HINGLEY, Deposition of Iron Objects Britannia XXXVII, 2006

© World copyright reserved. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2006

Britannia XXXVII (2006), 213-57

1 I am very grateful to the following for their advice and assistance: Philip and Nina Crummy, Professor Barry Cunliffe, Dr Simon Esmonde Cleary, Professor Colin Haselgrove, Dr Sam Lucy, Professor Bill Manning, Christina Unwin, and the two anonymous referees.

2 See Bowden and McOmish 1987; Hill 1989; 1995a; Hingley 1990a. For the early application of comparable ideas to the Roman period, see Merrifield 1987.

3 Clarke 2000; Fulford 2001; Woodward and Woodward 2004.4 See Haselgrove et al. 2001; Hill 1995a; Hingley 1990a for this argument in the context of Iron Age society.

For recent discussions of the meaning of ‘ritual’ that have helped to inform this paper, see Bradley 2005, 28–36 and Insoll 2004, 10–12.

5 e.g. Hill 1995a; Clarke 2000.

The Deposition of Iron Objects in Britain During the Later Prehistoric

and Roman Periods: Contextual Analysis and the Significance of Iron

By RICHARD HINGLEY1

It is perhaps in the Roman period that the prejudice of archaeologists against a ritual interpretation is felt most strongly. Its material remains seem so practical, so ‘modern’ in many respects, that there is an almost instinctive reaction against anything ‘other-wordly’ in this context — except of course in its proper place, the temple precinct, where it is acceptable. Yet this attitude is historically indefensible, for … religion in the Roman world pervaded every human activity … (Merrifield 1987, 7)

INTRODUCTION

Central to this paper is the meaning of the actions that led to iron objects being found in archaeological contexts of later prehistoric and Roman date. It is argued that the placing of iron objects within the physical landscape reflects the changing nature of

society at this time. In Iron Age studies, many deposits in rivers, bogs and in the pits, ditches and post-holes of settlements are now interpreted as ‘special’ material buried for significant reasons,2 through acts that are often called ‘structured deposition’. This approach has had a deep influence on the excavation and post-excavation of Iron Age settlements and is now coming to influence the study of the deposition of artefacts on Roman sites.3 This paper develops the idea that much of the later prehistoric and Roman ironwork found on settlements and elsewhere was deliberately deposited for what might loosely be called ‘ritual’ or ‘religious’ motives; for much of this period the proportion of the artefacts lost accidentally was possibly quite small.4 Artefacts in other materials also require comparable study, but, while work that integrates the examination of items made from different materials on individual sites is important,5 this paper focuses upon iron due to its potential significance as a highly symbolic medium.

214 RICHARD HINGLEY 215DEPOSITION OF IRON OBJECTS IN BRITAIN DURING LATER PREHISTORIC & ROMAN PERIODS

Applying a long-term perspective to the evidence for the deposition of iron should enable a consideration of the degree to which the practice of iron deposition changed as a result of the Roman conquest and control of Britain. The idea that iron was often deposited for ritual reasons is pursued through the analysis of 91 individual finds of Iron Age and Roman date, including ‘hoards’ and significant individual finds that derive from settlements, rivers, caves, and other contexts. Three sites (Danebury, Baldock, and Wavendon Gate) are examined in greater detail in order to explore the contexts of the deposition of individual finds within settlements.

A number of distinctive types of context in which iron objects were left are defined and, from the evidence studied, these appear to have changed through time. An initial focus upon the settlement boundary during later prehistory is replaced by a concentration upon deep pits and wells during the Roman period. The contexts in which objects were deposited indicate that iron was a significant material to many people in Britain from c. 400 B.C. to A.D. 400 and this, in turn, justifies the increased attention that is being paid to this information in recent excavations and publications.

MOTIVES FOR DEPOSITING IRON OBJECTS

A common practice in archaeology is to divide ‘hoards’, which are usually considered to represent sealed collections of objects, from single finds. Archaeologists do not agree about the motivation for the deposition of the collections of objects that they call ‘hoards’. Two dominant positions — the pragmatic and the symbolic — are often defined as in opposition to each other.6 The term hoard is defined by the Chambers English Dictionary as: ‘a store: a hidden stock: a treasure: a place for hiding anything’,7 suggesting a deposit that was separated off and deliberately left in a sealed context with some intention of future action. The idea of a store, stock, or treasure suggests a collection of objects. An influential view for the hoarding of precious metal in the Roman period has recently been restated — that these collections of objects were deposited for primarily practical reasons, representing the deposition of valuables with the intention of retrieval at a later date.8 Those who take such an approach to iron hoarding have argued that people buried objects as a resource to be re-used at a later time. Often, such hoards contain a variety of items that have been specifically collected together, while individual objects are sometimes broken or worn. The damaged objects would have retained value, since they represented raw material. Some iron hoards also include tools that were used in the production of iron objects, while billets and ‘currency bars’ are also common. The presence of these objects has been used to suggest that the hoards constituted collections of raw material and old or unwanted artefacts intended for recycling.9 This suggests that they had a pragmatic function, as ‘smiths’ hoards’, or collections of material that had a role in the production of new objects.10

In his seminal article of 1972, Bill Manning argued, however, that many of the contexts in which Iron Age and Roman iron hoards occur suggest that they were deposited for ritual or religious reasons. The nature of these contexts — including bogs, rivers, wells, and human burial — has been taken to indicate their ritual significance.11 Many metal objects were deposited

6 For a discussion of Bronze Age hoards that covers some of these issues, see Bradley 1998, xviii–xix. For Roman hoards, see Johns 1995 and Millett 1995.

7 Chambers English Dictionary 1990, 675.8 Johns 1995; 1996, 6–11.9 For the idea of smith’s hoards, and the problems with such an interpretation, see Manning 1972, 239.10 Manning observed that individual hoards did not contain all the tools required by the smith but this would

not prevent individual hoards representing material collected by smiths for reworking. See also, Bradley’s (1998, xviii–xxi) reassessment of his earlier arguments about the significance of Bronze Age smith’s hoards.

11 Manning 1972; Haselgrove and Hingley in press; Hingley 1990a.


in bogs, lakes, and rivers during later prehistory,12 and the ironwork collections discussed by Manning appear to represent one part of a broader tradition of hoarding various types of objects as offerings to the supernatural or to ancestors.13 The fact that iron (and other metals) can be recycled should lead us to question why people placed or discarded iron items in a broad variety of domestic and landscape contexts in such a way that they survive to be found. To view collections of objects as hoards, buried with the intention of retrieval, would require that the individuals who deposited them died or were killed, were driven away from the area, forgot where the objects were buried, or, for some reason, lost interest in or were prevented from retrieving the material. These explanations may apply to some deposits of iron objects, but the fact that iron tends to deteriorate if buried in the ground makes the large-scale hoarding of these objects with the intention of retrieval difficult to explain.14

This raises several problems with the idea of the ‘hoard’; in this study different types of information are assessed in an attempt to get beyond the limitations of the concept.15 Hoards need not have been closed deposits, left at one particular time in sealed situations.16 Many significant collections of material may have built up gradually in situations that were not sealed. Examples considered below include some of the finds from rivers and bogs, the so-called ‘massacre deposits’ found in late Iron Age contexts at several hillforts, collections of ‘votive’ objects at temples or shrines, and the Roman deposits in deep pits and wells. Significant iron items occur in all these types of collections, although the motivation for the deposition of these objects may have been very different from that for the deposition of collections of iron items.

In addition, single items of iron could represent significant deposits of material. Manning did not examine the occurrence of single iron items, emphasising that many such objects represented rubbish disposal.17 Discoveries of individual iron objects on archaeological sites have often been addressed in a pragmatic manner, considered to indicate the locations in which particular activities took place. The distribution of various types of discarded iron objects, together with the products of smelting and smithing, are often used to define the function of individual areas and buildings. At the Roman site of Gorhambury (Herts.), for example, about 600 iron objects were used in an attempt to inform the function of individual buildings and activity areas across the site.18 In the recent publication of the information from a Roman site at Great Holts Farm (Essex), the author expresses disappointment that the analysis of the distribution of the iron objects did not aid in the identification of particular activity areas.19

Reacting against this type of ‘pragmatic’ perspective, several authors have proposed that

12 Bradley 1998; Brunaux 1988; Field and Parker Pearson 2003, 179–88; Fitzpatrick 1984; Haselgrove and Wigg-Wolf 2005; Hunter 1997; Wait 1985, 15–50.

13 Fulford 2001; Millett 1995; Manning 1972, 239–49.14 Manning 1972, 240. Deposition of iron in waterlogged deposits, by contrast, preserves the objects very well,

as finds from the Walbrook (London), Vindolanda (Northumbria), and elsewhere demonstrate (e.g. Merrifield 1997).15 In Haselgrove and Hingley (in press) the term ‘hoard’ is avoided entirely. In this study, the term is used, but

the focus of analysis is on the complexity of the character of iron deposition, which the simple term hoard does not accurately convey.

16 Many ‘hoards’ may not have formed sealed deposits and they will often have had objects added and removed from time to time (Johns 1996, 7; Isserlin in press).

17 Manning 1972, 239.18 Neal et al. 1990, 138–55. See, in particular, the discussion of the concentration of hipposandals and other

objects within the aisled hall (140–4). The Gorhambury report contains a very detailed publication of the iron and should not be criticised for failing to adopt approaches to deposition that have only become common in recent years.

19 Major 2003, 77 notes that it was hoped that the distribution of iron items in Phase II.2 and II.3 contexts would help to define activities associated with each of the individual buildings on the site, but that this was not possible, apart, perhaps, from the case of Building 417.


20 Bradley 1987, 351; Fitzpatrick 1984, 178–9; Haselgrove 1987, 132–8; Haselgrove and Hingley in press; Hingley 1990a, 108–9.

21 Greene 2002, 247–53.22 Clarke and Jones 1996, 122; Merrifield 1987, 7; Woodward 1992, 51. 23 Beagon 1992, 40–2, 100; Schrüfer-Kolb 2004, 108–9.24 Fell 1990 draws attention to the writings of Pliny and Dioscorides.25 Pliny, Nat. Hist. 268.33–4. Spurious works of a medical nature were often attributed to the mythical Orpheus

in antiquity.26 Herbal 5.84–183.27 Dungworth 1998, 153.28 See Leach 1962; Ross 1967, 196 and 476.

certain individual objects in later prehistoric contexts were probably hoarded.20 Merrifield made the observation (above) about the instinctive opposition of Roman archaeologists to the idea that artefacts in settlement contexts might have had ritual associations. Roman artefacts may often appear rather contemporary, while ‘industry’ has been reconstructed with a particular emphasis upon industrial production, the distribution of the objects, and consumption — ideas that are informed by the reconstruction of the Roman economy as distinct from other aspects of society and belief.21 We need, therefore, to address the context of both single items and collections, rendering hundreds of thousands of iron finds potentially of relevance.

MOVING BEYOND THE MUNDANE — RITUAL DICHOTOMY

To explore Merrifield’s proposal further, we can look to the writings of Classical authors, which illustrate that the ancient world was imbued with beliefs about the nature of the world that permeated everyday life, including aspects of production, consumption, and deposition that are often reconstructed by archaeologists as elements of the economy.22 Some Classical writers believed that both the sea and the land had a sacred character; Pliny the Elder remarked that mining for wealth-generation represented a dangerous and morally dubious activity, one that might disturb the ancestors.23 The products of mining and industrial production, however, could also be very useful in various ritual activities.24 Addressing people who have curative powers in the Natural History, Pliny records that:

It is said that difficult labour ends in delivery at once, if over the house where is the lying-in woman there be thrown a stone or missile that has killed with one stroke each three living creatures — a human being, a boar and a bear. A successful result is more likely if a light-cavalry spear is used, pulled out from a human body without the ground being touched. The result indeed is the same if the spear is carried indoors. So, too, as Orpheus and Archelaus write, arrows drawn out of a body and not allowed to touch the ground act as a love-charm upon those under whom when in bed they have been placed. Moreover, add these authorities, epilepsy is cured by food taken from the flesh of a wild beast killed by the same iron weapon that has killed a human being.25

In these contexts, weapons that had been used to kill took part in rituals connected with the human regenerative cycle and the health of individuals. Pliny’s comment about the role of iron weapons in curing epilepsy recalls the observations of another Classical author, Dioscorides, who, in a lengthy discourse upon herbal remedies, recounted the medical value of different types of metal slag and various metallic stones.26 Other significant activities involving iron included the clavus annalis, ‘annual nailing’, ritual of the Republican city of Rome.27 While little direct evidence survives to tell us about the specific significance of ironworking and iron objects for the people of prehistoric and Roman Britain, the evidence for a smith god in the Roman period indicates the potential association of ironworking with divinities, spirits, and superstition.28


29 A recent discussion of ironworking (Schrüfer-Kolb 2004) pays close attention to the evidence for ritual, but still maintains a clear division between ritual and pragmatism. This, often unquestioned, division of life into two opposed areas requires challenging (Bradley 2005, 16). Why, for example, should the placing of ironworking structures with regard to local topography, wind direction, and ‘economic reasons’ (Schrüfer-Kolb 2004, 112) preclude the idea that such locations were ritually ‘good’ places to work iron?

30 Barrett et al. 2000, 114–16, 239.31 For suggestions about the ritual potential of slag see Hingley 1997, 15 and Schrüfer-Kolb 2004, 111.32 Aldhouse-Green 2002; Gillies 1981; Herbert 1993.33 Aldhouse-Green 2002; Budd and Taylor 1995; Hingley 1997.34 Manning 1972.35 Leach 1962; Manning 1972.36 Although these objects also acted to portray the god’s occupation (Bill Manning pers. comm.).37 Hingley 1990a; 2005.38 Hingley 1997, 13–14.39 Rees 1979, 48; Hingley 1997.

The problem with viewing the use of iron objects and their subsequent deposition purely in terms of practical past activity is that this draws too directly upon the idea that abandoned materials represent pragmatic objects; deposits of iron objects are taken to represent either valuable materials for recycling or mundane rubbish that reflect directly upon past industrial, economic, or domestic behaviour.29 A focus upon the symbolic and ritual significance of iron deposition leads to a different understanding. With regard to production, for example, fragments of metalwork found at the Iron Age hillfort of South Cadbury (Somerset) were closely associated with iron production in the eastern part of the interior of the site. Previously, these deposits would have been interpreted as rubbish disposal derived from the creation of iron objects. The recent publication of this evidence stresses, however, that the production and use of iron at this time is likely to have been highly symbolic and ritualised.30 Even fragments of broken tools and slag in archaeological contexts could represent ritually significant materials, deposited for significant reasons.31

This is not to argue that we should downplay the ‘industry’ of later prehistoric and Roman iron production. People produced objects in a manner that drew upon past experiences of success and failure. A form of scientific knowledge will have developed, derived from experimentation and observation. The ways in which this inherited experience was conceptualised, however, will have drawn upon beliefs that would appear alien to a modern ironworker in the West. In many cultures, ironworking is a mystical and highly-charged process.32 In pre-modern and non-Western societies, the exact character of the transformation of iron ore into metal items is not understood in terms of the chemical reactions and, often, iron production is imbued with beliefs about the social and ritual meaning of the act of creation. In this context, it has been argued that iron production in the past cannot have been an entirely pragmatic industrial process.33 Smithing, and particularly smelting, are impressive and dangerous processes that transform raw materials into cultural items. The production of iron often involves recycling, as old iron artefacts can be resmelted.34

Smelting and smithing required implements that would not melt at the temperatures involved; iron was used for many of the tools that were used in these processes — hammers and anvils,35 and iron files were used to further refine the artefacts produced. Relevant objects depicted in representations of the smith god, and their regular occurrence in archaeological contexts, perhaps drew upon the ritual associations of iron production.36 Currency bars and billets, which represent partly-processed iron used in the ironworking process, also occur in a variety of archaeological contexts.37 Iron was used to produce powerful weapons — swords, spearheads, and axes — vital to communities both for defence and for attacking others.38 Such objects are found in deposits derived from the whole of the period considered in this study. Agricultural tools, such as plough and ard shares, were made out of iron.39 The deposition of items connected with the


agricultural cycle — including scythes, sickles, plough and ard shares — could have drawn upon their symbolic association through a reference to the fertility of the soil and the creation of agricultural surplus.40 Iron was also used to manufacture nails, artefacts that played a significant part in the ritual actions of Roman society.41 In Britain, nails were used to attach defixiones to the walls of temples.42 Van Driel Murray has explored the potential symbolic significance of Roman shoes, which often have hobnails in the sole.43 In this context, the large collection of nails from Inchtuthil (Tayside), and other nails from archaeological contexts, might have held a distinct ritual meaning.44 Latch-lifters, keys, and locks were also produced from iron, relating closely to ideas of boundedness and security.

