Later Iron Age Norfolk: Metalwork, landscape and society 9781841715827, 9781407320038

Table of contents :
Blank Page
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Later Iron Age Norfolk: the Environmental, Archaeological and Historical Record
Chapter 3 Later Iron Age Metalwork and Coins: Norfolk in its National Context
Chapter 4 Torcs, Coins and Horse Equipment: the Chronological Sequence
Chapter 5 Metalwork and Society: Towards Developing a Contextual Approach to Metal-Detected Material
Chapter 6 Torcs: Deposition and Distribution
Chapter 7 Coins: Deposition and Distribution
Chapter 8 Horse Equipment: Distribution and Deposition
Chapter 9 Later Iron Age Norfolk: a View from the Metalwork
Chapter 10 Conclusions, Limitations and Further Work
Catalogue
Illustrations
Appendix
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR 361 2004  HUTCHESON  LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Later Iron Age Norfolk Metalwork, landscape and society

Natasha C.G. Hutcheson

BAR British Series 361 9 781841 715827

B A R

2004

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 361 Later Iron Age Norfolk © N C G Hutcheson and the Publisher 2004 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841715827 paperback ISBN 9781407320038 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841715827 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2004. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents Contents.................................................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................... iv Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Later Iron Age Norfolk: the Environmental, Archaeological and Historical Record ................................................ 3 The physical environment ......................................................................................................................................... 3 The ‘settlement’ archaeology of Iron Age Norfolk ................................................................................................... 4 The historical background ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 3 Later Iron Age Metalwork and Coins: Norfolk in its National Context .................................................................... 12 Torcs.......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Coins ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Horse equipment........................................................................................................................................................ 16 Chapter 4 Torcs, Coins and Horse Equipment: the Chronological Sequence ............................................................................ 23 Torcs.......................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Coins ......................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Horse Equipment....................................................................................................................................................... 28 Terrets: single finds ................................................................................................................................................... 28 Strap-unions .............................................................................................................................................................. 30 Bridle-bits.................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Linch-pins.................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Mounts....................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Hook and horn-cap .................................................................................................................................................... 32 Hoards ....................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Coins, torcs and horse equipment: phases of use and deposition .............................................................................. 34 Chapter 5 Metalwork and Society: Towards developing a Contextual Approach to Metal-Detected Material ......................... 36 The ‘new’ Iron Age ................................................................................................................................................... 36 Developing a contextual approach to metal-detected material .................................................................................. 38 The ‘new’ Iron Age and history ................................................................................................................................ 39 Characterising locations: the methods and the problems........................................................................................... 40 Chapter 6 Torcs: Deposition and Distribution ........................................................................................................................... 43 Torcs from Norfolk ................................................................................................................................................... 43 Distribution and Deposition ...................................................................................................................................... 43 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................. 46 Chapter 7 Coins: Deposition and Distribution ........................................................................................................................... 49 Gallo-Belgic coins ..................................................................................................................................................... 49 British gold coins....................................................................................................................................................... 53 Silver Coins ............................................................................................................................................................... 55 Gold and silver coins: patterns in deposition and distribution................................................................................... 59 Chapter 8 Horse Equipment: Deposition and Distribution ........................................................................................................ 60 Hoards ....................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Single finds of horse equipment: phase 1 .................................................................................................................. 62 Bridle-bits.................................................................................................................................................................. 63

