bracelets too were commonest at that time. Other fragments
from light bangles or multiple unit bracelets include 365-6, from the
same site, 611 from Cottage Field and 585 from Campfield.
Finger rings (Fig. 8.2.2)
All of the finger rings were recovered on Leaze Farm. Two (250, 252) have
box bezels and scalloped shoulders. This is a widespread late Roman form
(see Claydon Pike 2645, 654). The third ring from the site has an expanded
bezel which appears to have a frame around the setting. Though the basic
form of the ring is a common 1st to 3rd century one, the frame would be
most unusual and a more recent date might be suspected.
Buckle and Belt plates
These were commonly recorded in the assemblages but very few were illustrated.
In the case of the three that were, a Roman or medieval date cannot be
advanced with any certainty for 467 from Wigmore and 260 from Leaze Farm,
and seems most unlikely for 460 from Wigmore. The others in this category,
615 from Cottage Field and 262-3 from Leaze Farm were not illustrated
and no identification can be advanced.
Other items
Of the other items recovered, a Roman date can be advanced for the hobnail
359 from Leaze Farm and the silver object 266 from the same site. The
features illustrated on the latter are consistent with it coming from
an item of jewellery as such fluted flanges are found surrounding the
box bezels of late 2nd to 3rd century rings and brooches (see Henig 1981,
129 pl 8.1 nos 6, 8 and 9; Marshall 1911, 340 nos 2871-2). The copper
alloy ‘bead’ 466 recorded from Wigmore is unfortunately not
illustrated. Metal beads are rare within a Roman milieu but it may be
noted that copper alloy barrel beads were recovered from Claydon Pike
(2630, 2699) and Somerford Keynes (1036). It is tempting, but of course
entirely speculative, to suggest that 466 was another example. It may
be noted that such barrel beads are found on 2nd to 3rd century military
sites.
Top of Page
The only item in this category was a nail cleaner from site
Leaze Farm (294). This has a decorated knob head and cross-hatched shank.
It seems to be a more elaborate example of the type Crummy (2001) has
noted an early south-western form, examples of which have been found in
a pre-Flavian context at Cirencester and one of the second half of the
2nd century at Wilcote. A 1st or 2nd century date may therefore be proposed.
Top of Page
This is a particularly problematic category. Six of the
items were originally identified as vessels or vessels fragments (485,
445, 459 from Wigmore, 403, 404 from Kempsford Mill, 551 from Warrens
Cross) but none are illustrated and it is not possible to either confirm
or reject the identifications, or to suggest what date the pieces might
be.
The other item is a spoon handle from Leaze Farm (293) for which a late
Roman date is most likely.
Weighing Equipment
The presence of lead steelyard weights at Leaze Farm and
Kempsford Mill can be strongly suspected as, though none are illustrated,
they were assigned to a category in the initial post-excavation analysis
which was always used for such items at Claydon Pike. There were four
from the first site (282, 306-8) and one from the second (381).
Top of Page
Of particular interest is the fragment of a wax writing
tablet recovered during the salvage excavations at Green Farm (677). Though
fragmentary the presence of the raised rim around three sides is completely
diagnostic of a stylus tablet (see for example Birley et al 1993, pl XX
and XXI).
The other item in this category appears to be a seal matrix from Wigmore
(469). This seems most likely to be of post-medieval date.
Transport
The only item in this category is a fragment from the arm
of a horseshoe (553 from Warrens Cross) which is certainly post Roman.
Top of Page
Structural Finds
As can be seen from Table 1 the structural finds are concentrated
at Green Farm. This is almost certainly a product of the method of recovery
as it was at that site that salvage excavation was carried out as opposed
to surface survey. Most of the finds are recorded as having been iron
nails, but there is also a possible joiner’s dog from Leaze Farm
(349) and double spiked loops from Wigmore (483) and Green Farm (663).
Tools
Three knives are recorded amongst the finds assemblage from
Leaze Farm. By comparison to the Claydon Pike typology it is likely that
two (357-8) were examples of Manning (1985) Type 11 knives and one (350)
might have come from either that type or have been a Manning (1985) Type
21. Both are common Roman forms. The original post-excavation records
record an axe (351) and part of a set of shears (354) from Leaze Farm,
and a hammer (667) from Green Farm. It is not possible to either confirm
or reject these identifications, or to suggest what date the pieces might
be.
Top of Page
Fasteners
The fasteners recorded from the survey sites are summarised
in Table 3. Many are not illustrated, and in the case of several that
are, for example the mounts 538 from Buscot and 468 from Wigmore, a relatively
modern date is likely. With the exception of the pottery repairs in the
form of clamps and plugs, a Roman date cannot be confirmed in the case
of many. The presence of pottery repairs (Fig. 8.2.3) on five of the sites
continues the trend seen on many of the Water Park sites.
Agriculture
Two items of agricultural equipment were recovered from
Leaze Farm. One (297) is clearly post Roman as it is a medieval or post
medieval rumbler bell (Hume 1970, 58). The other is recorded as a plough
coulter (345). The date of this is unknown but the probability must be
high that it was modern.
