SECTION 3.4::CLAYDON PIKE SMALL FINDS by Hilary CoolPERSONAL ORNAMENTS
ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH WIEGHING AND MEASURING ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSPORT STRUCTURAL ITEMS FROM BUILDINGS TOOLS AND EVIDENCE FOR CRAFT AND INDUSTRY OVERVIEW IntroductionThis report deals with all the small finds from Claydon Pike other than the coins and the objects made from stone. In total 2652 items are considered here (see Table 1). This consists of all the material that could be assigned typologically to a medieval or earlier date and all material that was stratified in Period 4 or earlier contexts. Unstratified undiagnostic items such as featureless fragments of metal, and post medieval and modern items have been excluded from consideration. It should be noted that approximately a quarter of the material, primarily iron, could not be personally inspected as the material was inaccessible during the period of study. Information about these items is derived from the x-radiographs and such drawings as had been made of the items during the earlier post excavation programme. In some cases it was impossible to identify the items securely by these means and reliance had to be placed on the identifications made during the 1980s. In the database such entries are indicated by having the simple name placed in brackets. Thus hobnail has been securely identified but (hobnail) indicates a degree of uncertainty. In some cases it was no longer possible to read the find number on the bags of finds. This generally affected the ironwork. Again original identification on the database had to be accepted in default of secure identification. In this report the material will first be summarised by function. This part will provide basic date and distribution information about the objects. The second part will look at the material within the context of Claydon Pike. As with the other small finds reports the full consideration of what the finds are telling us about the site will be reserved for the overall consideration of all the finds from all the sites being considered by this project (Print Chapter 13). Personal OrnamentsBroochesBrooches were the commonest item of jewellery found (see Table 2). Many of them were types that were also found at Somerford Keynes. Given that an extensive brooch report has been written for that large assemblage, detailed typological comment is not appropriate here and the reader is referred to the Somerford Keynes report for the detailed considerations of the types. In what follows the conclusions will just be summarised, and only forms not represented there are provided with more detailed comment. Early to mid-1st century forms (Figure 3.4.1a: Early to mid-1st century forms)Colchester – Hull Type 90 Amongst the pre-conquest brooches the most interesting one is the single example of a Kragenfibeln (1045) from a Phase 2 context in Trench 13 which is clearly a pre-Conquest continental import (Feugére 1985, 245 type 10). In general on the continent they are known from the mid 1st century BC, but most are found in contexts belonging to the end of the 1st century BC and into the 1st century AD. This example is unusual because it appears to be hinged and this form is only encountered rarely (Hattatt 1987, 31). The three Colchester brooches (Hull type 90 - 2802, 193, 2402) are indicative of pre-conquest occupation as the type in general had probably ceased to be made by the conquest. These were either found residually (2802 from a Phase 2D ditch fill) or were unstratified. The Nauheim Derivative brooches could also suggest early occupation though their floruit did continue post-Conquest. There are two examples of the simple wire form of Hull Type 11 (618, 3033), one of the possibly Atrebatic Hull Type 10D with a very narrow lower bow (18) and one where only the spring and pin were extant (2612). One of the wire examples (3033) had the less commonly encountered central mouldings. This brooch was the only one found stratified but was clearly residual in the Phase 3b/c ditch fill. It should be noted that there may also be an iron Nauheim Derivative in the assemblage (1893). This piece was originally identified as such but I have not been able to re-examine it and the drawn and X-radiograph evidence is ambiguous. It was found in a Phase 3 gully and again would be residual if the identification is correct. The evidence from the Durotrigian Strip bow brooches is more ambiguous with regard to the pre-Conquest occupation. There is only a single example of Hull Type 12 with a tapering bow (635) but two of Hull Type 53 with the narrow lower bow and footknob (659, 989). The latter form was not represented at Somerford Keynes. This variant is a British imitation of the Aucissa type (Hattatt 1987, 74) and as such most likely to be post-Conquest as that is the period when the majority of the Aucissas were in use in Britain. It is possible that the context in which the fragmentary 989 was found may have been broadly contemporary with the likely floruit of the brooch (i.e. c. AD 43 to c. AD 75) as it was the fill of a Phase 2c enclosure ditch. 635 from a phase 3 context is clearly residual while 659 was unstratified. The other two brooches for which a pre-Conquest date is possible are the rosette brooch (Hull Type 27 - 2993), for which a date during the second quarter of the 1st century is appropriate and the Birdlip brooch (1279). The latter form was not found at Somerford Keynes. The form is not well dated but an early to mid 1st century date seems most likely (Hattatt 1989, 20; Mackreth 1998, 131). They are certainly not common in post-Conquest assemblages. Despite the form taking its name from a Gloucestershire site, this is a form with a widespread distribution the majority having been found in the east (Hattatt 1989, fig. 8 – though more could now be added for the Gloucestershire region now) Both this example and the rosette brooch were unstratified. Mid to late 1st century forms (Fig. 3.4.1b: Mid 1st century forms)The commonest mid 1st century (post-Conquest) form was represented by the Hod Hill brooch. There were four examples all of different variants (2597 – Hull Type 62; 51 – Hull type 63; 1612 – Hull Type 74; 2519 – fragmentary). All were found either residually in Phase 3 or 4 contexts or were unstratified. The only other brooch that can be assigned to this period with certainty is an unstratified Aesica (Hull Type 37 – 646), but it should be noted that several of the Colchester Derivatives discussed in the next session are also variants that are most likely to have been in use in the mid 1st century. Mid 1st to 2nd century forms (Figs 3.4.1c: Mid 1st to 2nd century forms, 3.4.1d: Late 1st to mid 2nd century forms and 3.4.1e: 1st/2nd century AD forms)This category is dominated by the Colchester Derivative family. The basic form is represented by six brooches. Two are examples of Hull Type 92 with the cavetto moulding on front of their bows (1194, 3031), the others belong to Hull Type 93 (2779, 1430, 2976, 2908). Interestingly both of the Type 92 brooches and two of the Type 93 (2779, 1430) have their springs held by rearward facing hooks which would suggest a mid 1st century date rather than one later in the century. The other two have the more efficient Harlow method of spring attachment and could be later. 3031 came from a phase 2/3 context and 2976 from a Phase 3 one and both could be contemporary with their contexts. As is to be expected in this area, it is the Polden Hill form of Colchester Derivative that is most numerous here. There is a single example of the light Polden Hill form (Hull Type 97 - 674) belonging to the mid 1st century and which appears commonest in south Wales. The commonest Polden Hill variant here is the form with the stepped flanges on the upper bow (Hull Type 103) for which a date range of c. AD 65 – 125 seems most likely. Two of these have the decorated return plate which seems to be a feature of the Gloucestershire area (334, 733) but this is absent on the third (385). The form that was commonest at Somerford Keynes (Hull 98 variant – with transversely nicked crest ridge, perforated catch plate) is represented by at most two examples here (1386, 1722 – the latter obscured by corrosion and the identification not secure). 755 may also be related but lacks the normal perforated catchplate. 2200 by contrast seems to belong to the standard Polden Hill Hull Type 98. There are also two Polden Hill brooches that show elements of hybridisation with other brooch types. The heavily corroded 2682 has heavy mouldings and like Somerford Keynes 78 has a central moulding that may hint at a relationship with trumpet brooches. 183 has enamelled decoration and a sharply angled head and could either be viewed either as a variant of a Polden Hill or of the T-shaped brooch form Hull Type 110. Two of these brooches came from Phase 2 contexts (183, 755) and one (674) came from a general Phase 3 spread; the rest were either unstratified or from unphased contexts. In addition to the brooches which could be assigned to a particular variant there were a further three (532, 782, 1510) which were too corroded for this to be possible. The six lower bow fragments (441, 951, 1103, 2833, 3036, 3074) are also likely to have come from the Colchester Derivative family. 3036 is noteworthy as it has a decorated return to the catchplate. Late 1st to mid 2nd century forms (Fig. 3.4.1f: 2nd century AD forms)Lower Severn T-shaped brooches are represented by three examples, all unstratified. 1766 is a Hull Type 110 and 738 is a Hull Type 122. The latter shows the typical casting flaw often seen on these brooches where the headloop is obscured by a thin film of metal indicative of the fact that though the brooches had headloops, they were probably not worn chained in pairs. 2639 has affinities to Type 122 but has the decorated return to the catchplate typical of the Gloucestershire area, and it is likely that is did not come from the same source that produced the standard Hull Type 122 which are a very homogeneous group. The only trumpet brooch in the assemblage is an example of a Hull Type 154, the local Chester type (878) from a Phase 3 layer of cobbles. The makers of the very ungainly 707 and 722 though appear to have been influenced by the trumpet brooches as the central mouldings could be viewed as an extreme acanthus. They are examples of plate-headed T-shaped brooches (Hull Type 140). They seem very likely to have been made as a pair though they were not found together, 722 coming from the fill of a large ditch to the west of Trench 17 and 707 coming from the general cleaning level in Trench 17. The ditch fill is not closely dated so unfortunately these provide no useful information to help resolve the dating of this poorly understood type. As noted when discussing the examples from Somerford Keynes, this is a type whose main distribution has hitherto been to the south of Gloucestershire. There is one example of an equal-ended plate brooch with zoomorphic terminals (2969) found residually in a Phase 4 gully. This is an example of a Hull Type 228, a basic form that is widespread throughout the western Empire with an overall date range of the later 1st to later 2nd century (Riha 1979, 191 Typ 7.16). The form is likely to have been made a numerous centres and it is not currently possibly to refine the dating for the numerous variants. This example is likely to have been very similar to one found in Norfolk (Hattatt 1985,154 no. 560) with alternating blocks of enamel in the now empty outer central cell. Second century and later forms (Fig. 3.4.1g: 2nd century and later forms)A small number of brooches all from unstratified contexts can be assigned to the 2nd century or later. 3039 is an example of an oval enamelled disc brooch (Hull Type 250), a 2nd century British form (Mackreth 1985, 297 no. 41). 2424 is a fragmentary lugged disc brooch (Hull type 262). In general this is a form that is of 2nd century date continuing into the 3rd century (see for example Mackreth 1995, 977 no. 104; 1998, 145). The third plate brooch (1253) is a less common form (Hull type 258). This is a relatively rare British type (Hattatt 1985, 146 no. 538). The paucity of examples makes dating difficult but the presence of one in a rubbish deposit in Turret 18B on Hadrians Wall (Woodfield 1965, 89) where there is no evidence of activity after Wall Period 1 would suggest they were in use during the second quarter of the 2nd century. 