A useful approach to the study of iron production would be to combine scientific method and theory with an acceptance that the ironworking industry of later prehistoric and Roman Britain was conceived in very different ways from the contemporary understanding of the science of metalworking.45 This is not to suggest that the artefacts produced did not have a distinct range of specific functions in activities such as warfare, agriculture, ritual, and iron production. Indeed, iron was a fundamentally important material, since it was used to create a variety of ‘powerful’ objects. Nevertheless, stressing the symbolic significance of artefacts does not determine that they were specifically votive, since their practical function represents the reason for their symbolic power. The potential metaphorical associations of individual types of iron objects demonstrate that different types of iron items may often have had varying associations and this may suggest that the investigation of differential patterning in the deposition of individual categories of finds may produce useful results.46

THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY DEPOSITS OF IRON

The quantities of iron objects found vary through time. This suggests that we should not assume that iron had a single meaning over the long period under study. Initially, during later prehistory, iron may well have been a valuable and symbolically-charged material.47 The scarcity of finds suggests that it may not have been very common prior to the third to second centuries B.C.; alternatively, perhaps much of the iron was being recycled. From this time on, fairly substantial hoards are more usual and often include currency bars. Although they have been thought to represent an entirely middle Iron Age phenomenon,48 new evidence may indicate that currency bars continued to be buried during the first century A.D.49 The association of deposits of currency bars with settlement boundaries has been used to argue that iron was deposited to symbolise the identity and status of the individual or community who made the offering.50 A more mundane interpretation is often envisaged for the individual finds of iron items, although at least some of

40 Hingley 1990a; 1997; 2005.41 Dungworth 1998, 153.42 Dungworth 1998.43 van Driel-Murray 1999. 44 Dungworth 1998. See p. 229.45 Budd and Taylor 1995; Pearce 1998, 52–3.46 Haselgrove and Hingley in press.47 Aldhouse-Green 2002; Hingley 1997.48 Allen 1967; Hingley 1990a.49 Hoards at Ditches (Trow 1988, 37) and Camerton (Jackson 1990, 14, 18) were probably deposited during the

first century A.D. At Totterdown Lane a hoard of currency bars was found in a small feature just outside what appeared to be a later (second- and third-century A.D.) enclosure ditch. The excavators felt it probable that an earlier enclosure ditch had lain in this area (Pine and Preston 2004, 45), although it is possible that the currency bar hoard was placed in this context rather later.

50 Hingley 1990a, 107–8; 1997; 2005.


these objects are likely to have formed elements in the ‘special deposits’ that occur in many Iron Age pits and ditches.51

The importance of iron to native British communities is indicated by the writings of Herodian of Antioch, an author of the third century A.D. Herodian, writing about Septimius Severus’ preparations for the invasion of areas of free Britain beyond the northern frontier, remarked:

Strangers to clothing, the Britons wear ornaments of iron at their waists and throats; considering iron a symbol of wealth, they value this metal as other barbarians value gold.52

Herodian was writing about a society that had been subjected to Roman interference for well over a century and one that was under immediate threat of invasion.53 This situation may have placed a particular premium on iron, while Herodian was evidently concerned to emphasise the savagery and warlike character of the Britons. His comments may, however, have some relevance to the significance of iron to native peoples during pre-Roman times and in those areas that remained on the edge of imperial control.

During the Roman period, iron artefacts become far more common, occurring in large quantities on military, urban, and rural sites within the province. Large-scale military production is evident across Roman Britain,54 while the manufacture of iron in civil contexts was also significant.55 Although this does not necessarily mean that iron immediately became universally available in large quantities, by the later Roman period artefacts made from this material are very common on many rural sites.56 Iron was used, often in bulk, for numerous purposes, including the manufacture of bars to bridge the mouths of bath-house furnaces.57 Stray finds occur in various contexts and this has often led to the idea that they were dumped as rubbish, or lost during use and not retrieved.58 It is likely that iron was subject to changing perceptions of meaning over the period covered by this paper, and that these influenced the production and deposition of objects. We should not, however, define iron objects simply as rubbish without careful consideration. Particular types of objects may have retained symbolic significance, and we cannot write off even substantial bodies of Roman ironwork as ‘pragmatic’ rubbish disposal without further analysis.

METHODOLOGY

The nature of the available information raises serious issues. Iron objects have often been viewed as mundane material and, as a result, individual finds and even substantial collections have not always been well recorded or published. Until recently, publications of archaeological excavations rarely discussed the character of deposition, or even provided details of context. Careful excavation, which focuses upon questions of depositional context, is required before a full assessment of the evidence is possible. Some old excavations included the recording of relevant evidence, but detailed excavation, recording, post-excavation and publication of individual findspots has only become regular practice since the 1980s. Improved standards of

51 For example, Sellwood 1984; Cunliffe and Poole 1991b, 333, 354; Hill 1995a.52 Herodian, History 3.14.7. 53 Haselgrove and Hingley in press.54 Sim and Ridge 2002.55 For a thorough and useful review of the evidence for military and civil involvement in the iron industry, see

Schrüfer-Kolb 2004.56 Manning 1972, 239. An exception is discussed below (p. 231).57 Bill Manning pers. comm.58 See p. 215.


excavation and recording in recent years, together with an increased interest in the significance of iron objects, allow patterns to be observed on some fully published sites.

The Appendix has been compiled from a variety of published sources. Only deposits including iron objects that have a fairly good record of context are included. Where a site has produced more than a single significant deposit, a number is given after the site name in the text, corresponding with the information presented in the Appendix. The context types listed in the appendix are discussed in the analysis below. It is important to stress that this is certainly not a complete database, nor does it attempt to be. There is so much information for the deposition of iron on sites of Iron Age and Roman date that a survey of all such finds would be an absolutely immense undertaking. The likely biases that result from the methods of data collection adopted need to be emphasised. The aim behind the collection of data was to include a wide variety of deposits so that tentative patterns can be established in the types of contexts represented. A deliberate attempt has been made to collect information from a wider range of contexts than those usually defined as ‘hoards’.59 The data included deposits from the start of the Iron Age to the end of the Roman period and information has been gathered from England, Scotland, and Wales. Individual records in the Appendix include assemblages that are made up almost entirely of iron objects and also collections of objects and finds of a variety of materials that include some iron items.60 Deposits called ‘hoards’ by their publishers, other collections of items from particular contexts, and some single finds are included. It is likely that many of the collections of objects in various materials, such as those from rivers, the hillfort ‘massacre deposits’, and objects from wells and pits, did not form sealed collections and may have been deposited over a period of time,61 but examples defined as ‘hoards’ may also not have been totally sealed.

As we have seen, single finds have often been excluded from discussion, since they are usually assumed to represent casual losses or discards. The published accounts of single iron objects from Asthall, Billingborough, Nadbury, and South Cadbury 2 considered that they were deliberately deposited. The inclusion of single items is likely to add bias to the data included in the Appendix, since these objects have been selected through their recognition as deliberately deposited items. A vast number of additional individual complete and broken finds could have been included in this study, but this would have made the Appendix unmanageable. These selected individual finds help to challenge the simplistic divisions that have been drawn between collections of objects and single examples. Since the information for single finds in the Appendix is so selective, a later section of this article examines the evidence for the deposition of individual iron objects on three particular sites. It is only through detailed studies of single sites that distinctions between patterns of deposition for single objects and groups are likely to be possible.

The reader may feel that the information included in this study has been selected to fit particular ideas, but I have attempted to address this issue by following a fairly open approach to the collection of information. Hopefully, the tentative general patterns that are drawn out from the material reflect in a useful manner on the entire body of data. The patterning suggested here may, in future, be explored and assessed through more detailed analysis of individual sites, areas, or periods. The database is certainly more complete in some areas than in others. In particular, the author’s ongoing work on the deposition of currency bars means that the information for deposits containing these objects should be reasonably comprehensive.62 In other areas, the

59 For discussion, see p. 215.60 Manning 1972, 224 followed a comparable approach.61 See note 16.62 Hingley 1990a; 2005. I am aware of one additional find and one possible find that are not recorded in my 2005

article (Lambrick and Allen 2004; Pine and Preston 2004).


information is far less reliable. This database, inevitably, does not represent anything more than a small percentage of the total assemblage of Iron Age and Roman finds.

In order to examine the motivations behind deposition, this paper addresses two types of information: first, the reoccurring types of context in which the objects were buried; and second, the frequency with which particular types of object were deposited in certain types of context.63 The main focus of attention in this paper is upon the former. These changing contexts of deposition help to provide an understanding of where people were choosing to deposit iron objects.64 The analysis of the deposition of objects in these contexts may enable an interpretation of the meaning of their actions. Concerning the types of objects deposited, different types of objects may often have held different associations, as has already been suggested.65 As a result, it is worth considering whether the different uses and metaphorical meanings of different artefact types have been used to structure the acts of deposition. Both types of analysis are attempted below, although the study of the context of individual types is restricted to currency bars, weapons, and agricultural tools, due to the limited character of the material assembled in the Appendix.

REPEATED CONTEXTS FOR DEPOSITION

The material has been divided into three general periods to assess change through time (FIGS 1–4). A variety of contexts of deposition are defined, including:

1 = ‘natural’ = cave, wetland, river2 = ‘shrine’ = temple, or shrine, or possible shrine3 = ‘enclosure’ = in, or close to, the ditch or bank of an enclosed settlement 3a = the ditch or bank of the enclosure 3b = entrance area to the enclosure 3c = close proximity to enclosure earthworks (within 10m)4 = wells or deep pits (over 2m deep) dug into, or very close to (within 10m), the boundary

of a settlement or site 5 = wells or deep pits (over 2m deep) dug within the area of a settlement or site6 = other contexts within the area of a settlement or industrial site7 = other features on the edges of a settlement or in the landscape

With regard to Contexts 3c and 4, ‘close to’ a boundary means within a maximum of 10m; most examples are far closer to the boundary. The deep pits included in Contexts 4 and 5 are over 2m deep.66

FIGS 1–4 demonstrate that contexts associated with site boundaries appear to be significant (marked as ‘enclosure’ and ‘well a’), constituting around half of the total number of iron deposits. These include boundary contexts and wells/deep pits on, or close to, boundaries. Other contexts within settlements or sites (marked as ‘settlement’) form the next most common type on FIG. 1. ‘Natural’ contexts (wetlands and caves) and shrines also form significant categories.

Between the fifth and the first centuries B.C., iron objects occur in a broad range of contexts,

63 For the use of context to study motivations for burial, see Esmonde Cleary 2000, 127; Hingley 1990a; Manning 1972.

64 Haselgrove and Hingley in press.65 See p. 217.66 In the case of Brampton, although the pit was shallower, the excavator argued that it had been severely

truncated.


approximately 75 per cent (34 out of 45 examples) of which are connected with domestic sites. There is a considerable depositional focus upon the enclosure boundary (FIG. 2a). Items also occur in wetland contexts, at possible shrines, and in a variety of other contexts on settlement sites. An examination of the deposits that occur in settlement boundary contexts (FIG. 2b) indicates that almost one half (12 examples) are from the boundary itself (the ditch or bank), while four examples come from entrances to enclosures. Nine examples (approximately 40 per cent) are from contexts in very close association with the boundary.67 From the first century B.C.

FIG. 1. All deposits of ironwork classified against context type; n = 91 (each deposit including iron is counted once). For key to context types see p. 221.

FIG. 2. All deposits from the fifth to the first century B.C. (Each deposit including iron is counted once. For key to context types see p. 221). a. Contexts (n = 45). b. Details of boundary contexts (n = 35).

to the first century A.D., the range of contexts broadens (FIG. 3a). The number of examples from wetlands and shrines remains comparable, while the number from boundary contexts decreases slightly. If we add the finds from wells/deep pits close to settlement boundaries to those from enclosure boundaries, these represent 37 examples (59 per cent of all deposits).68 A significant

67 Details of these contexts are given in the Appendix and many are in quarry hollows or just at the back of ramparts.

68 This is mainly a result of the pits from Newstead, the majority of which may well be of the first century A.D. (see p. 228).

A B


number (7 examples) occur in other settlement contexts. Regarding the boundary contexts (FIG. 3b), the number of finds from enclosure boundaries increases slightly, with a slight decrease in the number of deposits ‘close to’ the boundary. For the period from the second to the fifth century A.D. (FIG. 4), the finds from ‘natural’ contexts and shrines stay broadly comparable. Finds from enclosure boundaries fall dramatically, as the number in wells/deep pits close to settlement boundaries increases. Finds from other contexts on settlement sites are also common at this time. For this period, too few finds come from boundary contexts to make the proportions analysed for earlier periods meaningful.

69 For example, Hingley 1990a.

A B

FIG. 3. All deposits from the first century B.C. to the first century A.D. (Each deposit including iron is counted once. For key to context types see p. 221). a. Contexts (n = 63). b. Details of boundary contexts (n = 31).

FIG. 4. All deposits from the second to the fifth century A.D. Contexts (n = 37) (each deposit including iron is counted once). For key to context types see p. 221.

Rivers, bogs and caves (‘natural’ contexts)

Looking at the material in greater detail, a division is sometimes made between ‘natural’ contexts and those that are associated with human settlement.69 These natural contexts include rivers, bogs, wetlands, caves, and rocky outcrops. This distinction is, however, too general. First, the


societies who created and deposited objects in such contexts comprehended their environments differently to the present-day understanding of culture and nature.70 In fact, human activity, including the construction of houses and sites, and the placement of artefacts, may have drawn landscape features such as caves, rivers, and wetlands into the occupied landscape, although it is true that they would have remained beyond the settlement and infield areas of individual communities. Excavation of the wetland deposits at Fengate and of those in the river at Fiskerton indicates that timber platforms or tracks were used as places from which to cast individual objects into the water.71 Other Iron Age finds from rivers and bogs may have been associated with similar constructions. Three early Roman hoards from lakes and bogs have been found in Scotland,72 while Roman objects have also been found at the significant Iron Age causeway at Fiskerton.73 Deposits in bogs, lakes, and rivers appear to be primarily an Iron Age and early Roman practice and ironwork does not appear to have been left in such contexts from the second to third centuries A.D. onwards.74 Although several occurrences are noted on FIG. 4, none of these appear to postdate the second century at the latest. A few iron objects come from caves; these locations are likely to have had some special significance, since they often contain unusual prehistoric and Roman finds.75 Many, perhaps all, of the deposits considered in this paper were probably intimately connected with human occupation and the adaptation of the landscape.