i

Strap-union ................................................................................................................................................................ 63 Phase 2/3 ................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Miscellaneous flat-ring terrets ................................................................................................................................... 63 Terrets with three-lipped mouldings.......................................................................................................................... 66 Linch-pins.................................................................................................................................................................. 68 Mounts....................................................................................................................................................................... 69 Strap-unions .............................................................................................................................................................. 70 Phase 3....................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Parallel-winged terrets............................................................................................................................................... 72 Transverse-winged terrets ......................................................................................................................................... 72 Platform-decorated terrets ......................................................................................................................................... 73 Flat-ring terrets .......................................................................................................................................................... 75 Knobbed terrets ......................................................................................................................................................... 78 Massive terrets........................................................................................................................................................... 79 Bridle-bits.................................................................................................................................................................. 80 Mounts....................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Linch-pins.................................................................................................................................................................. 83 Hook .......................................................................................................................................................................... 84 Later Iron Age horse equipment: patterns in deposition and distribution.................................................................. 85 Chapter 9 Later Iron Age Norfolk: a View from the Metalwork ............................................................................................... 89 Metalwork in the landscape: continuity and change.................................................................................................. 89 Hoarding metalwork and coins: unrelated phenomena or ongoing practice? ............................................................ 90 Hoarding in the landscape: continuous but complex ................................................................................................. 92 Hoarding and circulation: expressions of change ...................................................................................................... 93 Continuity and change: the social and historical context .......................................................................................... 94 The final Iron Age in Norfolk: horses and Romans................................................................................................... 95 Re-visualising later Iron Age Norfolk ....................................................................................................................... 97 Chapter 10 Conclusions, Limitations and Further work .............................................................................................................. 99 Maps: Map 1: Landscape Regions of Norfolk...................................................................................................................... 4 Map 2: Density of Iron Age Material along the Fen Edge ........................................................................................ 5 Map 3: Distribution of all Iron Age Material across Norfolk.................................................................................... 8 Map 4: Distribution of Ring-Ditches and Barrow across Norfolk............................................................................. 8 Map 5: Distribution of Gallo-Belgic C, D and E coins across England .................................................................... 15 Map 6: No. of Iron Age Coin Hoards per County across England ............................................................................ 16 Map 7: No. of Locations per county from which Iron Age horse equipment has been recovered ............................ 18 Map 8: No. of items of Horse Equipment per County across England...................................................................... 20 Map 9: Prehistoric and Roman Routeways ............................................................................................................... 42 Map 10: Distribution of Torc Hoards ........................................................................................................................ 44 Map 11: Distribution of Gallo-Belgic Coin Hoards .................................................................................................. 50 Map 12: Distribution of Single Gallo-Belgic Coins ................................................................................................. 51 Map 13: Distribution of British Gold Single Coins and Hoards................................................................................ 54 Map 14: Distribution of Silver Coin Hoards ............................................................................................................. 56 Map 15: Distribution of Single Silver Coins ............................................................................................................. 57 Map 16: Distribution of Hoards of Horse Equipment ............................................................................................... 61 Map 17: Distribution of Miscellaneous Flat-Ring Terrets......................................................................................... 64 Map 18: Distribution of Three-Lipped Terrets.......................................................................................................... 65 Map 19: Distribution of Phase 2/3 Mounts................................................................................................................ 69 Map 20: Distribution of Phase 2/3 Strap Unions....................................................................................................... 71 Map 21: Distribution of Transverse-Wing Terrets .................................................................................................... 72 Map 22: Distribution of Platform-Decorated Terrets ................................................................................................ 74 Map 23: Distribution of Flat-Ring Terrets................................................................................................................. 76 Map 24: Distribution of Knobbed Terrets ................................................................................................................. 78 Map 25: Distribution of Phase 3 Bridle-Bits ............................................................................................................. 80 Map 26: Distribution of Phase 3 Decorative Mounts ................................................................................................ 82

ii

Map 27: Distribution of Phase 3 Linch-Pins ............................................................................................................. 83 Map 28: Terrets with Prehistoric and Roman Routeways ......................................................................................... 87 Map 29: Distribution of Phase 2/3 and 3 single items and hoards of horse Equipment ............................................ 87 Map 30: Cluster of hoards in the area around Fring .................................................................................................. 91 Catalogue Torcs.......................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Gallo-Belgic coin hoards........................................................................................................................................... 104 British gold coin hoards............................................................................................................................................. 105 Silver coin hoards...................................................................................................................................................... 105 Bridle-bits.................................................................................................................................................................. 106 Strap-unions .............................................................................................................................................................. 108 Linch-pins.................................................................................................................................................................. 109 Mounts....................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Plain or simple terrets................................................................................................................................................ 113 Mini terrets ................................................................................................................................................................ 113 Miscellaneous flat-ring terrets ................................................................................................................................... 115 Three-lipped terrets ................................................................................................................................................... 115 Parallel-wing terrets .................................................................................................................................................. 117 Transverse wing terrets.............................................................................................................................................. 117 Platform-decorated terrets ......................................................................................................................................... 118 Flat-ring terrets .......................................................................................................................................................... 119 Knobbed terrets ......................................................................................................................................................... 121 Massive terrets........................................................................................................................................................... 121 Unclassified terrets .................................................................................................................................................... 121 Horn-cap.................................................................................................................................................................... 123 Hook .......................................................................................................................................................................... 123 Illustrations Torcs.......................................................................................................................................................................... 125 Bridle-bits.................................................................................................................................................................. 126 Strap-unions .............................................................................................................................................................. 127 Linch-pins.................................................................................................................................................................. 128 Mounts....................................................................................................................................................................... 129 Mounts & Plain or simple terrets............................................................................................................................... 130 Mini terrets & Miscellaneous flat-ring terrets ........................................................................................................... 131 Three-lipped terrets ................................................................................................................................................... 132 Parallel-wing & Transverse wing terrets ................................................................................................................... 133 Platform-decorated terrets ......................................................................................................................................... 134 Flat-ring terrets .......................................................................................................................................................... 135 Knobbed & Massive & Unclassified terrets .............................................................................................................. 136 Horn-cap & Hook ...................................................................................................................................................... 137 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................................. 139 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................ 142