2577 is an example of a cockerel brooch (Hull Type 214). These have a wide distribution in Britain but the dating is not very exact. A 2nd century date is most likely (Crummy 1983, 15 nos. 75-6) There is also a single example of an enamelled knee brooch (2549 - Hull Type 173). This is a British form (Hattatt 1987, 263) with a later 2nd to 3rd century floruit. Miscellaneous brooch fragmentsIn addition to the brooches discussed there is a very corroded bow brooch that cannot be assigned to a type (655), numerous fragments of pins (151, 152, 169, 515, 535, 586, 748, 1051, 1505, 2149, 2598) and two copper alloy spring fragments (728, 1821) and possibly one of iron (2878). A pin from a Phase 3 context (364) is especially noteworthy as it is the only possible evidence for the presence of penannular brooches on the site. Brooch summaryThe brooches are summarised by date and period in Table 3, and by date and area they were recovered from in Table 4. These show a strong mid 1st century presence reflecting the pre-conquest origin of the occupation in Trench 13. This is missing for the brooches in Trench 17. The profile of the small brooch assemblage from Trench 29 is more similar to that from Trench 17 than from Trench 13. Interestingly the brooch assemblage from Trench 13 looks more ‘cosmopolitan’ in its earliest stages (equating to the earlier part of the Phase 2 occupation) than it does for the period when it is suggested it became an official Roman settlement complex. It is the earlier material that suggests the widest contacts containing as it does the Durotrigian strip bow brooches, the Kragenfibeln and the Birdlip brooch. The later 1st and 2nd century occupation on this site provides a curiously impoverished brooch assemblage. Bracelets (Figs 3.4.2a: Twisted, penannular and expanding bracelets, 3.4.2b: Light bangles , 3.4.2c: Light Bangles, 3.4.2d: Miscellaneous bracelets/fragments, 3.4.2e: Shale bracelets and 3.4.2f: Glass bangle )Bracelet wearing was a fashion of the late Roman period in Britain and most bracelets belong to the late 3rd or 4th centuries with earlier examples being relatively rare. Large quantities of bracelet fragments are not uncommon from late Roman sites reflecting the fashion for wearing several bracelets at a time (see Somerford Keynes section 5.3). Bracelets were the second commonest item of jewellery at Claydon Pike (see Table 5) and, with the exception of a single fragment of a glass bangle, all could be of late Roman date. This is reflected in the contexts they were found in as none come from an unambiguous Phase 2 context. Cable twist bracelets are the single most common type bracelet from Roman Britain (Cool 1983, 120 Group I). They are represented here by 12 examples (9, 614, 820, 885, 1202, 1432, 1683, 1756, 1928, 2161, 2790 and 2861). They are known in early Roman contexts but by far the majority of them come from 4th century contexts. There are slight hints that those where the wires forming them are made of different alloys may be early in the sequence. 1683 appears to fall into this category judged by the differential corrosion products but was found in a Phase 4 context so an early date for it cannot be proven. Expanding bracelets (2170, 2404) have a similar date profile to the cable twist ones (ibid 130, Group III) as do the torc twisted bracelets (181, 539, 809, 839, 3037). For the latter group (ibid 135, Group IV) it is possible to refine the dating if the terminals are present. This is only the case here for 809 and 3037, both of which would have had hook and eye terminals and so can be assigned to the later 3rd to 4th century with some certainty. As already discussed in the Somerford Keynes report, penannular bracelets occur intermittently throughout the Roman period (Cool 1983, 138 Groups 5 to 8). Here there are two examples of the plain variety (879, 1726,), and two with terminals decorated by ribs and grooves (172, 3095). There are also two fragments where the terminals are missing (2508, 2820). None can be independently dated closely. Most 4th century bracelets belong to the light bangle tradition (Cool 1983, 152) and so it is of no surprise to see so many examples here. What is slightly unusual are the types present. These bracelets come with numerous different decorative patterns. In my 1983 survey I noted 17 major divisions, often with several sub-types in each. In the two decades or more since I completed that work many more have been published, but the pattern has not materially altered. Table 6 compares the Claydon Pike light bangles to the overall figures derived from Cool 1983. As can be seen one of the commonest types normally found with zig-zag decoration is virtually shunned and overwhelmingly those with dotted decoration were preferred. This is interesting as normally it is very difficult to pick out any regional patterns in these bracelets, but these figures might hint at a preferred design by a local workshop. Other 4th century bracelets in the assemblage include two fragments (598, 1231) from the multiple unit style of bracelet (Cool 1983, 181 Group 31) and one fragment of a perforated bracelet (1957). The latter is from a relatively small group which has a predominantly south-western distribution (Swift 2000, 163). There is also a slender plain hook and eye bracelet (10 - ibid 1983, 196 Group 34). There are hints that the latter type may have been more popular in the later part of the century. Another later 4th century type is the bone bracelet 2819. Such bracelets (MacGregor 1985, 112) are known to have been in use earlier in the century but seem to have been particularly popular in the later 4th century and into the 5th (Cool 2000, 49). There are also five bracelets made of black shiny material. Two are simple annular shale bracelets (1812, 2996). These were in use throughout the Roman period (Lawson 1976, 248). The three jet bracelets are late Roman. 1820 is a fragment from an elaborate chip-carved jet annular bracelet (Allason-Jones 1996, 30). 