Contexts associated with settlement and temple boundaries

A number of studies of the boundaries that surround Iron Age hillforts and enclosed settlements have emphasised the ritual and symbolic significance of these structures.76 In the past the military function of ramparts has often been stressed, but it is increasingly realised that the boundaries to sites had other metaphorical associations which may explain the common occurrence of currency bars and other finds in these contexts.77 The association between Iron Age currency bars and enclosure boundaries (FIG. 5a; Table 1) mirrors a slightly less clear-cut association for fifth- to first-century B.C. ironwork deposits (FIG. 2a); this is unsurprising, since many of the latter contain currency bars. Hoards and objects were deposited in different contexts in, and close to, the boundaries of hillforts and enclosed settlements at this time (FIGS 2b and 5b). Some of the iron objects came from the boundary earthworks themselves, from the ditches and banks of enclosures; the recorded details at Ditches and Stanway suggest deliberate deposition. At Stanwick 2, a set of iron shears was placed in the ditch that surrounded a house within the boundary of the so-called oppidum.78 At Park Farm, the currency bar came from the upper fill of the enclosure ditch, possibly suggesting that it was originally placed within, or on, ramparts, later being redeposited into the ditch. At Nadbury, the single currency bar was deposited in its pit at a time at which the Iron Age rampart had apparently gone out of use, while the two acts of deposition at South Cadbury (1 and 2) dated to phases of use of the long-term rampart. At

70 Bradley 1998.71 Field and Parker Pearson 2003; Pryor 2001.72 Piggott 1955; Hunter 1997, 116. Piggott (1995) and Manning (1972, 242) argued for a Roman military origin

for these hoards, but Hunter (1997, 116–17) has examined the evidence that they may have been native in origin.73 At Fengate Powerstation, a Roman road (the Fen Causeway) ran c. 100m to the north of the earlier timber

track/platform and followed a roughly comparable course for some distance (Pryor 2001, figs 4.1, 5.1). Perhaps the course of this Roman road perpetuates the memory of an earlier routeway. The Fengate excavations produced some Roman finds, although it is not clear how these came to be deposited.

74 Although, see the thoughtful study by Merrifield (1997) of the material from the Walbrook (London).75 Hingley 1990a, 98; Branigan and Dearne 1992.76 Bowden and McOmish 1987; Hill 1995a; 1995b; Hingley 1990a; 2005.77 Hingley 1990a; 2005; Haselgrove and Hingley in press. 78 Perhaps the object was originally stored in the roof of the building.


A B

FIG. 5. Contexts containing currency bars. (Each deposit including iron is counted once. For key to context types see p. 221). a. Contexts (n = 22). b. Details of boundary contexts (n = 15).

Site Context Number of objectsBearwood 3a 4Bredon Hill 6 3a 2Danebury 1 3c 21Danebury 2 3c 1Ditches, Glos. 3b c10Fiskerton 1 1Gretton 7 48Hayling Island 2 2Hinchingbrooke Park Road

3a 2

Hod Hill 4 3c 1Kingsdown 3a 2Madmarston 3a 12Nadbury, Warks. 3a 1Orton Meadows 1 9Old Down Farm 6 1Park Farm, Barford, Warks.

3a 1

South Cadbury 1 3a 1Spettisbury 3a 1Stanway 3a 2Totterdown Lane 3c c10Wookey Hole 1 1Worthy Down 7 13

TABLE 1. THE CONTEXTS OF CURRENCY BAR FINDS


Madmarston, the collection of iron artefacts was placed on the back of the rampart, possibly within a building or paved area.79

Between the first century B.C. and the first century A.D., the emphasis upon enclosure entrances appears to be particularly marked (FIG. 3b). The smaller proportion of currency bars from enclosure entrances (FIG. 5b) may indicate that this fixation on the entrance is a late Iron Age trend. The entrance contexts include several so-called ‘massacre deposits’.80 It has often been supposed that the disarticulated human remains, associated with weapons and personal objects, at the sites of Bredon Hill, Ham Hill, Maiden Castle, South Cadbury, and Spettisbury are the results of battles occurring in and around the hillforts during the final phases of the Iron Age, or at the time of the Roman conquest of these areas. At Bredon Hill, South Cadbury, and Maiden Castle the deposits were made in the entrance to the hillforts, while the Spettisbury finds had been placed in the ditch outside the rampart, and those at Ham Hill may have been placed in a hollow behind the rampart. The damage on some of the human bones from these deposits has often been used to support the idea that these remains are those of war victims, although the occurrence of multiple individuals, together with weapons and other objects, on sanctuary sites in France (at Ribemont-sur-Ancre and Gournay-sur-Aronde) suggests that these ‘massacre deposits’ might equally well form ritual deposits associated with sacred locations.81 In fact, individual iron weapons also occur in boundary contexts on hillfort sites; the ditch ends of entrances at Stanwick 1 and Bredon Hill 1 produced, respectively, a very well preserved sword in a sheath and a ‘flamboyant’ spearhead. The Stanwick sword was closely associated with a decapitated human skull.

The distinct objects in these deposits may originally have been placed in highly visible locations before they found their way into hollows and ditches. The human skull at Stanwick 1 may originally have been displayed on a pole at the entrance,82 while the number of skulls along the line of the timber gate at the hillfort at Bredon Hill has been taken to indicate that they had been set up on top of the entrance.83 Presumably, weapons and other objects could also have been placed on display above the gateway, or on top of the rampart. Alternatively, bodies and weapons may have been displayed on the sloping outer or inner face of ramparts.

A variety of other finds have been made close to ramparts and enclosure ditches, defined in an earlier article as having a ‘loose association’.84 On FIGS 2b, 3b, and 5b these are classified as ‘close to’ the enclosure boundary. To associate all these finds with boundaries may be to push the evidence too far. After all, many past excavations have focused on the boundaries of Iron Age enclosed sites.85 It is necessary, however, to consider the significance of areas immediately inside and outside the line of the ramparts, as boundary zones are unlikely to have included only the physical structures that defined sites. At Balksbury Camp (Hants.), the symbolic significance of this marginal internal space inside a late Bronze Age hillfort has been stressed,86 and the quarry hollows and periphery of later hillforts might have had comparable associations. At Danebury, the four distinct ironwork hoards identified by the excavators all occurred in contexts

79 A recently discovered hoard from the East Riding of Yorkshire, which included five iron swords with scabbards and spearheads, was found in a ditch which may have defined the boundary of a settlement (Fenn 2003). This is not included in the Appendix, since its exact findspot has not been published.

80 Wheeler 1943; Sharples 1991; Barrett et al. 2000, 105–16.81 Brunaux 1988.82 Wheeler 1954, 53.83 Hencken 1939, 23.84 Hingley 1990a.85 Cunliffe 1978, 243.86 Ellis and Rawlings (2001) review the evidence for the midden that had built up behind the ramparts of an

apparently relatively sparsely occupied hillfort.


that were just behind the ramparts, within roundhouses situated within the quarry hollows. The extent of the excavation at this site suggests that the context of the burial of the iron objects close to the rear of the rampart is significant, as none of the excavated houses within the interior of the site produced hoards.87 Finds of iron objects in comparable contexts at Hod Hill 4 and, possibly, at Bredon Hill 2 and 3 may indicate that this type of context was common. The act of deposition of the ironwork may only have been visible to those within or immediately outside the house in each case, stressing the importance of the immediate context of the act.88

The areas between defence-works and immediately outside the boundary also appear to have been significant. At Bredon Hill 6, the currency bars were found in a feature positioned between the inner and outer defences of the hillfort, while the currency bars at Totterdown Lane may have been deposited just outside a boundary ditch.89 The other contexts defined as ‘close to’ an enclosure boundary on FIGS 2b, 3b, and 5b and in the Appendix have comparable associations to the physical boundaries of individual sites.

Not all significant Iron Age deposits occur in the boundaries around enclosed settlements (FIG. 2a), and it is likely that the attention paid to these contexts has biased the recovery of data. Occasionally, currency bars are located in pits in the interior of settlement enclosures,90 and sometimes they may occur in unenclosed settlements.91 These exceptions do not, however, detract from the strong overall pattern. The vast majority of significant deposits of Iron Age iron come from enclosed settlements. Although unenclosed, or ‘open’, settlements are fairly common in the middle Iron Age settlement record, collections of currency bars are rarely found in these contexts.92 Many of the larger collections of currency bars come from settlement boundary contexts, emphasising the significance of these deposits.93

The evidence from a number of later Iron Age and Roman temples and sanctuaries strengthens the association.94 At Uley, a large number of spearheads was found in a ditch and pit that defined the east side of the late Iron Age shrine; while at Hayling Island, fragments of currency bars, spearheads, and linch pins, together with finds such as human bone, were located on the eastern boundary of the enclosure around the early temple building. At Baldock, in a third-century A.D. context, Pit A13 produced 33 iron spearheads; this feature was one of a number located close to the northern boundary of what may well have been a shrine or sacred area. Other Roman shrines and temple sites have produced spearheads, for example, at Bancroft, where eighteen examples were found in and around a circular building which replaced the mausoleum.95

Boundary contexts also appear significant at certain Roman settlements and forts.96 Relevant forts at Newstead and Bar Hill housed army units with origins outside Britain. At Newstead, in

87 In addition, the distribution of particular types of pit fills at Danebury (Poole 1995, 255–9) shows no focus on the peripheral areas of the enclosure.

88 Hingley 2005, 201.89 Pine and Preston 2004.90 Hingley 1990a, 103.91 The recent publication of two possible fragments of currency bars from the settlement at Gravelly Guy, Oxon.

(Lambrick and Allen 2004, 364–5) illustrates that some unenclosed settlements may have produced fragmentary examples that have not been recognised (these finds are not included in the Appendix). It should be noted, however, that the Gravelly Guy settlement lay on the edge of a substantial territory that was defined by a linear ditch that bounded the settlement, so this may also represent another type of boundary context.

92 Hingley 2005.93 The massive currency bar hoard from Meon Hill (Warwicks.), for example, probably came from a boundary

context, although the exact findspot is uncertain (Hingley 1990a) and it has not been included in the Appendix or FIGS 1–5.

94 These are defined as ‘shrine’ contexts rather than enclosure contexts in the Appendix and on relevant FIGS.95 Five examples were also found during the villa excavation (Skinner 1994, 339).96 Manning 1972, 243. For the significance of boundaries in the Roman period, see Hingley 1990b and Esmonde

Cleary 2000, 137–8.


97 Curle 1911; Clarke and Jones 1996. 98 Clarke and Jones 1996, 120. 99 Clarke 1997, 79.100 ibid.101 Including contexts that contained iron weapons and/or those that contained more that five individual iron

objects.102 Bill Manning pers. comm.103 See Curle 1911, 185.104 Clarke and Jones 1996, 113, 115, 120. 105 See van Enckevort and Willems 1996 and Bonnamour and Dumont 1996 for ritual deposits of military

metalwork within forts on the Continent.

the late first or second century A.D., a substantial number of deep pits across the fort and annexes contained significant finds, including iron objects.97 Some of these pits appear to have served as wells, the majority of which were located in the south annexe of the fort where recent work has indicated that they supplied a variety of timber buildings, many involved in industrial production. A number of the pits had significant associations with features defining the boundaries of the fort.98 Although many of the pits were actually within the interior of the fort and its annexes,99 Clarke and Jones noted that the boundary pits contained more in the way of special objects than the average pits across the site and that they were often deeper.100 Seven pits with significant iron objects are mainly within, or near to, the defences of the fort and its associated enclosures.101 Hoard 1 was buried in a pit that was partly sealed by the ‘rampart’ that surrounded the bath-house in the western annexe. Hoards 2, 3, and 4 were buried in the defensive system of the fort, perhaps, in the case of Pit 58 (Hoard 4), associated with the defences of the initial fort. Hoards 5 and 7 came from pits located approximately 10m south of the outer line of the later fort ditch, along with a number of other pits that contained significant finds. Bill Manning is currently studying the material from the Newstead pits and has pointed out that, while Curle argued that much of the material was associated with the Antonine fort, most of the pottery appears to be Flavian.102 This may mean that the seven significant pits are not quite as closely associated with the boundary earthworks as would currently appear to be the case, but, since the ramparts of the earlier fort appear to have been followed approximately by those of the later fort, the pits would still appear to occur just beyond its boundary.103

The exact details of the context of the boundary pits excavated early in the twentieth century at Newstead are unclear, but one, partly excavated by R.F.J. Jones and Peter Rush in 1990, was cut into the side of the ditch of the eastern annexe and had been deliberately filled. This was followed by the deliberate back-filling of the annexe ditch. Clarke and Jones interpreted the pit and its fill as representing part of a termination ritual at the end of the life of the annexe.104 It should be noted, however, that this pit was not excavated deeper than the top fills and we do not know whether it contained significant objects. In addition, finds of individual items of ironwork from Newstead were not restricted to the boundaries of the site. Some classes of iron finds, particularly swords, do appear, however, to have a particular association with the boundaries, while, interestingly, spearheads appear to have been more widespread.

Hoard 6 at Newstead is the only exception to the boundary context of these collections, placed in a central location in the courtyard of the principia. A significant collection of material from the Roman fort on Bar Hill (1) came from a well in the principia, while a second pit (2), which held a complete wheel with iron tyre, was located immediately inside the rampart, just to the west of the southern entrance. The evidence from Newstead and Bar Hill suggests that units of the Roman army may have indulged in ritual practices broadly comparable to those that occurred on native sites in Roman Britain. Evidently, more information is required on the ritual practices performed by these people in their native lands before we can place the British information in context.105


Manning’s ongoing research on the material from the Newstead pits has led him to conclude that many of these ‘hoards’ form closing deposits, relating to the abandonment of the fort. The Inchtuthil nails might have had a comparable relevance.106 Such a consideration does not, however, detract from the idea that these deposits might have had a ritual dimension. Finds from other sites may hint at acts of deposition commemorating an old settlement feature, or an entire settlement, that was going out of use, or being obscured. At Gretton, the small pit containing currency bars apparently cut into an earlier and largely silted-up pit that formed part of a pit alignment. At Billingborough, close to an Iron Age settlement, a poker was placed in a shallow slot dug into a late Bronze Age ditch, while the feature with the currency bar at Nadbury appears to have been excavated when the hillfort rampart was collapsing. At Kilvertstone, during the third to fourth century A.D., the pit containing the iron objects and pewter vessels was dug on the edge of a settlement, where it was cut into an earlier and disused boundary ditch. Deposits from the Roman forts of Inchtuthil, Newstead, and Bar Hill are often associated with the idea of abandonment and the clearing of the site,107 acts that are likely to have had a deeply ritual significance.