iii

Acknowledgements First I would like to thank Dr. Robin Skeates, now at the University of Durham, for his help and encouragement in applying to the University of East Anglia to undertake research on the Iron Age of Norfolk. I would also like to thank Sandy Heslop and Professor Richard Hodges, both of the School of World Art Studies and Museology, University of East Anglia, for their help throughout the final two years of research, and in particular, their comments on earlier drafts of the thesis. None of this research would have been possible without the assistance of many people employed by Norfolk Landscape Archaeology, based at Union House, Gressenhall, Norfolk. I would like to thank Jan Allen, David Gurney and Edwin Rose for allowing me open access to the county Sites and Monuments Record, and for answering my constant questions. I would also like to thank Steven Ashley and Andrew Rogerson of the Identification and Recording Service for sending small bits of Iron Age metalwork my way to record. Dr Philip de Jersey has also been of much assistance in answering queries about coins and sending me data and maps compiled from the Celtic Coin Index. In particular, Dr de Jersey kindly let me reproduce his distribution maps of Gallo-Belgic coins (map 5). I would also like to thank Dr Mansel Spratling for his help with getting to grips with later Iron Age horse equipment. I am indebted to Dr JD Hill for discussing this project on a regular basis over the last three and half years, and for his comments on earlier drafts of the text. I would also like to thank my PhD examiners Professor Colin Haselgrove and Professor Richard Bradley for their comments on the text and encouragement to publish the results of the research. All the illustrations in this volume were redrawn by myself from originals, many of which are housed in the Norfolk Sites and Monuments Record. The original drawings that I re-drew were created by a number of people including Sue White, John Davies, Mark Hoyle, Anne Holness and Steven Ashley. The illustrations and maps were digitally reproduce by Max Adcock, photographer at the School of World Art Studies and Museology, UEA. I would like to thank my Mum and Dad for all their help and support, reading through the text and looking after the children. Most of all I would like to thank my husband Andrew, without his constant help and support this thesis would not have happened. Not only has he lived with this project twenty-four hours a day for the last few years, but had the energy to make the maps for me at the end. Thank you. Finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to James and Laurie, now 4 and 6 years old. This projected was funded by a University of East Anglia post-graduate scholarship. A further bursary was received from the British Federation for Women Graduates.

iv

Chapter 1 Introduction ‘In stature she was tall, in appearance most terrifying, in the glance of her eye most fierce, and her voice was harsh; a great mass of the tawniest hair fell to her hips, around her neck was a large golden necklace’ (Dio Cassius LXII.2.4) Boudica in the works of Tacitus and Dio Cassius (e.g. Braund 1996). A number of books have been written that have sought to trace the Boudican rebellion through a specific historical reading of the archaeological record (e.g. Sealey 1997; Webster 1993). In addition, certain aspects of the archaeological record have become intrinsically linked with the rebellion of AD 60/61. This is particularly true of hoards of Iceni silver coins and horse equipment, which are often suggested as having been interred in the ground for safety during the uprising (Hawkes & Hull 1947, 331; Clarke 1939, 69; Clarke 1956, 5; Allen 1970, 19; Burnett 1986, 7; Chadburn & Gurney 1991, 223; Chadburn 1992, 82; van Arsdell 1996). Conversely, there has been more recent research undertaken with the express purpose of refuting that silver coin hoards relate directly to the Boudican rebellion (e.g. Creighton 1994).