2131 is from a bracelet made of beads. These are normally elliptical (see Allason-Jones 1996, 27-8 nos 26-37) but gadrooned hemispherical ones are known (cf Lawson 1976, 244 no. 4), and have been found forming a bracelet from the East Cemetery at London (Barber and Bowsher 2000, 197 no. B452.2). It is likely that the transversely pierced pyramidal bead (3114) is also from a bracelet. Four similar beads were found in a grave belonging to the first half of the 4th century at Kelvedon (Rodwell 1988, 76, fig. 61 no. 2). There was no information about the position of the beads in relation to the body but there were no other beads with them and it seems unlikely that they were part of a necklace. Transversely pierced rectangular beads of a slightly different type were certainly used to form bracelets as can be seen from one in another London grave (Barber and Bowsher 2000, 166 no. 291.2-4) Finally the unstratified glass bangle (103) can be considered here, though it should be noted that these annular rings were not necessarily worn as bracelets like the rest of the items discussed in this section (see Price 1988, 354). It is an example of a Kilbride-Jones (1938) type 2 bangle of a relatively rare variant with two central cords and two edge cords. Price (1988, 345) has noted that the only close parallels appear to be two from Yorkshire. A mid to late 1st century date would be most appropriate for its manufacture but fragments of these bangles do appear to have been curated as charms so it may have been lost or deposited some time after that date. Table 7 shows the distribution of the bracelets across the different areas excavated. Given that most of them are of late Roman date, this table is a good indication of 4th century occupation which can be seen to be widespread. Attention may be drawn to the late 4th century forms present on sites 5 and 19. Finger rings (Figs 3.4.3a: Phase 2-3 rings and 3.4.3b: Phase 4 rings)The finger rings recovered at Claydon Pike span the whole Roman period. The earliest ones are the simple expanded form which was primarily a medium for carrying an intaglio, rather than a simple item of jewellery (Henig 1978, 47 types II and III; Cool 1983, 226 Type IV). In general these were in use in the 1st and 2nd century and into the 3rd century. One example (1080) is of iron and retains its glass intaglio. The device is of an eagle with wings displayed, standing on a thunderbolt (Fulmen) with a globe below. Dr Henig contributes the following note suggesting a 1st century date for the piece.The combination of eagle, thunderbolt and globe is to be seen on an agate intaglio from Aldborough (Isurium Brigantium) in Yorkshire (Henig 1978, 105, 293). Eagles are birds of Jupiter (as the thunderbolt emphasises) and also symbols of Rome (see Tacitus, Ann. II, XVII, and as intaglios showing fulmen-holding eagles on alters ornamented with the Lupa Romana suckling Romulus and Remus make clear; Zwielein-Diehl, 1979, 82, Toynbee 1973, 240-42). The theme of world rule was appropriate both to Jupiter and to his beloved Rome (Vergil, Aeneid VI, 847-53). Close comparison may be made between the eagle on the Claydon Pike paste and the eagles on gems from Ham Hall, Somerset and Hod Hill, Dorset, where the wings are also displayed (Henig 1978, 269 No. 696, 271 No. 708). Intaglios of clear and translucent coloured glass are most common in the early days of the Empire (except for the green and blue Romano-British imitations) and the form of the ring confirms a 1st century dating. Another glass intaglio (2058) also has a device that would seem to allude to themes popular within the Roman world. Here it depicts clasped right hands (dextrarum iunctio) depicted schematically. They clasp two cornucopiae - that on the right complete but of the left only an upper corner remains. Above them is a lighted altar. Of this piece Dr Henig writes;- Intaglios showing fortunate symbols were common in the Roman period, especially in the 1st century BC and 1st century AD when pastes of this type were mass produced. Dr Marie-Louise Vollenwieber may well be right that their primary purpose was as symbols of political allegiance, the altar invoking not merely pietas towards the gods but the veneration of the genius of Augustus in the abundance of the Pax Augusta (Vollenweider 1979, 382-4, Nos 428-29, pl 116). The clasped hands add a symbol of good faith and harmony (ibid, 411-13, Nos 466-68, pl 121). Also note, for hands clasping cornucopiae, Maaskart-Kleibrink, 1978, 205, pl 87, no 464, and cornucopiae with a lighted altar Zwierlein-Diehl 1979, 83 pl 51. A third, exact parallel occurs at Wroxeter (G Webster pers comm). Of these two pieces he goes on to note;- We cannot ascribe to personal possessions like signet gems the same certainty of ownership that we must acknowledge for a military buckle, but it is most probable that two of these intaglios belonged to soldiers who owed especial veneration to his unit's standards, to Jupiter, and more generally, to Rome. Indeed, eagles, sometimes with standards are often shown on signet-gems found on fort sites. A 1st century date is thus appropriate for each though they were found in a Phase 3 and a Phase 3 to 4 context in Trench 13 respectively. Finger rings with intaglios could, of course, remain in use for years after they were made and it seems likely that they will have arrived on the site after the change of use given the possible military overtones of the devices and the fact that in 1080 the ring itself is of iron. This shows that the owner was adhering to the sumptuary laws which forbade gold rings to people below Senatorial or Equestrian level (Henig 1978, 47). Such attention to the legal niceties would seem more appropriate to someone from a Roman rather than a native background. Two other simple expanded rings were found unstratified. 