Other Roman-period finds also come from boundaries, although this context type appears to become less common with time (compare FIGS 3 and 4). This trend may, however, be partly an aspect of the way in which the material has been categorised in this study. At Barton Court and Dalton Parlours, wells were sunk close to the edges of the enclosure systems of the Roman settlements. At Dorchester on Thames, the late Roman hoard was placed on a road immediately inside the rampart of the town, recalling an earlier tradition of the deposition of iron objects on hillfort sites.108

Contexts within settlements, including wells

A number of Iron Age iron deposits come from buildings and other features within settlements (classified as ‘settlement’ on FIGS 2a and 3a). At Houghton Down, Old Down Farm, and, possibly, at Worthy Down, finds were made from pits inside an enclosed settlement,109 while collections of objects also sometimes come from contexts within roundhouses in the interior of hillforts, as at Hod Hill 1, 2, and 3. The evidence may suggest that finds of the first century B.C. to fourth century A.D. come in increasing numbers from contexts within settlements and industrial sites (compare FIGS 2a, 3a, and 4). This is just the type of information that could indicate that the meaning of hoarding was changing, with some of the late Roman deposits perhaps taking on a more mundane significance, as deposits of useful material that was being saved for reuse.110 This is uncertain, however, since it has been proposed that certain iron deposits within settlements held ritual significance. At Haddon, a small pit contained iron shears, a chain segment, and a Roman coin; this was interpreted as a ‘foundation deposit’ connected with the construction of a malting oven.111 At Wavendon Gate, a deposit from a third-century A.D. pit within an enclosed settlement may also suggest that at least some of the iron objects were deposited for similar reasons (see p. 233). Finds from other settlement contexts, including the oven at Asthall, the foundations of a building at Great Holts Farm, and a stone drain inside a farm building at Stanwick villa, may

106 Bill Manning pers. comm.107 Manning 1972, 241, 243, and 246.108 At Silchester (2), the well that contained the iron hoard may be significant since it was very close to the line of

the boundary of the insula in which it was located.109 Hooley 1931, 178–9 suggests that two Iron Age ditches at Worthy Down defined an area around a number

of pits, including the one that contained the currency bars. In my earlier work this site has been classified as an unenclosed settlement.

110 See p. 219.111 Hinman 2003, 52, 112.


have had a comparable significance. By contrast, it is highly likely that some other objects were simply lost, or discarded as rubbish;112 for example, at Cannard’s Grave, several fittings found in the make-up of a track or road probably fell off a cart.

Wells usually appear to be features of settlement and, together with waterlogged pits, are common Roman-period contexts for depositing iron objects (FIGS 3a and 4). The collections of finds made in deep pits and wells have often been interpreted in ritual terms,113 although care is necessary over the idea of timeless, unchanging ‘Celtic’ religion and the role of wells in any such tradition.114 The Iron Age wells reviewed by Jane Webster do not appear to have contained significant deposits and the information in the Appendix contains no significant iron objects of Iron Age date deposited in deep pits and wells. It is possible that the placing of votive materials in wells and deep pits represents a Roman phenomenon, generally of late Roman date, but occurring during the late first to second centuries A.D. at Newstead and perhaps elsewhere. Woodward and Woodward have suggested that the deposition of significant materials in pits/wells may actually be an imported ‘Roman’ tradition,115 although the general similarity of some of the iron objects reviewed in this paper that occur in later prehistoric and Roman deposits could suggest that they form a new type of context for what are effectively old practices.

A consideration of the character of the fills of some of these Roman-period pits and wells points clearly to a ritual interpretation.116 The remarkable layer formation of the highly structured deposits in the fill of the pit at Jordan Hill, and the cists half-way down and at the base, with their apparent reference to burial (single sword and spearhead), is hard to interpret any other way. The well at Silchester (2) also had a massive collection of ironwork sealing a cist at the bottom that contained two complete pots. Pits and wells at Newstead (Hoards 1, 6 and 7), Dalton Parlours, and the probable well at Appleford (2) contained human remains and other significant finds. The majority of material discussed by Poulton and Scott in their article on pewter hoarding and the evidence from the wells with significant ironwork suggest that the deposition of significant items in this type of context is mainly a third- and fourth-century A.D. practice.

This does not mean that these wells were all constructed in the late Roman period, as they are often dated using the materials that filled them. They may have been kept clean, and the material deposited in them might therefore represent disuse or termination deposits dating from the final stage of the disuse of the well. This raises an important issue for the iron deposits that have been considered already. If only the final deposits placed in long-lived wells survive to be found, perhaps the same is true for many of the later prehistoric ironwork deposits that were made in settlement boundary contexts. Perhaps finds of these types were commonly deposited in settlement boundaries and pits, but the deposits located by archaeologists are the final examples that marked the end of the life of a feature. Certainly, as we have seen, when the excavated evidence is sufficiently detailed, iron objects often appear to occur in relatively late contexts in the sequence of site development.

PATTERNS OF DEPOSITION FOR SINGLE OBJECTS

As we have seen, single iron objects may often have been deposited for significant reasons. It

112 Osbourne 2004, 3 has discussed the difficulty in distinguishing when an object was dedicated, or simply discarded.

113 Ross 1974, 50–6; Poulton and Scott 1993, 122–3; Wait 1985, 51–82.114 Webster 1997.115 Woodward and Woodward 2004.116 See Wait 1985, 51–82 and 321–35 for a full discussion of the evidence. The objects from many of the wells and

pits discussed by Wait are very mixed. Only examples that have produced a reasonable quantity of iron objects are discussed in this paper. Wait’s list includes other wells and pits that have produced one or two iron items.


is, in general, difficult to study the distribution of single iron objects from excavated sites, since the large number of finds often means that individual items are not recorded and published in sufficient detail to enable detailed analysis. The evidence from three particular sites enables an assessment of the distribution of iron objects. These sites have been selected since they raise interesting issues.

At the extensively-excavated later prehistoric hillfort of Danebury (Hants.), four ironwork hoards have been distinguished, while a plethora of additional iron artefacts were scattered across the excavated area in a variety of types of archaeological context, particularly storage pits.117 Analysis of the content of Iron Age storage pits at Danebury and elsewhere has indicated that many contained ‘special deposits’,118 and it has been suggested that many of the individual (broken and complete) iron objects at Danebury were deliberately deposited.119 It is interesting, however, that the hoards have a clear association with houses that were built either in the quarry hollows or very close to the rampart,120 while the other objects appear to be distributed more randomly and may represent different practices of deposition.121

A sub-rectangular ditched enclosure to the north-east of Site A at Baldock (Herts.) formed part of an extensive late Iron Age and early Roman site; this enclosure was initially constructed around the middle of the second century A.D. (FIG. 6).122 It contained a round building, defined by a ditched enclosure, and a variety of other features, including a cluster of pits close to its northern corner. An elaborate and multi-period entrance, defined by four posts and two pits, lay to the south-east. This enclosure featured a marked concentration of iron objects when compared with the remainder of the site. Significant finds included a scatter of iron projectile heads and spearheads, mainly from the northern part of the enclosure and the entrance. A particular concentration of 33 spearheads and projectile points came from a third-century A.D. pit or well (A13), while six further examples were found close by. Five further spearheads or projectile heads came from the entrance area, which also produced a ritual ‘rattle’ and a fragment of a bronze statue. Other iron finds included a hammer-head and a cock-spur, still attached to the leg bone of the cock. Several bronze model weapons were also found. This enclosure may, perhaps, represent a shrine or temple,123 while the distribution of iron objects across the remainder of the excavated area may, perhaps, be less highly structured. Certain iron objects, including spearheads and projectile heads, may have been deposited as votive objects, while some other finds could represent casual loss.

The iron finds from the site at Wavendon Gate (Bucks.), however, indicate that we should not assume that even single items found on Roman sites are necessarily casual losses or discards. This site was a large settlement enclosure (FIG. 7). Built around the middle of the first century A.D., close to a pre-existing Iron Age settlement, it remained in use with various phases of recutting until at least the early fourth century.124 Within this enclosure there was evidence for domestic settlement and also a small cemetery. Although a variety of objects suggest ritual practices, the site was interpreted as an agricultural settlement. Small finds from the site were common; for instance, there were 108 Roman coins and numerous copper-alloy items, including eleven

117 Cunliffe and Poole 1991b, 333; Cunliffe 1995, 83; Poole 1995, 262–3.118 Hill 1995a; Cunliffe 1995, 80–6.119 Cunliffe and Poole 1991b, 354. Poole 1995, 264–75 reviews the complexity of the fill deposits from pits at

Danebury.120 See pp. 226–7.121 For further discussion of the distribution of individual iron objects at Iron Age sites, see Haselgrove and

Hingley in press.122 Stead and Rigby 1986, 44.123 See Booth 2001 for a potentially comparable enclosure at Westhawk Farm (Kent).124 Williams et al. 1996, 83.


FIG

. 6.

Ditc

hed

encl

osur

es a

t Bal

dock

, Her

ts.,

show

ing

loca

tions

of i

ron

obje

cts

(afte

r Ste

ad a

nd R

igby

198

6, fi

g, 4

)


brooches. Iron objects, however, were rarer: the extensive excavations produced 25 stratified pieces in Roman contexts,125 along with 116 stratified Roman nails. This is a remarkably small collection for a domestic site that was occupied throughout the Roman period.126 A waterlogged pit within the settlement enclosure produced finds that dated to the third century A.D., including a spearhead and four other iron objects, in addition to a significant proportion of the nails from the site. The pit also contained other significant finds, including a large part of the bole of an ash tree, which appears to have grown close by. The impressive wooden wheel from the pit is reminiscent of the symbol in various representations from Britain of an iron-working god.127

125 Hylton 1996, 120–5, who notes 34 objects. Seven of these were unstratified, while two of the objects are post-Roman.

126 Hylton 1996, 125.127 See the pottery vessels reviewed by Leach 1962. This author suggests that the wheel symbol and full-face

helmet on the sceptre from Farley Heath are symbols of a second god (ibid., 40; Goodchild 1938), but they could well be connected with the apparent smith god shown on this object (see Green 1976, 24–5 for associations between Taranis and Vulcan).

FIG. 7. Settlement enclosure at Wavendon Gate (Bucks.), showing locations of iron objects (after Williams et al. 1996, fig. 45).


A series of flat stones appeared to have been positioned to create a means of access to the pit, suggesting that people may have utilised it from time to time. Perhaps many of the objects in the pit were offerings placed in or on a tree that formerly grew within the enclosure and became incorporated in the pit when it died.128

Of the twenty-five iron objects from the site, five were found in the waterlogged pit, while another seven came from the metalled surface associated with it, which may have been used as a working area. Five objects came from various phases of the enclosure ditch that surrounded the settlement, four from various phases of the sub-division of this enclosure, and two from a cremation burial. One came from the ditch defining a later enclosure built to the north-east of the main enclosure; another (a scythe fragment) from cleaning above a corn-drier. All these contexts related directly to elements of the site that could be interpreted, in the terms addressed above, as of potential significance. Of the nails, 32 (28 per cent) derived from inhumations and cremations, 43 (37 per cent) from the waterlogged pit and associated contexts, and 41 (35 per cent) from the remainder of the settlement enclosure and associated contexts. The numbers of nails and other objects of iron appear to be remarkable low and highly-structured to certain types of context. For example, the numerous pits and post-holes inside the settlement enclosure produced no iron objects.129

Many of the iron objects from these three sites appear to be structured in their deposition, although this does not necessarily mean that they were all votive.130 The dramatic variations in the quantity of iron finds on different sites, and the significant contexts in which these finds occur, enable an informed discussion to take place about the variable motivations for the deposition of the iron objects.131 Other Iron Age and Roman sites have produced vast quantities of iron objects, and the reasons for their deposition require serious contextual study on an individual basis, comparing their occurrence to other types of artefacts, to determine patterns in deposition.

THE CHARACTER OF THE ITEMS DEPOSITED

The information discussed above about the contrasting context of swords and spears at Newstead, together with the distribution of finds at Baldock, raises the issue that it may often have been the metaphorical associations of the particular object, rather than the material that it was made out of, which determined why it was deposited in particular contexts. To pursue this topic, one might assess the contrasting contexts in which different iron artefact types occur to see whether these were used in varying combinations. The types of objects deposited will not be discussed in any great detail in this paper, since there are many other examples of the types of objects addressed that are not included in the Appendix, and this is a serious limitation on the value of any such analysis. It is useful to provide a provisional examination of the data assembled in this paper to see whether general patterns emerge, however limited these may be. It may even be possible to use this approach to examine the idea that certain finds represent casual discards or losses.132 In order to pursue this, data for the depositional contexts of five types of artefact have been compiled (FIGS 5, 8 and 9; Tables 1–3).

128 For the sacred character of some trees, see Ross (1967, 33–4) and Woodward (1992, 51). Ross discusses the evidence from Irish sources for the sacred character of trees, including the ash tree. Meetings may often have been held below the boughs of sacred trees (Ross 1967, 34). This argument does not mean that all the iron finds from the pit need to have been ritually deposited.

129 The publication does not locate the exact context of the nails within the settlement enclosure itself and some of these objects (although not many) may have come from these pits and post-holes.

130 Indeed, structured deposition need not indicate ritual behaviour (Hill 1995a).131 A number of other Roman settlements have produced relatively low quantities of iron finds (Bill Manning pers.

comm.).132 But see p. 219.


A BFIG. 8. Contexts containing selected types of weapons. (Each deposit including iron is counted once. For key to

context types see p. 221). a. Spearheads/boltheads/arrowheads (counting each example once, n = 31).b. Swords (counting each example once, n = 15).

TABLE 2. THE CONTEXT OF SWORDS, ARROWHEADS AND BOLTHEADS

Site Context Type & number of objectBaldock 4 Spearheads (33)Bancroft 2 Boltheads or spearheads (18)Bar Hill 1 5 Arrowheads (7)Barton Court 4 Spearhead (1)Bredon Hill 1 3b Spearhead (1)Bredon Hill 4 3b Spearheads (7) Sword (1)Bredon Hill 5 3b Spearhead (1)Carlingwark Loch 1 Sword (8) – tip onlyFengate Power Station 1 Swords (2)Fiskerton 1 Swords (5) Spearheads (11)Great Holts Farm 2 6 Bolthead or arrowhead (1)Ham Hill 3c Spearheads (‘many’)Hayling Island 2 SpearheadsHod Hill 2 6 Spearheads (3+)Hod Hill 3 6 Spearheads (11)Hod Hill 5 2? Spearhead (1)Jordan Hill 2 Swords (2) Spearheads (2)Maiden Castle 1 3b Swords (2) Arrowheads (4) Bolthead (1)Maiden Castle 2 2? Swords (4) Arrowhead (1) Boltheads (2)Maiden Castle 3 3b Arrowheads (2)Newstead 1 4 Swords (4)Newstead 2 4 SpearheadNewstead 3 4 Spearhead, Arrowheads (3)Newstead 4 4 Swords (2)Newstead 6 6 Spearheads (6)Newstead 7 4 Sword, Spearheads (5)Orsett ‘Cock’ 3a Spearheads (7)Orton Meadows 1 Swords (7) Spearhead (1)Silchester 1 5 Sword (1)


As has already been remarked, currency bars are usually deposited in settlement boundary contexts, although significant numbers occur in wetland and other occupation contexts (FIG. 5 and Table 1). Swords and spearheads (FIG. 8 and Table 2) are highly symbolic objects, often hoarded and sometimes included in burials. The limited number of examples of deposits that contain swords makes interpretation difficult, but they appear, from the data assembled in this paper, to be more common in wetland contexts than spears and less common in enclosure boundaries than currency bars. Spearheads/boltheads/arrowheads occur in a wide variety of context types. Ploughshares and sickles/reaping-hooks/scythes (FIG. 9 and Table 3) are relatively common in wetland deposits but, again, the numbers of occurrences restrict interpretation in any detail. The occurrence of ploughshares on the temple sites at Frilford and Harlow clearly demonstrates that such objects represented ritual items in certain contexts.

