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.

Brooches (Fig. 8.2.1: Brooches and other personal items)

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

Toilet Equipment (Fig. 8.2.2: Personal items)

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

Household Equipment (Fig. 8.2.3: Houehold, fittings and writing)

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

Writing Equipment (Fig. 8.2.3: Houehold, fittings and writing)

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

Military Equipment (Fig. 8.2.4: Military)

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