Top of Page
Leaze Farm produced two items of late Roman military equipment
(261 and 285). Both are Tortworth style strap ends (Clarke 1979, 281)
in use during the second half of the 4th century and possibly into the
5th century. They are a widely distributed form found as far north as
Traprain Law and in the east at Canterbury (Ager 1988, 27 - with references
to many others). Others from the Gloucestershire area include the eponymous
Tortworth example and three from Cirencester (Paddock 1998, 306). 261
has a triangular perforated butt like the Tortworth example. The D-shaped
perforated ring on 287 is less common though two from Wanborough, have
similar straight-sided necks to this example though lack their terminals
(Hooley 2001, 85 nos. 52-3).
The drawing from 347, also from Leaze Farm, is consistent with the item
being a socketed spearhead. Most spear-heads, however, are much larger.
It is possible that this should be regarded as a deliberate miniature
which would remove it from the realms of military into the those of religion.
The fourth item included in this category (613 from Cottage Field) is
much more speculative. There is no drawing and it was described as ‘Stud
E’ in the original recording. At Claydon Pike, three of the four
items described in this way were military fittings of the of the later
2nd to 3rd centuries.
Top of Page
Metalworking
668 from Green Farm is recorded as being crucible residue
and of lead alloy. This may be indicative of lead alloy. Alternately it
may have just have been molten lead runoff as was the case for a similarly
described piece from Claydon Pike.
Miscellaneous
The miscellaneous material will not be considered in any
detail because there are so many uncertainties about it. It may, however,
be noted that lead whorls seem to have been present in some quantity on
Leaze Farm (15 likely examples) and were also present on Kempsford Mill
(3 examples).
Top of Page
Overview
The largest group of finds came from Leaze Farm and for
this site they can provide some insights into the date of occupation.
The brooch assemblage ranges from a mid 1st century Hod Hill brooch to
a 3rd century gilded disc brooch, but the main focus of the brooches is
on 2nd and 3rd century forms. It does not suggest much occupation in the
1st century. Metal detecting is very good at recovering bow brooches and,
as will be clear from the brooch assemblages for the other Water Park
sites, this is an area where brooches were worn and lost in large numbers
during the 1st century. The absence of the normally ubiquitous Colchester
Derivatives is probably a good chronological indicator. The 2nd to 3rd
century date is also supported by items such as the silver jeweller item
and probably by the finger rings which are not uncommon in the 3rd century
though still in use in the 4th. Fourth century occupation is indicated
by the bracelets and a late 4th century presence is demonstrated by the
strap ends. Whether these indicate a military presence though is open
to question. As discussed in the Somerford Keynes report, such items are
very common in this area and may merely indicate an elite who had adopted
military trappings.
It is difficult to evaluate the nature of the occupation from an assemblage
such as this, but there are some hints that it rose above a basic level
rural establishment. The silver jewellery element 266 came from a fashionable
item, and indicates higher than normal spending power. By the 3rd century
most of the population had stopped wearing brooches, and the large circular
gilded brooches such as 264 would have stood out as a flamboyant statement
and possibly a distinguishing mark on whoever wore it.
Too few finds come from the other sites for them to cast useful light
on the nature of the occupation at them, but a brooch at Wigmore indicates
a 2nd century presence and the bracelets at Cottage Field and Campfield
a 4th century one.
Top of Page
Bibliography
Ager, B.M., 1988. ‘Late roman belt-fittings from Canterbury’,
Archaeologia Cantiana 104 (1987), 25-31.
Birley, E., Birley, R., and Birley, A., 1993. The Early Wooden Forts.
Reports on the Auxiliaries, the Writing Tablets, Inscriptions, Brands
and Graffiti. Vindolands Research Reports, New Series II (Hexham)
Clarke, G., 1979. The Roman cemetery at Lankhills, Winchester Studies
3 Pre-Roman and Roman Winchester Part II (Oxford)
Hattatt, R., 1985. Iron Age and Roman Brooches, (Oxford)
Hattatt, R., 1987. Brooches of Antiquity, (Oxford).
Henig, M., 1981.’Continuity and change in the design of Roman jewellery’
in King, A. and Henig, M. (eds) The Roman West in the Third Century BAR
International Series 109 (Oxford), 127-43.
Holbrook, N., (ed) 1998. Cirencester. The Roman Town Defences, Public
Buildings and Shops Cirencester Excavations V (Cirencester).
Hume, I.N., 1970. A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America (New York),
Mackreth, D, 1998, ‘Copper-alloy brooches (Site 1, Site 2 and field-walking)’
in Timby, J.R., Excavations at Kingscote and Wycomb, Gloucestershire,
(Cirencester), 113-49.
Manning, W. H., 1985. Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools, Fittings
and Weapons in the British Museum, (London)
Manning, W.H., Price, J. and Webster, J., 1995. Report on the excavations
at Usk 1965-1976. The Roman Small Finds (Cardiff)
Marshall, F.H., 1911. Catalogue of the Jewellery Greek, Etruscan and Roman
in the Departments of Antiquities British Museum (London 1969 reprint)
Paddock, J.M., 1998. ‘Military equipment’ in Holbrook (ed.),
305-7.
Wedlake, W.J., 1958. Excavations at Camerton, Somerset (Camerton)
Top of Page
|