Despite the limitations, these data do indicate different proportions of finds in the various context types. This, in turn, suggests that additional detailed analysis addressing chronological and regional variations in practices of deposition should enable a fuller interpretation and understanding, which may help to explain motives for the differential deposition of various types of iron objects. Other types of object that would benefit from a similar analysis include iron-working tools, tyres, locks and keys.133 No detailed analysis has been attempted of these

Site Context Type & number of objectSilchester 2 4 Spearhead (1)South Cadbury 3 3b Spearheads (37) Boltheads (21)South Cadbury 4 6 Spearheads (11)Spettisbury 3a Spearheads (13) Sword (1)Stanwick, North Yorks. 1 3b Sword (1)Uley 1 2 Spearheads (19) Boltheads (12)Waltham Abbey 1 Sword (1)Wavendon Gate 6 Spearhead (1)Wookey Hole 1 Spearhead (1) Arrowheads (5)

TABLE 2 (CONT). THE CONTEXT OF SWORDS, ARROWHEADS AND BOLTHEADS

A BFIG. 9. Contexts containing seleted types of agricultural tools. (Each deposit including iron is counted once. For key to context types see p. 221). a. Ploughs (counting each example once, n = 12). b. Sickles, reaping hook, billhooks

(counting each example once, n = 17).

133 For Iron Age metalworking tools, see Fell 1990.


find categories, but the seven keys/latch-lifters from the entrance passageway at the hillfort of South Cadbury (3) could not have all been intended to lock a single door. One might expect such items to have a close association with settlement boundaries, since they would have held metaphorically contrasting associations with security and access to locked places.

SUMMARY

The focus of this paper has been on the general context in which deposition occurred, and a variety of specific types of context have been defined. It is important, however, to avoid over-simplistic interpretations and the arguments above certainly should not be taken to infer that all iron objects were votive.134 The evidence reviewed indicates a rather variable picture and the consistency of context may be partly an illusion created by the method by which the data has

134 See p. 217.

Site Context Type of objectAldclune 3a Digging toolBlackburn Mill 1 Plough, SickleBrampton 6 Plough, ScytheCarlingwark Loch 1 Scythe, SickleDalton Parlours 4 Reaping hookDorchester on Thames 3c PloughEckford 1 Plough, Sickle Fiskerton 1 Reaping hookFrilford 2 PloughGreat Chesterford 4 Plough, ScytheHarlow 2 PloughHod Hill 1 6 SickleHod Hill 4 3c SickleHod Hill 5 2? SickleKingsdown 3a Ard/plough Madmarston 3a SickleNewstead 5 4 SickleNewstead 6 5 SickleSilchester 1 5 Plough Silchester 2 4 Plough South Cadbury 1 3a Reaping hookSouth Cadbury 2 3a BillhookSouth Cadbury 3 3b Reaping hook Spettisbury 3a Plough Stanwick Villa 6 Plough Wookey Hole 1 Billhook, Sickle

TABLE 3. THE CONTEXT OF SELECTED TYPES OF AGRICULTURAL TOOLS


been collected and analysed. Further work is necessary to assess the ideas developed here, but it is possible to make some tentative observations that may help to provide an understanding of the changing conceptual geographies of later prehistoric and Roman populations.

The strong emphasis upon settlement boundaries during the Iron Age helps to highlight a period in which people in some areas of Britain were particularly enthusiastic about creating clear physical boundaries around their settlements.135 Iron deposition may well have performed a significant role in the definition, perpetuation, or abandonment of these significant physical boundaries. Even during this time, however, the exact context of deposition in which objects were placed in boundaries was highly variable — in ditches, in pits on the back of ramparts, on the backs of ramparts, in quarry hollows, in roundhouses behind ramparts, and in entrances. If this is a single practice of deposition across southern Britain, how is the variation in the exact context in which it occurred to be explained? Many individual finds may have been moved as a result of post-depositional factors,136 but the evidence may also hint at the varying importance of particular elements of boundaries and differences in activity over time. The objects that were deposited within settlement areas, into wet contexts, and at shrines hint at similar local variations in practice, which may all be related to the meaning of a variety of types of transitional area.

Currency bars show a particularly close association with settlement boundaries, which highlights the idea that different classes of iron objects may have been used in different ways. Indeed, the provisional analysis of the contexts in which different types of objects were used suggests differing associations with settlement boundaries, although much further work is required to pursue this topic. Although currency bars are particularly common in association with settlement boundaries, the majority of later prehistoric deposits of iron also occur in these contexts. A particular focus on the entrance to enclosed settlements exists in the first century B.C. / first century A.D., which is only partly explained by the ‘massacre deposits’. The evidence for iron deposits of the second to fourth century A.D. shows rather less of a focus on settlement boundaries, although a higher proportion of finds (86 per cent, or 31 out of 37 deposits) occur within the areas of settlements, in contrast with the fifth to first century B.C. deposits (75 per cent). The apparent reduction of the focusing of iron deposition on the settlement boundary in this later phase may be exaggerated by the fact that some deposits are placed in wells and deep pits which lie within settlement boundary zones, and by the observation that many settlements from the late first century B.C. to the end of the Roman period possessed more complex systems of boundaries than their later prehistoric predecessors.137 After the first century B.C. there may have been less of a fixation on creating clear physical boundaries to the sites, although enclosed settlements do occur and many of the towns of the province received walled circuits during the later Roman period. Only one collection of ironwork (Dorchester on Thames) comes from a context close to the ramparts of a town.

The main focus of deposition for significant collections of iron during the Roman period involves wells and deep pits, with a secondary focus on deposition within the settlement, but often in significant locations. The iron objects from wells and deep pits are matched by the deposition of many other significant objects in such contexts. Although there appears, from the evidence reviewed in this paper, to be a dramatic change in the contexts used for the deposition of iron objects during the course of the period discussed, the survey of individual finds at Danebury, Wavendon Gate, and Baldock suggests that many iron objects continued to be deposited for ritual reasons throughout the period.

Thinking in more general terms about the relationship between the location in physical

135 Hingley 1990a; Hill 1995b.136 As with the currency bar from the top of the enclosure ditch at Park Farm (see p. 224).137 Hingley 1989, 55–9.


space and the objects that were deposited, accounts of the hoarding of material often state that weapons and tools were placed in a variety of locations, such as wetlands, boundaries and wells, which had special significance. It may well be erroneous, however, to assume such a static view of landscape and action.138 Instead, it may have been a combination of object and place that determined the power of the action. Objects may have been placed in particular locations, which then took on new (or renewed) ritual and symbolic associations that drew upon the significance of the deposited objects. The ingredients of the act may, sometimes, have been as important as the particular context in which they were deposited. In fact, the locations where iron and other significant objects were placed were not necessarily in themselves particularly special (or necessarily sacred). The presence of water may have been significant for a whole variety of contexts in which metal is found. This is relevant, not only for rivers, marshes, and lakes, but also for the enclosure ditches of settlements that held water (for example, at Stanwick). The watery association is also evident for the Roman wells and deep pits. Deposition may also often have related to beliefs about particular moments in time: the establishing or the disuse and abandonment of the structure.

The important issue when studying the deposition of iron, as with other classes of finds, is to examine each deposit in order to attempt to address its own particular meaning. Each discovery represents a unique act of deposition and should be studied and interpreted accordingly. Broad patterns in the evidence may enable some conclusions to be drawn about the general contexts of deposition and, perhaps, about aspects of ritual and religion in general,139 but variation constitutes a vital part of the comprehension of the information. Only through careful excavation and detailed publication can such associations be determined. The significance of the evidence from Britain is beginning to be appreciated, as is demonstrated by some of the studies reviewed in this paper, but further more detailed analysis of deposits of iron in Gaul, Germany and elsewhere would also help to set the British material in context, particularly with regard to the objects derived from military sites occupied by soldiers from overseas.140

Department of Archaeology, Durham University [email protected]

This paper is published with the aid of a grant from The Council for British Archaeology

138 Clarke and Jones 1996, 120.139 Insoll 2004, 12.140 See van Enckevort and Williams 1996 and Bonnamour and Dumont 1996 for two relevant studies of the context

of the deposition of Roman military items. Currency bar hoards from Montans, France (Martin and Ruffat 1998) and the cave at Le Trou de l’Ambre, Belgium (Mariën 1970) also indicate the potential of the continental material (Hingley 2005, 184).


APPENDIX. DEPOSITS OF IRONWORK FROM LATER PREHISTORIC AND ROMAN CONTEXTS

This material represents collections of iron objects and some single items. All have reliable contextual information. Many have been picked out by the excavators, publishers, or other researchers as having a significant context of deposition. Some form parts of larger collections of objects of a variety of materials.

Under ‘Content’, non-iron finds are listed as follows:AB = animal bone Ca = cauldron Po = potteryHB = human bone Co = coin Q = quernB = bronze object P = pewter vessel W = wooden object

Under ‘Context’, the numbers refer to the following types:1 = ‘natural’ = cave, wetland, river2 = ‘shrine’ = temple or shrine or possible shrine3 = ‘enclosure’ = in, or close to, the ditch or bank of an enclosed settlement3a = the ditch or bank of the enclosure3b = entrance area to the enclosure3c = close proximity to enclosure earthworks (within 10m)4 = wells or deep pits (over 2m deep) dug into, or very close to (within 10m), the boundary of a

settlement or site 5 = wells or deep pits (over 2m deep) dug within the area of a settlement or site6 = other contexts within the area of a settlement or industrial site7 = other features on the edges of a settlement or in the landscape

Site Context Content Dating Reference Con-text

Aldclune, Perth & Kinross

Ditch around ‘homestead’ (large enclosed roundhouse)

Digging tool C1–C2 A.D.?

Hingley et al. 1997, 437, 455

3a

Asthall, Oxon. Hearth associated with iron production

Billet Early to mid-C2 A.D.

Booth 1997, 50 6

Baldock, Site A, Herts.

Pit, particularly Pit A13, close to enclosure boundary. Others from pits close by

33 spearheads (6 others very close by & 5 fairly close)

C3 A.D. Manning and Scott 1986; Stead and Rigby 1986.

4

Bancroft, Bucks. Mausoleum and shrine 18 spearheads/boltheads, 10 from metal detecting immediately above circular shrine, 2 and an iron ferrule from central pit of building and 6 from late Roman ditches nearby. Many fragmentary, some possibly votive. Co, etc.

Mid to late C4 A.D.

Williams and Zeepvat 1994, 107, 339

2

Bar Hill, Dumbarts. 1

Well, in open court of praetorium of fort. Top 12ft full of building material and other finds, including 2 altars. Collection of iron in a bag inside large part of a complete but broken amphora

Bag full of what looked like tools (highly corroded), including nails and possibly a pair of pliers. Additional iron objects in fill of well: nails, door latch, bridle-bit, ring, compasses, 7 arrowheads, punch AB, Po, W

c. 140s A.D.

Macdonald 1906

5


Bar Hill, Dumbarts. 2

Pit 1, located just to the W of the S entrance within the fort

Complete chariot wheel with iron tyre. Wheel bushed inside with decorated iron disc. Placed at base of pit, with 3 oak stakes driven into base of pit, one of which passed between two spokes of the wheel. W

c. 140s A.D.

Macdonald 1906, 496–9

3c

Barton Court, Oxon.

Well 832, to E of ‘villa’, a couple of metres inside outer boundary ditch to site. Within fill under upper dump of stone, animal bone, and waterlogged material

Lower deposit which built up during use included biological material, iron-bound wooden bucket, iron hook, latch lifters, spearhead and shoes with nails. Po

C4–C5 A.D.?

Miles 1986, 15 4

Bearwood, Dorset

Ditch of enclosed hillslope settlement site – at bottom

4 currency bars and another iron object

c. 150–50 B.C.?

Jarvis 1985 3a

Billingborough, Lincs.

Found in a shallow recut or pit in top of Bronze Age enclosure ditch. Suggestion of digging of a pit in a still recognisable boundary for a formal votive deposit. This was just NE of a small Iron Age enclosure

Blacksmith’s poker, broken in half and parts deposited side-by-side

C3–C1 B.C.

Chowne et al. 2001, 23–4, 95

7

Blackburn Mill, Borders

Found before 1852 by labourers cutting a drain, lying on blue clay under peat. Probably deposited in a lake. In 2 cauldrons, one inverted on other

65 pieces: cauldron rim, patera without handle, ingot or cake; iron: tyre frag., linch-pin, terrett, cap or linch-pin, link or bit x 2, key, handle x 4, tub handles x 2, cauldron chain, chain-junction, knife rough-out, hipposandal x 2, rod x 2, loop, eyed hook, lampstand, staple, hinge-staple, shears, shield boss?, ploughshare, knife, peat spade, sickle, bar, pick, field-anvil, adze-blade, socketed gouge x 2, hinge frag., spike, mounting, chisel, punch x3, bar x 2, disc and a few other objects. Ca

C 1–C2 A.D.?

Piggott 1955, 4–5, 40–50

1



Brampton, Cumbria

Pit on tile-making site, 2ft diameter x 3ft deep (probably originally 10ft deep). May have been to provide water for tile-making in surrounding tile works. Pit just to W of top of hill, with tile kilns around, but mostly to W

Iron plough-share, hoe, rake prong, scythe x 2, axe, adze, morticing chisel, chisel x 2, spoon auger, large auger, L-ended tool, anvil-spike?, tool handle, tanged hook, chain x 2, hub-lining, hub-rim x 2, tyre frags x 2, strip, mounting for bucket handle x 6, L-shaped binding, couch leg x 2, drop hinge, staple, wall hook x 2, spiked collar x 4, spring padlock case, T-shaped tumbler lock key, holdfast x 3, various other fragmentary objects

Early C2 A.D.?

Manning 1965;Hogg 1966, fig. 2 for a plan of site

6

Bredon Hill, Worcs. 1

Hillfort ditch, N terminal to Phase 1 entrance in inner rampart. Top fill. The butt end of this ditch appears to have been backfilled before later IA modifications to entrance area

Large and ornate (‘flamboyant’) iron spearhead

C3–C1 B.C.?

Hencken 1939, 13, 42, 75

3b


On Site A, just N of inner entrance at rear of rampart, on original ground surface, where scraped to provide bank material

Almost complete iron horse-bit C3 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Hencken 1939, 32, 71

3c


On Site I, toward N end of E rampart, within possible building at back of rampart

Deposits included iron pin, clamps and harness hammers from horse-bit. Miniature stone axe, B, HB

C3 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Hencken 1939, 30

3c


On final stone floor to entrance passageway in inner rampart of hillfort (entrance to S of fort). Found among human bones scattered in piles in front of position of gate and for 4m down corridor outside gate

7 spear/javelin heads, an iron sword, scabbard, 2 small iron hammers and a knife. Other objects recorded from ‘Final phase Inner entrance’ include a sickle. B, HB

Early C1 A.D.?

Hencken 1939, 21–4, 76–84

3b


North-east entrance to outer rampart of hillfort

1 spearhead. Excavator also records ‘a number of iron rods in a highly corroded condition’ in north-west entrance

C3 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Hencken 1939, 63, 71, 76

3b


From a feature between the inner and outer ramparts. Found in 1959

Fragments of two currency bars C3–C1 B.C.

Allen 1967, 331

3a

Burrington Coombe, ‘Keltic Cavern’, Somerset

From cave. Fairly well recorded finds scattered around interior

Shackles, key, possible tankard handle, clamp, spike, hook, frag. of adze or axe, frag. of sickle, nails x 4, bar and other objects. B, HB

C3–C1 B.C.?

Palmer 1921; Field and Parker Pearson 2003, 188

1



Cannards Grave, Somerset

In trackway (Context 292), part of a settlement

5 objects derived from a cart (U-shaped binding, L-shaped hook, 2 guides or mounts)

C4 A.D. Birbeck 2002, 64

6

Carlingwark Loch, Dumfries & Galloway

Found in 1866 by two fisherman near the Fir Island in the loch. No further details available, but objects in a large bronze cauldron which may have been dragged up from the bottom of the loch

Mirror handle, two-link bit x 2, tyre frag., linch-pin, cleat or staple, chain-junction, handle-loop x 2, padlock spring, latch-lifter, saw, scythe-blade frag. x 2, knife-blade x 2, sword blade tip x 8, ferrule x 2, loop or bucket, sickle, circular mounting, tanged blade x 2, hammer-head x 8, adze-hammer, axe-head, staple x 3, hook x 5, draw-knife, loop x 3, punch x 4, file x 2, bar, gridiron, tripod, chain mail and some other frags. B, Ca, W

C1–C2 A.D.