In this one sentence Dio Cassius inadvertently sums up two of the strongest images associated with Iron Age ‘barbarian’ Britain: ‘Queen’ Boudica and gold torcs. ‘Queen’ Boudica, a national folk hero, is seen as preserving the true British spirit from annihilation by the invading forces of the Roman army and Roman culture. She is a figure of nationhood; her statue in Westminster in central London stands proud in a chariot armed with rotating knives, pulled by rearing horses. In Dio's description, Boudica is portrayed as wearing a necklace interpreted to be a torc. Such neckrings, as evidenced by the front covers of Cunliffe’s third edition of Iron Age Communities in Britain and the Laing’s Celtic Britain: Art and Society, have become synonymous with the idea of the British Celt or Iron Age barbarian (Cunliffe 1991b; Laing & Laing 1995). Boudica was ‘Queen’ of the Iceni, a ‘tribe’ located in northern East Anglia. The heartland of the Icenian ‘tribal’ area covered the modern-day counties of Norfolk, north Suffolk and north-east Cambridgeshire (Martin 1999). Within this area, the site of Ken Hill, Snettisham in north-west Norfolk has produced more gold torcs than anywhere else in Britain or Ireland. Gold torcs and Boudica are then not only associated with Iron Age Britain, but are also images that have particular associations with Norfolk, the county that is the focus of this research.

A great deal of research on the later Iron Age of Norfolk has focused on torc hoards from Snettisham, the ‘tribe’ of the Iceni and Boudican rebellion. However, within this research, Iron Age societies in Norfolk have often been presented as ‘backward’ and culturally peripheral to the rest of central and south-eastern England. For example, R. Rainbird Clarke in his discussion of the Snettisham torcs suggests that: ‘Few if any of the objects in this find are likely to have been made at Snettisham…the material reached Snettisham by one of three means: either it was accumulated on a normal business tour in south-eastern and possibly south-western England by the metalsmith who concealed them, or it was brought in from north Essex by refugees between about 10 BC and AD 10, or, again, it was brought from north Essex as loot by a raiding party of the Iceni’ (1954, 27-8).

These ‘high profile’ aspects of Norfolk’s later Iron Age (c. second century BC to first century AD) have attracted a great deal of research. In the 1950s, R. Rainbird Clarke published a number of notes and articles that focused on establishing the date of manufacture and deposition of torcs from Snettisham (Clarke 1952; 1954; 1957). Subsequently, torcs from this site have featured in a number of books where the emphasis has been on characterising the style of art on the artefacts (e.g. Fox 1958, 45-8; Megaw 1972, 168-9; Jope 2000, vol 1, 81-4; Megaw & Megaw 2001). During 1990, Ken Hill underwent further archaeological excavation by the British Museum to establish the archaeological context of the hoards. Hot on the heels of the interim report of these excavations (Stead 1991a), followed a paper discussing various possible motivations behind the burial of such a wealth of artefacts (Fitzpatrick 1992a).

More recently, in his popular book on the Boudican revolt, Paul Sealey highlights that unlike the southeastern corner of England, Norfolk has not produced an array of pre-conquest Roman goods, such as amphora. This has been taken as an indication of a purposeful preservation of ‘traditional values’, a desire to keep Rome and its trappings at bay. It is assumed that this ultimately led to culture shock for the Iceni after the Roman conquest of AD43 and an ‘uneasy relationship between the tribe and Rome after the invasion’ (Sealey 1997, 6). It is implied through such an interpretation of the archaeological and historical record that this region did not engage with social and political changes that were taking place across southern Britain in the decades leading up to the conquest.

The story of Boudica and the ‘tribe’ of the Iceni have attracted equal amounts of attention. There are, for example, descriptions of the rebellion of AD 60/61 based directly on the historical record (e.g. Frere 1974). There has been a detailed analysis of the representation of

1

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Due to their ‘high-profile’ nature, any synthetic research on later Iron Age Norfolk cannot take place without reference to these phenomena (e.g. Davies 1996; 1999), and indeed, they will be discussed within this book. However, this research is not about Snettisham or the Iceni and Boudica exclusively. Rather, it aims to: 1. 2.