2700 has a glass intaglio which shows a poorly preserved standing figure, and 1452 has simple moulded decoration. It is not possible to place either more closely within the 1st to 3rd century period. A fifth might be represented by 2263 from a Phase 2 context in Trench 13, but the piece is much corroded and identification is not secure. The other rings were made in the later Roman period. There are two examples (2792, 2882) of one of the typical ring forms of the 3rd century, those with triangular shoulders (Cool 1983, 253 Group XIV). These were found unstratified on Trench 19 and from a Phase 4 context on Trench 29. There is also two unstratified examples of rings with scalloped shoulders (1072, 1914). This type (Cool 1983, 259 Group XVI) is not closely dated within the 3rd to 4th century period, but both of these rings have moulded glass intaglios which were a 3rd century form (Henig 1978, 164). 2421 is an example of a key ring. These small lever lock keys (Cool 1983, 245 Group XI) were used for small caskets (see for example Crummy 1983, 83 fig. 90) during the 3rd to 4th centuries. In the 4th century there was a tradition of light decorative trinket rings. At Claydon Pike all the identified examples were found unstratified, There are two examples (2645 and 654) of the pronged bezel type (Cool 1983, 266 Group XIX) which appears to have been most popular in the early to mid 4th century and to have been an insular variety. The same form was used as an earring (Allason-Jones 1989, 3 Type 2b) but both of these examples are annular rings more likely to have been worn in the finger. The expanded ring with outward loops (2684) is another 4th century decorative type (Cool 1983, 224 Group IB). 2627 is very corroded but appears to be an example of the form which is ribbed all around the hoop (Cool 1983, 268 Group XXA) which probably came into use in the 3rd century. Finally amongst the metal the silver ring 410 may be noted. It comes from a context attributed to a Phase 3 context but appears to be of relatively modern date. There is also a fragment of a jet finger ring (1729). This was found in a context assigned to Phase 2C in Trench 13. It should be noted that most jet jewellery belongs to the late Roman period and this would be an unusually early date. A jet finger ring similar to this is known, however, from a 2nd century context at York (Allason-Jones 1996, 37 no. 170). Necklaces, beads and pendants (Figs 3.4.4a: Phase 2 beads, 3.4.4b: Phase 3 beads and 3.4.4c: Phase 4 beads)Necklaces with small glass beads are represented by two necklace fasteners (747, 2766) a wire element (32), and 27 glass beads, one of which (1840) appears to retain a fragment of copper alloy wire. On the whole small beads start to appear in Romano-British contexts from the later 2nd century but are much more numerous in later 3rd and 4th century ones, and it is clear that necklace wearing only became a common fashion in the later Roman period. Good groups of beads from contexts of the second half of the 2nd century are known from the Caerleon Baths (Brewer 1986) and the vicus at Castleford (Cool and Price 1998, 181-9). Examples of beads from Claydon Pike which can be paralleled in these groups, and so which could date from the later 2nd century onwards include the short blue biconical beads (676, 910, 1995, 2413, 2964), the cubic blue beads (1840, 2056), the small ovoid beads mainly in blue and blue/green (170, 553, 1758, 2133, 2356, 2578, 2963), and the long rectangular blue/green bead 1803. It is noticeable that segmented beads such 1678 and 2793 are missing from these assemblages suggesting they came into use later. There are also a group of beads that appear to belong to the later 4th or 5th century. Four opaque green disc cylindrical beads were found in Trench 13. One came from a Phase 3 context (634) and three from Phase 4 ones (972, 1409, and 2586). This was a late 4th to 5th century form (Cool 2000, 50). It is possible that a similar date may be attributed to two other disc cylindrical beads in unusual colours, 15 in opaque blue/green and 47 which appears black, as it has been noted that unusual colour / shape combinations seem to be a feature of this period (op cit.). ‘Black’ beads too are rare in Roman contexts and more likely to occur in 5th century or later ones. Other unusual colour /shape combinations which might be candidates for a late date are the peacock globular bead (2483), the turquoise long cylindrical bead (2524), and the red striped green bead (732) though it may be noted that all of these three came from contexts attributed to Phase 3 in Trench 13. There was also one jet bead (1843) that is most likely to have come from a late Roman necklace given its length though shorter cylindrical beads are known to have been used in bracelets as well (Barber and Bowsher 2000, 148 B168.4). In addition to the beads used on the late Roman necklaces, there are also several glass beads which belong to the earlier tradition of large annular beads. 855 from a Phase 2 context in Trench 13 is an example of Guido's (1978) Class 9b which may have came into use during the first century BC and certainly died out soon after the end of the first century AD. Price (in Manning et al 1995, 105), however, has pointed out that most are found on early Roman sites so a pre-conquest origin is not certain. The occurrence of 855 at the site also adds to the concentration of Class 9 beads which is noticeable in the Somerset and Bristol Channel region which may represent a factory or entrepot in the area (Guido 1978, 77). Beads of Class 9b have cables of various colours marvered into a deep blue ground. On 855 the cable is of translucent deep blue and opaque white glass, a colour combination which also occurs on Class 9b beads from Silchester and Glastonbury (ibid 1978, 186 -87), and from Usk (Manning et al 1995, 107 no. 2). The unstratified 48, though made after the Roman conquest, is in the pre-Roman tradition of bead making as it is a large, polychrome, annular bead. It is made from re-used Roman glass, almost certainly derived from marbled pillar moulded bowls. Pieces from two different vessels have been used to form the bead. One had a translucent purple ground with opaque white marbling and opaque yellow chips, the other had a translucent green/blue (peacock) ground with opaque white marbling. The use of these two colour combinations is interesting as both are rare amongst the polychrome marbled pillar moulded bowls known from Britain. The combination of purple and