Piggott 1955, 3–4, 28–40

1

Dalton Parlours, West Yorks.

Well, to SE of Building M on the E edge of the settlement. There does not appear to be a ditched boundary in front of the building/well

Toward base (deposit L), remains of several iron-bound wooden buckets, sledgehammer, masonry pick, spade sheath, reaping hook, prong, ox goad x 2, spatula, knife x 3, teathering ring, L-shaped lift-key x 2, ring x 5, strip, binding frag. x 2, bar x 2. AB, HB B, Po, W

Late C3–C4 A.D.

Wrathmell and Nicolson 1990

4

Danebury, Hants. 1

In pit within house close to rampart. Sectioned in 1969 trench

21 complete currency bars C4–C1 B.C. (CP 7)

Cunliffe 1984, 170, 357; Cunliffe and Poole 1991b, 354

3c

Danebury, Hants. 2

On floor within house close to rampart

Cauldron hook x 2, latch lifter, rod handle, punch?, CB frag., bar x 2

C4–C1 B.C. (CP 7)

Cunliffe and Poole 1991b, 354

3c

Danebury, Hants. 3

In post-hole within house close to rampart

Collection of cart fittings C4–C1 B.C. (CP 7)

Cunliffe and Poole 1991b, 354

3c

Danebury, Hants. 4

In shallow hollow within house close to rampart

2 iron linch pins. Not necessarily a hoard

C4–C1 B.C.

Cunliffe 1995, 86

3c

Ditches, North Cerney, Glos.

At north-eastern entrance to outer enclosure, at base of ditch just S of entrance. At this point there was a 0.25m deepening in base of ditch. Objects were possibly hidden under limestone slabs

Hoard of currency bars, possibly around 10. Possibly deposited in a bundle

Mid-C1 A.D.?

Trow 1988, 33, 37, 40

3b



Dorchester on Thames, Oxon.

On road just behind rampart to south of town (Site A). Either buried in silt on road (p. 119) or ‘lying on street’ (caption to pl. VII)

Plough-coulter, crowbar-like implement (possibly ploughshare) and other objects

C4 A.D. Frere 1964, 119, pl. 7a

3c

Eckford, Borders

Found in 1883 digging in a small patch of ground which may have been a dried up loch

Iron hanging-lamp or lampstand, gridiron, chariot or cart pole, linch-pin, fragmentary tyre, rod, pot-hook x 2, hook, ploughshare, socketed reaping knife or sickle, door hinge, small pick x 2, adze-hammer, mattock, farrier’s buttress, cold chisel, field anvil. B

C1–C2 A.D.

Piggott 1955, 3, 20–8

1

Fengate Power Station, Cambs.

Deposited into lake or marsh along line of post alignment, mostly on or to S of line. Alignment itself constructed c. 1300–900 B.C. and in use for long period to deposit objects

Sword x 2, hook, ring x 3, rod, cylinder, strip, looped socketed axe, nail and other objects of IA date

C4 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Pryor 2001, 298–300

1

Fiskerton, Lincs. Substantial IA and Roman votive deposit in a river, associated with a timber causeway. Possible that IA artefacts deposited in one go as a ‘closing’ deposit marking the end of the causeways initial phase of use (p. 175), but there are also some Roman finds

5 swords (& bronze sword fittings), 11 spearheads, 2 hammers, 6 metalworking files, 3 axe heads, 2 woodworking files, a possible bench anvil, punch, tool, an iron pull saw, a linch-pin, reaping hook, cleaver ?, bar, stud, nail and various frags; Roman ironwork: spoon, bar, nail, rod x 2, linch-pin. AB, HB, B, W

C3 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Field and Parker Pearson 2003

1

Frilford, Oxon. At base of post-hole in ‘ritual’ structure

Plough share C3 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Bradford and Goodchild 1939, 13

2

Gorhambury, Herts.

Against S wall of Building 40. Other iron objects from Building 39/40, including axe from post-hole (find 363) and key from post-hole (592). Other iron objects, including over yard N of Building 39/40

Blade, hooked mount – cart fitting?, steelyard, lifting key

Early C3 A.D.?

Neal et al. 1990, 63, 138–52

6



Great Chesterford, Essex

Pit capped with chalk. 6ft deep, close to other pits and ditches. Pit with ironwork was from outside town walls and adjoining the churchyard. Many pits and shafts on this site (Brinson 1963). Neville’s writings suggest that he found as many outside ramparts as in

Anvil, 5 ‘anvil pegs’, 2 axle or pole guards, 2 chains, 5 coulters or ploughs, 10 felloe bands, 7 hammers, 4 hoops, 4 holdfasts, 7 hinges, 3 keys, 4 locks, 1 pivot for millstone, 1 pail handle, 2 pail hoops, 1 long pair of shares, 8 shackles, 1 saw, 12 scythes, 1 square girder, 1 turf cutter, 2 wall pegs, 1 small wheel, 5 iron bars

C3–C4 A.D.

Neville 1856; Brinson 1963

4

Great Holts Farm, Essex 1

In Oven (320), close to boundary ditch of enclosure E 1 (to side of developing villa complex)

21 hobnails, suggesting that a shoe or shoes had been ‘discarded’ in it

C1–mid-C3 A.D.

Germany 2003; Major 2003, 77

3c


From foundation trench (575) of bath-house 414. This was the construction trench for the praefurnium, but the area had been robbed

Small socketed bolthead or arrowhead

Late C3–mid-C4 A.D.

Germany 2003, 49; Major 2003, 83

6


From well (567), within Building 416. Only top of feature excavated

Remains of at least 2 leather shoes, 1 with hobnails

A.D. 220. Slightly later?

Germany 2003, 20, 191

5


From post-hole forming part of wall of Barn 417 (6162)

Scrap sheet x 26, prick iron, steelyard, possible weight, knife

Mid-C3–lateC4 A.D.

Major 2003, 77 6

Gretton, Northants.

From a small pit cut into the edge of a pit (39) which forms part of a pit alignment. The small pit was probably dug into the edge of a shallow depression left after pit 39 had been largely filled

Approximately 48 currency bars packed close together

C3–C1 B.C.?

Jackson 1974 7

Gussage all Saints, Dorset

Pit inside entrance area of enclosure. Some iron objects from neighbouring pit (438). Close to other features with metalworking deposits, including pit with much bronze-working (209)

Variety of scraps and fragments, including heavy cutting implement, punches, rods, nails. Also some evidence for bronze working

C3–C1 B.C.

Spratling 1979 3b



Haddon, Peterborough, Cambs.

Small pit, then cut by a malting oven. Report claims that the pit was integral to the location of the oven and calls deposits a ‘foundation deposit’ (pp. 52, 112). The flue cut the top of the pit fill. About 5m away was an earlier cistern, abandoned c. A.D. 200

Iron shears, chain segments and Co (bronze follis of Diocletian, A.D. 298–9)

Early C4 A.D.

Hinman 2003 6

Ham Hill, Somerset

Probably just behind rampart. Spot shown on Colt Hoare’s pl. 7 as ‘Roman remains found’. On W side of hillfort, found a few years before 1827 during quarrying. In a ‘chink’ or ‘gulley’ in the rock.

Arrowheads/spearheads and cart wheel tyre B, HB. Colt Hoare argues that a battle occurred here but a difficult place to use chariots?

C1 B.C.–C1 A.D.?

Colt Hoare 1827. See Smith 1991 for a recent account of the hillfort

3c

Harlow, Essex On site of a Roman temple, close to a round building, associated with various ‘votive’ deposits

Iron tools, including a plough share and large quantities of iron strips. B, Co

C1 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Bartlett 1988 2

Hayling Island, Hants.

Mainly around E enclosure boundary to S of entrance

2 currency bars, spearheads. B, Co, HB

C1 B.C.–C1 A.D.

King and Soffe 1998

2

Hinchingbrooke Park Road, Huntingdon, Cambs.

Boundary ditch, possibly on edge of settlement, replacing two earlier phases of boundary. Earlier phases of ditch include various significant deposits

2 currency bars placed side by side in ditch

100–50 B.C.

Cambridge Archaeological Field Unit 1997

3a

Hod Hill, Dorset, 1

From floor of hut 43. This is toward the SE area of interior of hillfort

2 iron sickles C3 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Richmond 1968, 21, 39

6

Hod Hill, Dorset, 2

Hut 36A, within rectangular enclosure toward SE area of hillfort interior

Outside door, iron catapult head, inside iron spearhead in scoop on SW side of entrance, second spearhead in interior together with iron frag. – currency bar? 3 Roman ballista bolts found in and around this building and more to SE around Hut 37

C1 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Richmond 1968, 22, 39, fig. 14

6

Hod Hill, Dorset, 3

Hut 37, just SE of rectangular enclosure including Hut 36A

Around building, 11 catapult heads. Outside iron ferrule

C1 A.D.? Richmond 1968, 39, fig. 14

6



Hod Hill, Dorset, 4

Hut 60, at inner edge of quarry pits on SE of fort

Currency bar and socketed knife from bottom of wall; close by l fragment of currency bar, clamp and sickle blade; knife from pit just outside entrance to S (post-Roman?). B

C3 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Richmond 1968, 19–20, 40, fig. 12

3c

Hod Hill, Dorset, 5

Pits 15 A–C, in SE of hillfort interior, within Enclosure 15. Enclosure is a scooped area with ditch around and E entrance – unknown function, but unusual range of finds (shrine?)

Pit 15A contained iron objects, including strip, spade binding?, two points, blade, uncertain object; also AB & B. Pit 15B contained iron bucket handle, bucket hoop, latch-lifter; also AB, HB. Pit 15C contained massive spearhead, socket and B, AB. Near these pits were catapult head, sickle and socketed frag.

C3 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Richmond 1968, 26–8, 40–1

2?

Houghton Down, Stockbridge, Hants. 1

Pit (P 340) from interior of site

Hooked billet, deposited near base of pit, with small fragment of forging waste

C5–C4 B.C.

Cunliffe and Poole 2000, 107, 124

6

Houghton Down, Stockbridge, Hants. 2

Pit (P 331) from interior of site, associated with large body of ‘slag’ at base of pit (p. 124), but this may be just the result of a fire

Incomplete iron adze or chisel, together with incomplete saw, knife and tapering frag. of rod

C5–C1 B.C.

Cunliffe and Poole 2000, 111

6

Inchtuthil, Tayside

In square pit in fabrica. In small room to S of W entrance. Measured 3.07 by 2.74m and 3.66m deep. Sealed by 1.83m of gravel ‘to prevent later recovery’ (p. 109). Evidence for ironworking in same building

Nearly 10 tons of nail (at least 875,428 examples) and 9 wheel-tyres. Some nails used. Tyres used, not all complete

c. A.D. 83–86

Pitts and St Joseph 1985, 109–13, 289–92

6

Jordan Hill, Preston, Dorset

Shaft/pit in small rectangular temple building. Building set within rectangular enclosure filled with animal bones and other evidence of feasting. Shaft oblong, 4ft x 3ft, 12ft deep. Sides lined with roofing slabs set in clay

Fill of pit consisted of 16 layers of ash and charcoal alternating with double layers of roofing slabs arranged in superimposed pairs, between each of which were bones of a single bird and a small bronze coin. At bottom, a small stone cist containing sword, spearhead, knife, steelyard, bucket handle, crook and other iron objects. Similar cist half-way down which enclosed sword, spearhead. AB, Co, P

Late C4 A.D.

RCHM 1970, 616–17

2



Kilverstone Thetford, Norfolk 1

Pit (F 221) just W of small circular smithy buildings. Pit was cut into a sequence of earlier boundary ditch of Phase 3 – earlier Roman. These may well have defined the edge of the settlement in earlier phases. Other pits nearby (F 169, F 962, F 968) with iron objects, also extensive metalworking dumps

Against NE side of pit – long-handled tongs, iron hammer-head, anvil frag., with knife, frag. of padlock bolt, nails. Covered by burnt deposit and scorched oak planks. P

C3–C4 A.D.

Garrow et al. forthcoming

7

Kilverstone, Thetford, Norfolk 2

Pit in ‘smithy’ appears to be built into earlier (discussed?) Roman enclosure, facing toward pits. This enclosure neatly enclosed an earlier substantial 4-post structure which produced IA pottery from the post-holes

Iron axe. Some slag in the ditch. B

C3–C4 A.D.

Garrow et al. forthcoming

7

Kingsdown Camp, Somerset

In inner enclosure ditch to small enclosed settlement. Generally scattered, but apparently particular concentration on E, to S of NE entrance

2 currency bars, iron ‘spud’ (ard?), horse-bit. B, HB, Co

C3–C1 B.C.?

St George Gray 1930

3a

Lesser Garth, Pentyrch, Glamorgan

Found removing topsoil from quarry. On gently sloping hill above steep slope 200 yds from cave opening. Exact context unclear

Iron bridle-bit, linch-pin, chisel, billet (tapering), cauldron ring, staple, cauldron hanger and cauldron chain. B

C1 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Savory 1966 7

Madmarston, Oxon.

Laid on clay which forms back of rampart at S of hillfort (Cutting 8H). Area then sealed by a stone layer associated with post-holes, with 2 additional iron objects on its edge

12 currency bars, a square-sectioned bar, axe head, sickle, ‘poker’, 2 pairs of bridle bits. On top of stone layer – socketed chisel and flanged plate

C3–C1 B.C.

Fowler 1961, 11, 13, 41

3a

Maiden Castle, Dorset 1

In hillfort E entrance. Associated with battle by excavator

2 swords or daggers frags, 1 bolt head, blade, 4 arrowheads (additional example from outworks), linch pin

C1 A.D. Wheeler 1943, 62–3, 277, 281

3b


Site L, within hillfort on and around E end of Neo/BA long mound and close to earlier IA occupation and later Roman temple and ritual structures (shrine?)

4 swords or daggers frags & 2 bolt heads, an arrowhead. B

C1 A.D. Wheeler 1943, 277–8 and 281

2?




‘In the northern portal of the eastern entrance’. A gate and metalled road had been built into this portal and on this surface were found iron boot-nails , ‘several’ horseshoes and 2 coins. Stone base just inside entrance for an altar?

Fragments of ‘several’ iron horseshoes found. 14 are illustrated. Co.

C3–C4 A.D.

Wheeler 1943, 120–1, 290–1

3b

Nadbury, Warwicks.

From small pit (F5) cut into back of rampart on N boundary of hillfort. By the time this was cut, the rampart had slumped and may have been abandoned

Currency bar. AB C3–C1 B.C.?

McArthur 1990, 8

3a

Newstead, Borders 1

Pit (57), in W annexe, sealed by cobble foundations surrounding bath-house (possibly a rampart)

4 complete or frag. swords (1 bent double), strigil, hipposandal, hub rims x 5, lamp. B, HB, Po

Late C1–late C2 A.D.

Curle 1911, 97, 128

4

Newstead, Borders 2

Pit (54), dug in area of S defences of fort

Stylus, spearhead, key, knife, hook x 2. AB, B, Po, Q


Curle 1911, 127 4

Newstead, Borders 3

Pit (55), dug in areas of S defences of fort

Spearhead with broken point, knife, arrowhead x 3, socket. B, Po.