•

place these aspects of Later Iron Age Norfolk in their broader historical context and, investigate whether this region was culturally ‘backward’ or peripheral to southern and southeastern England.

Essentially, this research aims to investigate later Iron Age society in Norfolk through a study of largely unstratified metal artefacts. In particular, it will focus on examining and interpreting patterns in the distribution and deposition of torcs, coins and items of horse equipment across the landscape of Norfolk, with a view to placing the torcs from Snettisham, the Iceni and Boudican rebellion within a broader regional, historical and archaeological context.

In order to achieve these aims, this research will focus on examining patterns in the distribution and deposition of torcs, coins and items of horse equipment across and within the landscape of Norfolk. Studying later Iron Age Norfolk: the importance of metalwork Northern East Anglia does not boast a well-known and documented settlement record; a problem that has enhanced the perception that this region was culturally peripheral to southern and south-east England in the later Iron Age. Indeed, the lack of known settlement is commented on in Cunliffe’s synthetic book, Iron Age Communities in Britain, where he states that, ‘East Anglia is at present a virtual blank largely because surprisingly few sites have been recorded’ (Cunliffe 1991b, 89).

In the following chapter the nature of the archaeological and historical record of later Iron Age Norfolk, along with the aims of this book, will be expanded upon.

Despite the lack of detailed information regarding settlement archaeology, Norfolk does appear to be rich in later Iron Age metalwork. The majority of metal artefacts known from the region have been recovered by metal-detectorists or by chance discovery. Since the 1970s, under the auspices of the late Tony Gregory, the county of Norfolk has had a policy of recording metaldetected finds on its county Sites and Monuments Record. Unstratified metal finds form the backbone of information on Iron Age Norfolk, and therefore, the backbone of this research. In particular, three categories of metalwork are the focus of this study: torcs, coins and items of horse equipment. These three categories of metalwork have been selected for a number of reasons. • •

•

They are intrinsically related to the ‘highlights’ of Norfolk’s Iron Age archaeology that this research seeks to contextualise. As noted, torcs are themselves a focal point of research, and hoards of silver Iceni coins and first century AD horse equipment are often thought to have been buried for safety in response to the Boudican rebellion.

They form the major source of physical evidence with which to study later Iron Age societies in Norfolk. They are linked in terms of deposition. On current evidence, it seems that torcs, coins and items of horse equipment all entered the archaeological record in Norfolk as single finds or in ‘single artefact type’ hoards (as opposed to composite hoards or hoards made up of a range of artefact types). They form a chronological sequence from the second century BC through to the first century AD, each material type becoming dominant at different times throughout the period under study (see chapter 4).

2

Chapter 2 Later Iron Age Norfolk: the Environmental, Archaeological and Historical Record not surprising, therefore, that there is a dense distribution of Iron Age material along the Fen edge (map 2). The Fen is not the only wetland area of Norfolk. In the extreme east of the county is the Broadland estuary and islands formed by the rivers Wensum, Yare, Ant, Bure and Waveney. Much of the Broadland estuary has silted up since the Iron Age, and much has been recovered from the sea, however, like the Fens, this area would have been a marshland and estuarine environment at end of the first millennium BC; a place rich in resources (Williamson 1993, 13).

Introduction The aim of this chapter is to outline the nature of later Iron Age settlement in this region, discuss the historical record pertaining to the Iceni and assess how it has influenced interpretations of later Iron Age society in Norfolk. In addition, this chapter will introduce the material that forms the basis of this book, and how it will be used to place the torc hoards from Snettisham, the Iceni and Boudican rebellion within their local historical and archaeological context. The first section of this chapter, however, outlines in brief the current ‘view’ of the physical landscape of Norfolk, and information regarding the character of the landscape in the later Iron Age.