white is not uncommon, but the combination of purple, white and opaque yellow is. The use of peacock green glass as a ground colour for pillar moulded bowls is also most unusual and the only other occurrence appears to be a small fragment with white marbling from Chichester (Price and Cool 1989, 137 no. CM 3). Polychrome pillar moulded bowls are not uncommon on mid first century sites but were going out of use at that time. A mid 1st century would thus be most likely for the manufacture of this bead from considerations of both the availability of the raw materials and the tradition of bead making which it is part of. Curiously fragments of polychrome vessel glass appeared to hold little attraction for the 1st century bead manufacturers. So it is interesting to note that two other beads using this raw material were found at Usk (Manning et al. 1995, 108 nos. 5 and 6), while a fourth was found at Birdoswald (unpublished), a fort which increasingly appears to have strong links with the Legio II Augusta in its early days. This too therefore, could be another south-western bead type. There were three examples of plain annular beads (Guido 1978, Group 6), which are a very long-lived type. Deep blue ones such as 2130 (Group 6iva) are found in Britain in contexts ranging in date from the 5th or 6th centuries BC to at least the 8th century AD. Yellow/brown ones such as 2135 (Group 6iiia) appear in the 1st century BC and occur occasionally throughout the Roman period. Blue/green ones such as 2494 (Group 6iia), by contrast, appear to be a purely Roman form. All were found in Trench 13, 2135 in a Phase 2/3 context and the others in ones of Phase 3. In addition to these beads made in an early native tradition, there is one example of the ubiquitous Roman frit melon bead (2128) in use during the 1st century and into the 2nd. It was found in a Phase 3 pit in Trench 13. Two items that might have been worn as pendants may also be noted. A perforated oyster shell (5870) was found in a Phase 3/4 pit in Trench 19 and there is also a small unstratified perforated copper alloy block (299). The perforation has been worn through from long wear but it cannot be independently dated and so could be post Roman. Hair pins and dress pins (Figs 3.4.5a: Hairpins, 3.4.5b: Hairpins and 3.4.5c: Dress pin, earrings, hobnails and shoe cleats)The Roman hair pins which can be assigned to particular types have been summarized in Table 8 according to the typologies of Cool 1991 for the metal pins and Crummy 1979 for the bone ones. It may be noted that metal hair pins make up the majority of the 1st to 2nd century forms whereas the late Roman pins are predominantly of bone. As metal pins were presumably more expensive than bone ones this might hint that during the later Roman period, the women at Claydon Pike might have had less resources available to spend on their jewellery. Only a single example of a hair pin was found in a context assigned to Phase 2 (876) but as this is an example of a Crummy Type 5 which is a form more normally associated with the late Roman period, the evidence it provides for hair-pin wearing and the adoption of new hairstyles during Phase 2 is suspect. By contrast 9 of the pins are from Phase 3 contexts suggesting the adoption of the new hairstyles implied by the pins was a feature of that period. This might just reflect the original population adopting them, or it could hint at the influx of new people. It the reorganisation of the landscape in Phase 3 does reflect an official interest in the site, then one might expect the officers or officials who ran it to have been accompanied by wives and daughters more likely to have adopted current fashion. Bone hair-pins tend not to have regional styles but metal ones of the 1st to 2nd century are strongly regional and this is reflected here by the predominance of Cool Group 13 and the single example of a Cool Group 23B, both of which are amongst the most popular local types in Gloucestershire and the south-west. As well as the hair-pins summarised in Table 8, there is a single unstratified shank fragment from a jet pin (666) which would have been in use during the late Roman period. A rough-out for a bone pin was found in a phase 3 /4 context in Trench 19 (2187) indicating local production. There also 53 bone shank fragments which have been included in the miscellaneous section. The may have originated from needles or spoons, but a high proportion are likely to have come from hairpins. Finally 903 from a Phase 2 / 3 context in Trench 13 may be noted. this might have been a hair pin but an equally likely identification is that is from an olivary probe made in bone. In addition to the hair pins discussed so far there are two wrythen-headed pins in the assemblage. One (3034), in lead, was from a Phase 3 context in Trench 29, the other in copper alloy (2546) was unstratified. Despite the context of 3034 it does not seem likely that either are Roman as wrythen decoration on heads tends to be very rare on Roman hair pins. Instead they belong to a well-known late Saxon type of dress pin, see for example those from North Elmham (Wade-Martins 1980, fig. 264 no. 40) Caister by Yarmouth (Darling and Gurney 1993, 80 no. 128, fig.46). Dress pins of Roman date are rare but one may be represented by 2127, an unstratified find from Trench 29. The identification is tentative because it is very corroded but this may be a celtic dress pin of the type discussed by Boon (1975). The dating for these is uncertain. It is possible they date as early as the 2nd century as argued by Boon but many of the heads have similarities to the terminals of Fowler Type E and F (Fowler 1964, 99 fig. 1) and so a 4th century or later date might be appropriate. They are not a local type having a distribution in Ireland and the north but have also been found in south Wales. Ear rings (Fig. 3.4.5c: Dress pin, earrings, hobnails and shoe cleats)One example (1205) of a 4th century ear-ring of Allason-Jones (1989) Type 2D was found in a Phase 4 context in Trench 13, and another (2540) of more general Roman date (Allason-jones (1989) Type 1 was found in a Phase 3 context in Trench 17. 