Curle 1911, 128 4

Newstead, Borders 4

Pit (58), dug in area of N defences of fort. Suggested that this was early, predating main phase of fort

2 swords (1 bent in half), linch pin, ingot. AB, B, Co, Po


Curle 1911, 129–30, 158, pl. LXV

4

Newstead, Borders 5

Pit (22), in S annexe just to S of defences

Helmets and frags. x 3, sickle, armlet, bridle bit; armour. AB, B, Po, Q


Curle 1911, 121–2

4

Newstead, Borders 6

Pit (1), in principia (central court)

Bar, knife, linch pin, sickle, armour, rim of bucket, arrowheads x 5, shield umbo, holdfast. AB, HB, Co, P, Q


Curle 1911, 116–17

5

Newstead, Borders 7

Pit (16), in S annexe just S of defences

Sword, rib of shield, spearhead x 5, axes x 5, stirrup, shod, hammers x 5, tongs x 2, ‘drift’, anvil, staple mandrils x 3, chisel x 2, gouges x 2, mower’s anvil, scythe x 4, chain, door fittings ?, harness frag., linch pin, nave bands for wheel x 24, hub lining x 3, pieces x 20. AB, HB, B, Po, Q, W


Curle 1911, 119–20

4



Old Down Farm, Andover, Hants.

Pit (2420) in the internal W area of enclosure. Covered with layer of loom weights which might suggest deliberate concealment

Socketed gouge, linch pin x 2, frag. Sickle blade, 1 complete and 1 frag. currency bar. B

C3–C1 B.C.

Davies 1981, 124

6

Orsett ‘Cock’, Essex

Fill of inner enclosure ditch at SE corner, with one nearby in middle ditch

7 spearheads (no further artefacts recorded)

C1 A.D. Carter 1998, 83, 168

3a

Orton Meadows, Northants.

From old bed of the River Nene. May be part of a much larger deposit made in a fast-flowing river channel. Object possibly deposited from top of a pre-existing barrow

7 currency bars, 2 currency bar frags, 7 swords, 1 spearhead, latch lifter and ‘ladle’

C3–C1 B.C.

Stead 1984; Field and Parker Pearson 2003, 185–6

1

Park Farm, Barford, Warwicks.

From top fill of enclosure ditch on SW of enclosure

Currency bar C3–C1 B.C.

Cracknell and Hingley 1994, 19–20

3a

Silchester, Hants. 1

1890 hoard. Pit N. Pit roughly walled in flint and toward the middle of an insula

On top of pit, iron sword and 2 iron bars. In pit, axe, hammers, gouges, chisels, plough coulter x 2, anvil, tongs, files, rasp, hippo-sandal, lamp, gridiron, carpenter’s plane. Immediately under, short cist of pieces of chalk, 2 complete pots. B.

C3–C4 A.D.

Fox and Hope 1891; Evans 1894, 742

5

Silchester, Hants. 2

1990 hoard. Well 2, which is on E boundary of Insula XXIII and may overlie earlier (IA) enclosure ditch. Well 21ft 7in deep, lined with 12ft of square timber framing. Upper part, for 7ft downward ‘blocked’ with ironwork. Rested on deposit of black ash which filled the rest

2 striking hammers, 10 small hammers, 2 pairs tongs, 2 states, 1 drift, 1 chisel, 1 hand wringer or hand leaver, 2 pairs dividers or compasses, 2 instruments for making nails, 4 iron bars, axehead, 3 socketed chisels, 1 adze, 1 centre bit, anvil or shoemakers hobbling-foot, 3 plough coulters, 1 coulter, 2 forks (?) and 8 mower’s anvils. Also knives, choppers, bucket handles, 2 files, 2 saws, 1 spearhead, huge padlock and frag of another. B, Po

C3–C4 A.D.

Reid 1901, 246–9

4

South Cadbury, Somerset 1

Pit D630A, behind main rampart and sealed by late phase

Upper two thirds of a currency bar, axe, saw, 4 knives (some incomplete), saw frag., adze, 4 reaping hooks, 3 awls. Some iron objects appear to have been wrapped in straw and there was burnt material in pit. B, W

C3–C1 B.C.

Barrett et al. 2000, 62, 82–3

3a




Pit D521A. Cut into back of rampart, quite close to above pit

Billhook wrapped in straw C3–C1 B.C.

Barrett et al. 2000, 59

3a


Entrance passage at SW of enclosure. Dispersed deposit built up over time

Scatter of objects in passageway and W guard chamber. Included distinct hoard of iron 7 latch lifters and 3 keys. Also deposit of HB and other objects, including 37 spearheards, 21 bolt heads, 1 reaping hook, armour, etc.

C1 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Barrett et al. 2000, 114–16, 123–32, 239

3b


E of interior of hillfort in occupation layers

Fragments of weapons (including 11 spearheads or frags). Associated with metal production. B, Ca

C3–C1 B.C.

Barrett et al. 2000, 239, 295, 298–301

6

Spettisbury, Dorset

‘Burial pit’ cut into enclosure ditch, on E of hillfort. Pit about 35ft long, by 15ft wide and from 4 to 9 or 10ft deep. Possibly a second comparable pit found along railway line in 1858 (which follows ditch), but this was not recorded

Sword and possibly 4 currency bars, 9 spearheads, javelin head, knives, shears, key and plough share. AB, HB, B. It is not clear if all these finds came from the ‘burial pit’

C1 B.C.–C1 A.D.?

Gresham 1940 3a

Stanway, Colchester, Essex

Enclosure ditch on SE side. Settlement enclosure

2 currency bars placed side by side on inner face of ditch

C1 B.C. Crummy 1997a, 1997b and pers. comm.

3a

Stanwick Villa, Northants.

In stone-capped drain within subrectangular building on N of interior. In a pit slightly further N a hoard of 4 pewter vessels and offcuts of leather shoes

2 unequal-armed plough shares and large wheel hub from cart

C4 A.D. Neal 1989, 165 6

Stanwick, North Yorks. 1

Ditch of Phase II enclosure, in N terminal of entrance. Ditch at terminal deliberately deepened and held water

Sword in wood scabbard with bronze fittings. HB, W.

C1 A.D. Wheeler 1954, 44, 52, 53

3b

Stanwick, North Yorks. 2

Gully 1, shallow ditch surrounding roundhouse. Fairly close to ditch that supposedly defines early enclosure – part of a complex of settlement features shown by geophysics

Largely complete shears C1 B.C.–C1 A.D.?

Wheeler 1954, 50; Haselgrove et al. 1990, 69

3a



Totterdown Lane, Horcott, Glos.

Scoop (small feature) close to later enclosure boundary. Boundary probably on line of earlier enclosure boundary

Hoard of currency bars (impossible to work out how many, possibly around 10)

C3 B.C.–C1 A.D. (or later?)

Pine and Preston 2004, 45, 69–70

3c

Uley, Glos. 1 Mainly from ditch (F 264) which partly encloses Building XVI (to its SE) and pit (251) dug into this ditch

Collection of spearheads (12) and catapult bolt heads (19). Includes military type objects

C1 A.D. Woodward and Leach 1993, 131–5

2

Uley, Glos. 2 Demolition rubble over Structure XIV and bank material of Structure XIX

Hobnails – offerings of shoes to Mercury?

C2–C4 A.D.

Woodward and Leach 1993, 184

2

Waltham Abbey, Essex

Found gravel digging, but close to river, probably deposited in a bag or box dropped into shallow water at river edge?

11 blacksmith’s tools (5 pairs of tongs, 3 anvils, possible sledge hammer, file and poker), 6/7 carpentry tools, frag. of a cart tyre, broken socketed hook, billhook and a sword. Many pieces damaged

C1 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Manning 1977 1

Wavendon Gate, Bucks.

In Pit 835, cut into partly silted up hollow 900, within enclosure on settlement site

Spearhead with remains of wooden shaft and three pronged fork. Also 3 small iron objects and 18 nails (37% of those from whole site), some from 3 hobnailed shoes. W

Mid-C3 A.D.

Williams et al. 1996, 65; Hylton 1996, 120–8

6

Wookey Hole, Somerset

Within cave. Little detailed info.

5 spears, a dagger, a dagger handle, arrowheads, billhook, sickle, knife, saw x 2, drill/awl x 6, linch pin, currency bar x 3 and various other iron finds. AB, HB, P, B, etc.

C3 B.C.–C1 A.D.

Balach 1911; Field and Parker Pearson 2003, 188

1

Worthy Down,Hants.

From the top filling of a pit within an unenclosed, or open settlement

13 currency bars. AB, HB, P C3–C1 B.C.

Hooley 1921, 1931

7



BIBLIOGRAPHY

ClassicalDioscorides, The Greek Herbal of Dioscorides. Translated by R.T. Gunter, 1934, OxfordHerodian, Herodian of Antioch’s History of the Roman Empire from the Death of Marcus Aurelius to the

Accession of Gordian III. Translated by E.C. Echols, 1961, Berkeley Pliny, Natural History VIII. Translated by W.H.S. Jones, 1963, London

Aldhouse-Green, M. 2002: ‘Any old iron! Symbolism and ironworking in Iron Age Europe’, in M. Aldhouse-Green and P. Webster (eds), Artefacts and Archaeology: Aspects of the Celtic and Roman World, Cardiff, 8–19

Allen, D. 1967: ‘Iron currency bars in Britain’, Proceedings Prehistoric Society 33, 307–35Balch, H.E. 1911: ‘A late Celtic and Romano-British cave-dwelling at Wookey-Hole, near Wells, Somerset’,

Archaeologia 62, 565–92Barrett, J.C., Freeman, P.W.M., and Woodward, A. 2000: Cadbury Castle Somerset, the Later Prehistoric

and Early Historic Archaeology, LondonBartlett, R. 1988: ‘The Harlow Celtic temple: a Celtic shrine underlies the famous Roman temple’, Current

Archaeology 10, 163–6Beagon, M. 1992: Roman Nature: the Thoughts of Pliny the Elder, OxfordBirbeck, V. 2002: ‘Excavations on Iron Age and Romano-British settlements at Cannards Grave, Shepton

Mallett’, Somerset Archaeology and Natural History 144, 41–116Booth, P. 1997: Asthall, Oxfordshire: Excavations in a Roman ‘Small Town’, 1992, EynshamBooth, P. 2001: ‘The Roman shrine at Westhawk Farm, Ashford: a preliminary account’, Archaeologica

Cantiana 121, 1–23Bonnamour, L., and Dumont, A. 1996: ‘Les armes romaines de la Saône: état des découvertes et données

récentes de fouilles’, Proceedings of the Ninth International Roman Military Equipment Conference, Leiden, 1994 = Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5, 141–54

Bowden, M., and McOmish, D. 1987: ‘The required barrier’, Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 76–84Bradford, J.S.P., and Goodchild, R.G. 1939: ‘Excavations at Frilford, Berks’, Oxoniensia 4, 1–70Bradley, R. 1987: ‘Stages in the chronological development of hoards and votive deposits’, Proceedings

Prehistoric Society 53, 351–62Bradley, R. 1998: The Passage of Arms: An Archaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Hoards and Votive

Deposits (new edn), OxfordBradley, R. 2005: Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe, LondonBranigan, K., and Dearne, M. 1992: Romano-British Cavemen: Cave Use in Roman Britain, OxfordBrinson, J.G.S. 1963: ‘Chesterford, Great’, in The Victoria County History of the Counties of England: A

History of Essex, III, 72–88Brunaux, J.-L. 1988: The Celtic Gauls: Gods, Rites and Sanctuaries, LondonBudd, P., and Taylor, T. 1995: ‘The faerie smith meets the bronze industry: magic versus science in the

interpretation of prehistoric metal-making’, World Archaeology 27, 133–43Cambridge Archaeological Field Unit 1997: Preliminary Summary: Middle and Late Iron Age Settlements

Adjacent to Hinchingbrooke Park Road, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, CambridgeCarter, G.A. 1998: Excavations at the Orsett ‘Cock’ Enclosure, Essex 1976, East Anglian Archaeology 86,

ChelmsfordChowne, P., Cleal, R.M.J., Fitzpatrick, A., and Andrews, P. 2001: Excavations at Billingborough,

Lincolnshire 1975–8: a Bronze–Iron Age Settlement and Salt-Working Site, East Anglian Archaeology 94, Salisbury

Clarke, S. 1997: ‘Abandonment, rubbish disposal and “special” deposits at Newstead’, in K. Meadows, C. Lemke and J. Heron (eds), TRAC 96: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Sheffield 1996, Oxford, 73–81

Clarke, S. 2000: ‘In search of a different Roman period: the finds assemblage at the Newstead military complex’, in G. Fincham, G. Harrison, R. Holland and L. Revell (eds), TRAC 99: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Durham 1999, Oxford, 22–9

Clarke, S., and Jones, R. 1996: ‘The Newstead pits’, Proceedings of the Ninth International Roman Military Equipment Conference, Leiden, 1994 = Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5, 109–24


Colt Hoare, R. 1827: ‘Account of antiquities found at Hamden Hill, with fragments of British chariots’, Archaeologia 21, 39–42

Cracknell, S., and Hingley, R. 1994: ‘Park Farm, Barford: excavation of a prehistoric settlement site, 1988’, Trans. Birmingham and Warwicks. Arch. Soc. 98 (1993–4), 1–30

Crummy, P. 1997a: City of Victory: the Story of Colchester, ColchesterCrummy, P. 1997b: ‘Colchester: the Stanway burials’, Current Archaeology 153, 337–42Cunliffe, B.W. 1978: Iron Age Communities in Britain, LondonCunliffe, B.W. 1984: Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire: Vol. 2. The Excavations 1969–1978:

the Finds, LondonCunliffe, B.W. 1995: Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire: Vol. 6. A Hillfort Community in

Perspective, LondonCunliffe, B.W., and Poole, C. 1991a: Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire: Vol. 4. The Excavations

1979–1988: the Site, LondonCunliffe, B.W., and Poole, C. 1991b: Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire: Vol. 5. The Excavations

1979–1988: the Finds, LondonCunliffe, B.W., and Poole, C. 2000: The Danebury Environs Programme: Vol. 2, Part 6, Houghton Down,

Stockbridge, Hants, 1994, OxfordCurle, J. 1911: A Roman Frontier Post and its People: the Fort of Newstead in the Parish of Melrose,

GlasgowDavies, S.M. 1981: ‘Excavations at Old Down Farm, Andover: Part II: prehistoric and Roman’, Proc.