By way of contrast to the low-lying wetland areas that dominate the eastern and western edges of the county, is the area known as the Western Escarpment. The Western Escarpment is one of the dominant features of the Norfolk landscape, rising to a height of approximately sixty-five metres at Hunstanton on the north-west coast. Indeed, the highest point in Norfolk, which is 101 metres above present day sea level, is located in the north-west of the county, four miles south of Walsingham. Geologically the western escarpment exposes a number of strata, one of which is ferruginous carstone, a reddish orange stone that has been utilised for building in the northwest of the county for many hundreds of years.

The physical environment Modern Norfolk comprises a variety of environments ranging from areas of gently rolling chalk downland to the flat low-lying landscapes of the Fens and Broadland estuaries. These various environments can be broken down into eight landscape regions (map 1). These landscape regions, described in brief below, will be referred to in chapters six, seven and eight, where patterns in the distribution and deposition of torcs, coins hoards and items of horse equipment will be investigated. In part, the description of Norfolk’s landscape and the accompanying photographs are there to enable the reader to begin to build up a ‘mental-image’ of the various regions of the county under discussion. In turn, it is hoped that the discussions in chapter six, seven and eight might become easier to ‘view’.

To the east of the escarpment, central Norfolk is dominated by four major landscape regions. Firstly, there is the Breckland, a gently undulating landscape comprising a low plateau with long gentle slopes that is today dominated by areas of pine such as Thetford Forest. Within the Breckland there are a number of famous archaeological sites including the Neolithic flint mines of Grimes Graves and the Saxon settlement site at West Stow in Suffolk. To the north of the Breckland are the Good Sands, so called because of the quality of the soils for arable farming. The Good Sands, which make up a proportion of the north-west and central northern area of the county, are also an area of rolling chalk downland that are now characterised by small, enclosed fields.

In the west of the county are the Fens, which also dominate north-east Cambridgeshire and south-east Lincolnshire. The Fens can be divided into Salt Fen or Marshland in the north, and Black or Peat Fen to the south. Essentially, Peat or Black Fen is made up of freshwater deposits, whereas the Salt Fen is the result of a low energy marine environment in the area known as the Wash (Sylvester 1988, 2). At present, the Fens are characterised by vast open, flat landscapes dominated by large-scale arable farming. Two thousand years ago, the fenland landscape would have been quite different. Much of it would have been under water or water-logged marshland, indeed, the fens underwent a period of expansion at the end of the first millennium BC. Throughout this waterlogged and marshy environment there was a series of islands (Wiltshire & Murphy 1999, 135; 139-40; Sylvester 1988a, 4-5; 1988b), and rather than being inhospitable, this particular environment would have been an area rich in resources, providing not only fowl for food, but also reed for thatching, salt and good pasture land (e.g. Morris 2001; Lane 1988). It is

Central Norfolk is dominated by the claylands or the central clay plateau. The claylands of Norfolk were excavated out of the area known as the wash and deposited across the central part of the county during the Anglian glaciation. It is a region that is now dominated by highly dispersed settlement and it is not enclosed and bounded to the same degree as north-west Norfolk. Finally, in the north-east of the county is an area known as ‘North-east Norfolk’. This region is relatively flat and is characterised by sandy, gravelly and loamy soils that are good for cultivation. Within this diverse landscape of rolling chalklands, heath, flat fen and estuaries, investigating the environment of 3

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

north-west coast of Norfolk (Murphy 1987, 294-6).

the later Iron Age is problematic. There are few sites that have seen extended programmes of excavation and large scale sampling of environmental remains has not taken place. In addition, the latter phases of the palynological sequences from the East Anglian Meres are not well dated, consequently, pinpointing material to the late first millennium BC is not straightforward (Wiltshire & Murphy 1999, 132-33). Despite these problems, there are a number of trends regarding the environment that have been documented. For example, it was not only the Fenland and Broadland estuaries that were wetter than they are today, this is also true for the rest of the county where it seems that rivers were deeper, wider and flowed faster in the later Iron Age (Wiltshire & Murphy 1999, 136-7). In terms of woodland, deforestation of the region is evident and consistent from the Bronze Age onwards, and it seems from the limited evidence available, that by the later Iron Age woodland cover was not uniform across the county. The variation in cover is demonstrated in the Thetford region of south Norfolk where the sites of Scole and Fison Way, which are located within five kilometres of each other, appear to be in rather different environments. For example, evidence from the later Iron Age/Roman site at Scole suggests a fairly wooded environment, whereas the later Iron Age enclosure of Fison Way at Thetford, just to the north and west of Scole, seems to have been situated in heathland (Murphy 1991, 175-81). Moving to the centre of the county, archaeobotanical remains from the middle-late Iron Age settlement site at Silfield near Wymondham suggests the environment was open (Wiltshire 1997, 273), as do the snails from the early Iron Age site at Redgate Hill on the