688 from Trench 13 may also have been an ear ring of the latter type. Hobnails and Shoe cleats (Fig. 3.4.5c: Dress pin, earrings, hobnails and shoe cleats)As can be seen from Table 9 hobnails and shoe cleats were common finds in most of the Trenches. An interesting distribution through time can be noted by inspecting Table 2. There it can be seen that no items of iron shoe furniture were found in contexts associated with Phase 2. They only start to appear in contexts of Phase 3. It is possible to test whether this pattern arose by chance by comparing them to the distribution of the brooches as is done in Table 10. Brooches have been chosen for this comparison because they are another item worn about the body during Phase 2 and Phase 3 and logically both should have a similar distribution if both were in use contemporaneously. Table 10 is the sort of contingency table to which formal statistical test can be applied. A Fishers’ Exact test (Baxter 2003, 129) applied to this table produces a p value of 0.004 which in statistical terms is highly significant and indicates it is very unlikely that this pattern could have come about by chance. It seems very likely therefore that the inhabitants of Claydon Pike did not adopt nailed leather shoes until Phase 3. Vegetable tanned leather was one of the great introductions of the Roman period (see van Driel-Murray 2001, 185). Reliable waterproof shoes were a great advance on what had been available before, but as van-Driel-Murray has pointed out (ibid. 186) the adoption of these is ‘not simply the adoption of something novel to fulfil old functions’. There were a great range of Roman shoe types to choose from and she argues that the adoption implies the adoption of ‘a new way of using clothing in social communication’. Not all Roman shoes were nailed, and it is possible that the people who lived in Claydon Pike in Phase 2 adopted Roman foot ware but of the un-nailed variety. It seems more probable, however, that they didn’t adopt the new styles. The appearance of nailed shoes on the site in Phase 3, therefore, probably indicates a change in lifestyle as momentous as the re-organisation of the landscape. Buckles and belt plates (Fig. 3.4.19: Late Saxon and Medieval)One buckle and belt plate (122) of 13th to 15th century date (see Egan and Pritchard 2002, 31) was recovered from Trench 13. The belt plate 653 from the same trench may be contemporary. This simple form is difficult to date but is most easily paralleled amongst medieval material of 13th and 14th century date (see for example Egan and Pritchard 2002, 94 no. 422) as is the unstratified 389. Toilet and Medical equipment (Fig. 3.4.6: Toilet and Medical equipment)The items in this category can be divided into the small items suitable for personal use, and long-handled implements that would have had a role both in personal care and in medicine. No item in this category was found in Phase 2 stratified contexts. Small implementsMost of these were found unstratified, and where their origin is known they come from Trench 13. A complete toilet set (555) was recovered from a Phase 3 context in Phase 13. It consists of the normal trio of nail cleaner, spoon and tweezers. The nail cleaner belongs to what Crummy (2001, 4) has referred to the filed bead type, a south-western type in use from the mid 2nd century until possibly the 4th century. The sheet nail cleaners (101, 638, 3086) and the tweezers (65, 1610, 1625) would also have come from toilet sets. None of these are closely dated. An unusual implement from a toilet set is the rasp 2654. Such items are normally found on elaborate set with many implements (see for example Wheeler 1930, pl. xxxix; Cool and Philo 1998, 86 no 363). There are also two bone-headed nail cleaners from unstratified or unphased contexts (158 - Trench 13, 5871 ) which belong to a south-western form which has been found in later 2nd to 4th century contexts (Crummy 2001, 4). Five ligulae were found, three (382, 404, 1049) from Phase 3 contexts in Trench 13, and two (2352, 2526) from Trench 17 in a Phase 3 and a Phase 3/4 context respectively. A possible long-handled scoop (498) was found unstratified. Textile Equipment (Fig. 3.4.7: Textile equipment)Textile equipment was relatively rare. The only item that may have been associated with the preparation of yarn is 2868 from a Phase 3 / 4 context in Trench 17. This is an iron item and the X-radiograph shows a central bar with three teeth on either side. This is consistent with it being a woolcomb. The identification has to be tentative because woolcombs generally have a much wider central bar (cf Wild 1970, fig. 9), but the teeth do seem to be distinct and not a product of corrosion. Several items appear to be associated with weaving. There were four perforated small bones (metapodia etc) which are thought to have functioned as bobbins and which seem generally to have been in use during the later Iron Age and earlier Roman period (see Greep 1998, 283). Three came from Trench 13 with 846 being found in Phase 2 context and 1490 and 2592 coming from those of Phase 3. There was also an unstratified example from Trench 17 (2852). The unstratified bone implement 159 may well have been a pin beater as it has the characteristic gloss associated with working textiles (MacGregor 1985, 188). Two needles for sewing were found in Trench 13. 