Hampshire Field Club and Arch. Soc. 37, 81–163Dungworth, D. 1998: ‘Mystifying Roman nails: clavus annalis, defixiones and minkisi’, in C. Forcey,

J. Hawthorne and R. Witcher (eds), TRAC 97: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Nottingham 1997, Oxford, 148–59

Ellis, C.J., and Rawlings, M. 2001: ‘Excavations at Balksbury Camp, Andover 1995–97’, Proc. Hampshire Field Club and Arch. Soc. 56, 21–94

Esmonde Cleary, S. 2000: ‘Putting the dead in their place: burial location in Roman Britain’, in J. Pearce, M. Millett and M. Struck (eds), Burial, Society and Context in the Roman World, Oxford, 127–42

Evans, J. 1894: ‘On some iron tools and other articles formed of iron found at Silchester in the year 1890’, Archaeologia 54, 139–56

Fell, V. 1990: Pre-Roman Iron Age Metalworking Tools from England and Wales: their Use, Technology, and Archaeological Context, unpub. M. Phil. thesis, University of Durham

Fenn, C. 2003: ‘Important Iron Age weapon cache found in East Riding’, Treasure Hunting March 2003, 6–9Field, N., and Parker Pearson, M. 2003: Fiskerton: An Iron Age Timber Causeway with Iron Age and

Roman Votive Offerings, OxfordFitzpatrick, A. 1984: ‘The deposition of La Tène Iron Age metalwork in watery contexts in Southern

England’, in B.W. Cunliffe and D. Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, Oxford, 178–90

Fowler, P.J. 1961: ‘Excavations at Madmarston Camp, Swalcliffe’, Oxoniensia 25 (1960), 3–48Fox, G.E., and St John Hope, W.H. 1891: ‘Excavations on the site of the Roman city at Silchester, Hants’,

Archaeologia 52, 733–58Frere, S.S. 1964: ‘Excavations at Dorchester on Thames’, Arch. Journ. 119 (1962), 114–49Fulford, M. 2001: ‘Links with the past: pervasive “ritual” behaviour in Roman Britain’, Britannia 32,

199–218Garrow, D., Lucy, S., and Gibson, D. forthcoming: Excavations at Kilverstone, Norfolk: the Neolithic

Pits, Later Prehistoric, Romano-British and Anglo-Saxon Occupation and Later Activity, East Anglian Archaeology

Germany, M. 2003: Excavations at Great Holts Farm, Boreham, Essex, 1992–94, East Anglian Archaeology 105, Chelmsford

Gillies, W. 1981: ‘The craftsman in early Celtic literature’, Scottish Archaeological Forum II, 70–85Goodchild, R.G. 1938: ‘A priest’s sceptre from the Romano-Celtic temple at Farley Heath, Surrey’, Antiq.

Journ. 18, 391–6Green, M.J. 1976: The Religions of Civilian Roman Britain, BAR 24, OxfordGreene, K. 2002: ‘Pots and plots in Roman Britain’, in M. Aldhouse-Green and P. Webster (eds), Artefacts

and Archaeology: Aspects of the Celtic and Roman World, Cardiff, 235–56


Gresham, C. 1940: ‘Spettisbury Rings, Dorset’, Arch. Journ. 96 (1939), 114–31Haselgrove, C. 1987: Iron Age Coinage in South-Eastern Britain: the Archaeological Context, BAR Brit.

Ser. 174, OxfordHaselgrove, C., Armit, I., Champion, T., Creighton, J., Gwilt, A., Hill, J.D., Hunter, F., and Woodward, A.

2001: Understanding the British Iron Age: An Agenda for Action, SalisburyHaselgrove, C., and Hingley, R. in press (2005): ‘Iron deposition and its significance in pre-Roman

Britain’, in G.G. Bataille and J.-P. Guillaumet (eds), Les dépôts d’objects métalliques aux âges du fer (Collection Bibracte), Glux-en-Glenne

Haselgrove, C., Lowther, P., and Turnbull, P. 1990: ‘Stanwick, North Yorkshire, Part 3: excavations on earthwork sites 1981–86’, Arch. Journ. 147, 37–90

Haselgrove, C., and Wigg-Wolf, D. 2005: ‘Introduction’, in C. Haselgrove and D. Wigg-Wolf (eds), Iron Age Coinage and Ritual Practices, Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike (SFMA) 20, 9–22

Hencken, T.C. 1939: ‘The excavation of the Iron Age Camp on Bredon Hill, Gloucestershire, 1935–1937’, Arch. Journ. 95 (1938), 1–111

Herbert, E.W. 1993: Iron, Gender and Power: Rituals of Transformation in African Societies, BloomingtonHill, J.D. 1989: ‘Re-thinking the Iron Age’, Scottish Archaeological Review 6, 16–23Hill, J.D. 1995a: Rituals and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex, BAR Brit. Ser. 242, OxfordHill, J.D. 1995b: ‘How should we understand Iron Age societies and hillforts: a contextual study from

Southern Britain’, in J.D. Hill and C.G. Cumberpatch (eds), Different Iron Ages: Studies of the Iron Age in Temperate Europe, BAR Int. Ser. 602, Oxford, 45–66

Hingley, R. 1989: Rural Settlement in Roman Britain, LondonHingley, R. 1990a: ‘Iron Age “currency bars”: the archaeological and social context’, Arch. Journ. 147,

91–117Hingley, R. 1990b: ‘Boundaries surrounding Iron Age and Romano-British settlements’, Scottish

Archaeological Review 7, 96–103Hingley, R. 1997: ‘Iron, ironworking and regeneration: a study of the symbolic meaning of metalworking in

Iron Age Britain’, in A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, Oxford, 9–18Hingley, R. 2005: ‘Iron Age “currency bars” in Britain: items of exchange in liminal contexts?’, in C.

Haselgrove and D. Wigg-Wolf (eds), Iron Age Coinage and Ritual Practices, Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike (SFMA) 20, 183–206

Hingley, R., Moore, H.L., Triscott, J.E., and Wilson, G. 1997: ‘The excavation of two later Iron Age fortified homesteads at Aldclune, Blair Atholl, Perth & Kinross’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotland 127, 407–66

Hinman, M. 2003: A Late Iron Age Farmstead and Romano-British Site at Haddon, Peterborough, Oxford

Hogg, R. 1966: ‘A hoard of Romano-British ironwork from Brampton, Cumberland’, Trans. Cumberland & Westmorland Antiq. & Arch. Soc. 66, 1–36

Hooley, R. 1921: ‘Note on a hoard of iron currency-bars found on Worthy Down, Winchester’, Antiq. Journ. 1, 321–7

Hooley, R. 1931: ‘Excavation of an early Iron Age village on Worthy Down, Winchester’, Proc. Hampshire Field Club and Arch. Soc. 10 (1926–30), 178–92

Hunter, F. 1997: ‘Iron Age hoarding in Scotland and northern England’, in A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, Oxford, 108–33

Hylton, T. 1996: ‘Iron objects/iron nails’, in R.J. Williams, P.J. Hart and A.T.L. Williams, Wavendon Gate: A Late Iron Age and Roman Settlement in Milton Keynes, Aylesbury, 120–5

Insoll, T. 2004: Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, LondonIsserlin, R. in press: ‘Deposit or withdrawal?’, in R. Hingley and S. Willis (eds), Roman Finds: Context

and Theory, Oxford, 183–95Jackson, D. 1974: ‘Two new pit alignments and a hoard of currency bars from Northamptonshire’,

Northants. Arch. 9, 13–45Jackson, R. 1990: Camerton: the Late Iron Age and Early Roman Metalwork, LondonJarvis, K. 1985: ‘A late Iron Age site with a currency bar hoard at Bearwood, Poole, Dorset’, Proc. Dorset

Nat. Hist. & Arch. Soc. 106 (1984), 138–42Johns, C. 1995: ‘Romano-British precious-metal hoards: some comments on Martin Millett’s paper’, in

S. Cottam, D. Dungworth, S. Scott and J. Taylor (eds), TRAC 94: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference 1994, Oxford, 107–18


Johns, C. 1996: ‘The classification and interpretation of Romano-British treasures’, Britannia 27, 1–16King, A., and Soffe, G. 1998: ‘Internal organization and deposition at the Iron Age temple on Hayling

Island’, Hampshire Studies 53, 35–47Lambrick, G., and Allen, T. 2004: Gravelly Guy, Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire: the Development of a

Prehistoric and Romano-British Community, OxfordLeach, J. 1962: ‘The Smith God in Roman Britain’, Arch. Ael.4 40, 35–46Macdonald, G. 1906: ‘The Roman fort on the Bar Hill, Dumbartonshire’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotland 4 4

(1905–6), 403–546Major, H. 2003: ‘Iron objects’, in M. Germany (ed.), Excavations at Great Holts Farm, Boreham, Essex,

1992–94, East Anglian Archaeology 105, Chelmsford, 77–83Manning, W.H. 1965: ‘Excavation of the Roman auxiliary tilery, Brampton’, Trans. Cumberland &

Westmorland Antiq. & Arch. Soc. 65, 133–68Manning, W.H. 1972: ‘Ironwork hoards in Iron Age and Roman Britain’, Britannia 3, 224–50Manning, W.H. 1977: ‘Blacksmiths’ tools from Waltham Abbey, Essex’, in W.A. Oddy (ed.), Aspects of

Early Metallurgy, London, 87–96Manning, W.H., and Scott, I.R. 1986: ‘Iron objects’, in I.M. Stead and V. Rigby, Baldock: the Excavation

of a Roman and Pre-Roman Settlement, 1968–72, London, 145–62Mariën, M.E. 1970: Le Trou de l’ambre au bois de Wérimont Eprave, BrusselsMartin, Th., and Ruffat, H. 1998: ‘Un dépôt de lingots de fer du début de La Tène III à Montans (Tarn)’, in

M. Feugère and V. Serneels (eds), Recherches sur l’économie du fer en Méditerranée nord-occidentale, Montagnac, 110–15

McArthur, C. 1990: ‘Excavations at Nadbury Camp, Warwickshire’, Trans. Birmingham & Warwicks. Arch. Soc. 95 (1987–88), 1–16

Merrifield, R. 1987: The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, LondonMerrifield, R. 1997: ‘Roman metalwork from the Walbrook – rubbish, ritual or redundancy?’, Trans.

London Middlesex Arch. Soc. 46 (1995), 27–44Miles, D. 1986: Archaeology at Barton Court Farm, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, YorkMillett, M. 1995: ‘Treasure: interpreting Roman hoards’, in S. Cottam, D. Dungworth, S. Scott and J.

Taylor (eds), TRAC 94: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference 1994, Oxford, 99–106

Neal, D. 1989: ‘The Stanwick Villa, Northants: an interim report on the excavations of 1984–88’, Britannia 20, 149–68

Neal, D., Wardle, A., and Hunn, J. 1990: Excavation of the Iron Age, Roman and Medieval Settlements at Gorhambury, St Albans, London

Neville, R.C. 1856: ‘Description of a remarkable deposit of Roman antiquities at Great Chesterford, Essex’, Arch. Journ. 13, 1–13

Osborne, R. 2004: ‘Hoards, votives, offerings: the archaeology of the dedicated object’, World Archaeology 36, 1–10

Palmer, L.S. 1921: ‘Some early British remains from a Mendip Cave’, Journ. Royal Anthropological Institute 51, 200–15

Pearce, M. 1998: ‘Reconstructing prehistoric metallurgical knowledge: the Northern Italian Copper and Bronze Ages’, European Journ. Arch. 1, 51–70

Piggott, S. 1955: ‘Three metal-work hoards of the Roman period from Southern Scotland’, Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotland 87 (1952–53), 1–50

Pine, J., and Preston, S. 2004: Iron Age and Roman Settlement and Landscape at Totterdown Lane, Horcott near Fairford, Gloucestershire, Reading

Pitts, L., and St Joseph, J.K. 1985: Inchtuthil: The Roman Legionary Fortress, LondonPoole, C. 1995: ‘Pits and propitiation’, in B.W. Cunliffe, Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire: Vol.

6. A Hillfort Community in Perspective, London, 249–75Poulton, R., and Scott, E. 1993: ‘The hoarding, deposition and use of pewter in Roman Britain’, in E. Scott

(ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference: First Conference Proceedings, Aldershot, 115–32Pryor, F. 2001: The Flag Fen Basin: Archaeology and Environment of a Fenland Landscape, LondonRees, S. 1979: Agricultural Implements in Prehistoric and Roman Britain, BAR, OxfordReid, C. 1901: ‘Excavations on the site of the Roman city at Silchester, Hants in 1900’, Archaeologia 57,

229–56


Richmond, I. 1968: Hod Hill: Volume Two: Excavations Carried Out Between 1951 and 1958 for the Trustees of the British Museum, London

Ross, A. 1967: Pagan Celtic Britain, LondonRCHM 1970: An Inventory of Historical Monuments in the County of Dorset, Volume 2, South-east, Part

3, LondonSavory, H.N. 1996: ‘A find of early Iron Age metalwork from the Lesser Garth, Pentyrch (Glam.)’, Arch.

Camb. 115, 27–44Schrüfer-Kolb, I. 2004: Roman Iron Production in Britain; Technological and Socio-economic Landscape

Development along the Jurassic Ridge, BAR 380, OxfordSellwood, L. 1984: ‘Tribal boundaries viewed from the perspective of numismatic evidence’, in B.W.

Cunliffe and D. Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, Oxford, 191–204Sharples, N. 1991: Maiden Castle: Excavations and Field Survey 1985–6, LondonSim, D., and Ridge, I. 2002: Iron for the Eagles: the Iron Industry in Roman Britain, StroudSkinner, C. 1994: ‘Iron objects’, in R.J. Williams and R.J. Zeepvat, Bancroft: a Late Bronze Age/Iron Age

Settlement, Roman Villa & Temple-Mausoleum, Aylesbury, 322–47Smith, G. 1991: ‘Excavations at Ham Hill, 1983’, Somerset Archaeology and Natural History 134 (1990),

27–45Spratling, M. 1979: ‘The debris of metalworking’, in G.W. Wainwright, Gussage All Saints: an Iron Age

Settlement in Dorset, London, 125–49St George Gray, H. 1930: ‘Excavations at Kingsdown Camp, Mells, Somerset, 1927–9’, Archaeologia 80,

59–98Stead, I.M. 1984: ‘Iron-Age metalwork from Orton Meadows’, Durobrivae 9, 6–7Stead, I.M. 1998: The Salisbury Hoard, StroudStead, I.M., and Rigby, V. 1986: Baldock: The Excavation of a Roman and Pre-Roman Settlement, 1968–

72, LondonTrow, S. 1988: ‘Excavations at Ditches hillfort, North Cerney, Gloucestershire, 1982–83’, Trans. Bristol &

Glos. Arch. Soc. 106, 19–86van Driel Murray, C. 1999: ‘And did those feet in ancient times ... feet and shoes as a material projection’,

in P. Baker, C. Forcey, S. Jundi and R. Witcher (eds), TRAC 98: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Leicester 1998, Oxford, 131–40

van Enckevort, H.L.H., and Willems, W.J.H. 1996: ‘Roman cavalry helmets in ritual hoards from the Kops Plateau at Nijmegen, The Netherlands’, in Proceedings of the Ninth International Roman Military Equipment Conference, Leiden, 1994 = Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5, 125–40

Wait, G.A. 1985: Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain, BAR, OxfordWebster, J. 1997: ‘Texts, expectations: the archaeology of “Celtic” ritual wells and shafts’, in A. Gwilt and

C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies, Oxford, 134–44Wheeler, R.E.M. 1943: Maiden Castle, Dorset, OxfordWheeler, R.E.M. 1954: The Stanwick Fortifications, North Riding of Yorkshire, OxfordWilliams, R.J., Hart, P.J., and Williams, A.T.L. 1996: Wavendon Gate: a Late Iron Age and Roman

Settlement in Milton Keynes, AylesburyWilliams, R.J., and Zeepvat, R.J. 1994: Bancroft: a Late Bronze Age/Iron Age Settlement, Roman Villa &

Temple-Mausoleum, AylesburyWoodward, A. 1992: Shrines & Sacrifice, LondonWoodward, A., and Leach, P. 1993: The Uley Shrines: Excavation of a Ritual Complex on West Hill, Uley,

Gloucestershire: 1977–9, LondonWoodward, P., and Woodward, A. 2004: ‘Dedicating the town: urban foundation deposits in Roman

Britain’, World Archaeology 36, 68–86Wrathmell, S., and Nicholson, A. 1990: Dalton Parlours: Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa, Yorkshire

Archaeology 3, Wakefield

Date post:	28-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jorge-ricardo-cardoso-de-carvalho-raposo-da-camara
View:	175 times
Download:	3 times

HINGLEY, Deposition of Iron Objects Britannia XXXVII, 2006

Documents