2365 from an unstratified context was made of copper alloy and could have been used for both textiles and leather, whereas the bone 1570 from a phase 3 context would have been more suitable for textiles. The fragmentary copper alloy 5873 also from a Phase 3 context in Trench 13 has all the features that would normally be associated with a needle but is very large for such an item. An iron needle (1936) was also found unstratified in Trench 19. Finally two thimbles may be noted. Thimbles came into use in the 14th century (Egan 1998, 265). Open ended ones such as 97 this continue in use until the present (Biddle and Elmhirst 1990, 805) but the individually formed pits would suggest a later medieval to post medieval date for this example, and a similar date may be suggested for the fragmentary 1547. Household Equipment (Figs 3.4.8a: Miscellaneous household equipment and 3.4.8b: Spoons and bowl fragment)The household items are summarised in Table 11.The X-radiograph for 708 from a Phase 3 context in Trench 17 is consistent with it being an iron tripod candlestick though investigation would be needed to confirm the identification. Such candlesticks were in use during the 3rd and 4th centuries (see Eckhardt 2002, 251). A second candlestick (2129) was identified during the initial analysis but I have not been able to confirm the identification. Another item of lighting equipment is represented by the copper alloy vine leaf (360) found in a possible floor make-up in B3 in Trench 13. During the initial post excavation analysis Francis Grew drew attention to the fact that it was similar in many respects to a well known class of first century military pendants, but noted that there were differences, and other functions should be borne in mind. He suggested that another possibility was that it could have been the reflector from the back of a metal oil lamp. This seems to be the most likely identification. The sweated on terminals at the tips of the leaves would be most unusual on a military pendant but do appear to be present on the reflector of a lamp from the Thames in London (Wheeler 1930, 62, fig. 14 no. 5). Eckardt (2002, 224) relates this to Loeshcke Type XXI which would suggest a later 1st to 2nd century date which would be consistent with the context date. Five fragments of bone veneer or inlay were recovered from Trench 13 (102, 915, 1046, 1191 and 5687). Such material is usually thought of as decorating boxes and chests and seems primarily to have been a phenomenon of the later 3rd and 4th centuries. It was also used to decorate items, probably biers, used in cremation rituals in the 3rd century (Greep forthcoming). Generally the veneer associated with domestic contexts seems to have been quite thin (c. 2mm thickness) as is the case with 915 here, whereas that associated with the cremations is often noticeably thicker. The other fragments from Claydon Pike range from 4 to 6mm in thickness which places them alongside the cremated material. Amongst the metal vessel fragments there two handle fragments (1690, 2076) of the type that would have been used on sheet metal jugs of Eggers Form 128 (Koster 1997, 33 no. 10). Both were found unstratified in Trench 13 at some distance from each other. They do not join but they could have come from the same handle. The type was in use from the end of the 1st century into the 3rd century and was used to heat water, suggesting that somebody on the site in the 2nd or 3rd century had quite sophisticated drinking habits. Another copper alloy vessel of broadly contemporary date is suggested by the unstratified escutcheon 3013 which probably came from a small bucket (see for example den Boesterd 1956, 47 nos. 154-5). The unstratified bowl fragment 33 could also be of Roman date but is now deformed and the original shape cannot now be reconstructed. Amongst the iron there is an escutcheon likely to have come from a cauldron (1588) found in a Phase 2 / 3 context in Trench 13. The original analysis also concluded that the iron fragments 426, 770 and 2876 were also from vessels but I have been unable to confirm this identification. Lead alloy vessels are considered below under Religion. There is one example of a round bowled spoon (2542) from a Phase 3 / 4 context in Trench 17. These were a common 1st to 2nd century form (Crummy 1983, 69 Type 1). The unstratified copper alloy spoon with a mandolin-shaped bowl from Trench 19 (2818) is also of Roman date (ibid type 3). A Roman date, however, cannot be advanced with certainty for the large oval-bowled spoon 1842, also found unstratified. A fragment of a lead ladle may also have been a household utensil, but again it cannot be dated independently and it was found unstratified. Possible iron fittings from buckets (178, 1583) and a barrel (802) were also noted in the earlier analysis. Recreational Items (Fig. 3.4.9: Recreational Items)Items in this category are curiously few in number (see Table 1), and all were recovered from Trench 13. Two counters are of standard and common forms. The glass counter (911) is of a type that was commonest in the 1st to mid 2nd centuries (Cool et al 1995, 1555), whilst one of the bone counters (198) was in use throughout the Roman period (Greep 1986, 202 Type 3). the other bone ‘counter’ (1411) is a curious piece. It is decorated on both the faces and the sides and was clearly intended to be seen in the round, and so has been termed a counter. Its’ Roman date seems certain because it was found in a Phase 3 context but I have not been able to locate a similar piece in either British or continental assemblages. Two dice with the typical Roman arrangement of dots where opposite faces sum to 7 were found. 434 from a Phase 3 context is of particular interest as it is made of ivory. Ivory was a luxury item in the Roman world and so hints at a degree of affluence on the site during Phase 3. The other (347) lacks the typical radial lines of ivory and is more likely to be of bone. Items Associated with Weighing and Measuring (Fig. 3.4.10: Weighing and measuring)There are four typical Roman biconical steelyard weights made of lead with a central iron suspension wire (620, 1065, 1254 and 2499) from the unstratified material. A fifth (391) was cylindrical like an example from Somerford Keynes 614. The evidence for the use of equal-armed balances is more equivocal. There are items of lead in the assemblage that might have functioned as weights but none have the typical shapes or marks denoting their weight that might be expected, and so they have been relegated to the miscellaneous category. Of particular interest given the major re-organisation of the landscape in Phase 3 which would presumably have required a degree of survey activity, is the number of plumb bobs in the assemblage. Two were found in Trench 13, one in a Phase 3 – 4 context (2605) and the other in one of Phase 4 (462). A third was found unstratified (3012). Plumb bobs were an essential part of the groma, the principle tool used by Roman surveyors.
|