Essentially, then, from the limited information available, the later Iron Age landscape or physical environment of Norfolk would have been wetter than at present, with deeper rivers and wetter fen and marshland environments to the east and west. In addition, there would have been varied woodland cover, and areas of open grassland. This, then, is the landscape across which people lived out their daily lives or ‘dwelt’ (Ingold 1993), and the landscape into which the artefacts under study in this research were deposited. However, the later Iron Age mode of living is not well understood in this region. Limited evidence recovered from small-scale excavations provides glimpses of Iron Age life. For example, it would seem that spelt, barley, emmer wheat and oats were farmed across the county (Wiltshire & Murphy 1999, 153), and some environments, such as the fen edge, would have supported seasonal exploitation such as salt production. Different aspects of Norfolk’s diverse landscape were, then, being traversed and utilised at different times of the year. However, the nature of the settlements and structures that were built, lived in and repaired, is not well understood. The ‘settlement’ archaeology of Iron Age Norfolk The overall lack of knowledge regarding the Iron Age of Norfolk is predicated on a lack of research. This region has not been a focus of national research in terms of Iron Age studies, a point noted in 1939 by R.Rainbird Clarke where he comments that, ‘it will require many years’ 4

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK: THE ENVIRONMENTAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RECORD

Map 2: Iron Age material along the fen-edge (after Wade-Martins 1994, 33)

same comparison (Davies 1996, 63-4). One of the problems with studying the Iron Age archaeological record in this region is finding it. In central southern Britain, in the area known as Wessex, the Iron Age settlement record is dominated by enclosed sites. These vary in shape from ‘antennae ditched’ enclosures such as Gussage All Saints in Dorset (Wainwright 1979) and Little Woodbury in Wiltshire (Bersu 1939), to the so

persistent endeavour before East Anglia can hold its own, in this field of archaeological research, with, for instance, that omnivorous dragon of Wessex’ (Clarke 1939, 1). In the intervening fifty seven years since Clarke’s paper on the ‘Iron Age of Norfolk and Suffolk’ was published, it would seem that East Anglia did not see the levels of ‘persistent endeavour’ required, and John Davies too, in his 1996 paper on the Iron Age of Norfolk draws the 5

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK not analogous to Wessex hillforts. Indeed, the use of term hillfort and the implications that it carries, might be a rather misleading category in which to place large circular enclosures in Norfolk. What is apparent, however, is that these enclosures are concentrated in the west of the county, they do not appear to have been constructed in the eastern half of the county.

called ‘Banjo’ enclosures found across the Hampshire downland (eg. Fasham 1988; Perry 1972). Sites such as these are clearly visible on aerial photographs, and often, where enclosure ditches are deep enough, these sites are visible as ‘humps’ and ‘bumps’ in the landscape. In addition, central southern Britain is dominated by the classic site attributed to the Iron Age: the hillfort. Unlike the Wessex region, the Iron Age settlement record in Norfolk is not dominated by enclosed occupation sites. By way of contrast, it would seem that many settlements were open, i.e. not enclosed by large ditches. As such, areas of Iron Age occupation in this region are difficult to locate by aerial photography, and when located, the edges of any given settlement are difficult to define (Ashwin 1999a, 106). Indeed, a field survey around the Iron Age site at Silfield, Wymondham, suggests that activity took place across an area probably in excess of 25, 000 square metres (ibid. 1996, 274). It would seem likely that given their size, these sites represent shifting settlements, possibly akin to ’villages’, with the rebuilding of structures over time taking place in the vicinity rather than directly on top of previous buildings (Hill 1999, 190).

In addition to the hillforts there are a number of rectangular enclosures dated to the Iron Age that are also situated in the north and west of the county, a distribution that reflects the restricted location of ‘hillforts’. All the known examples are similar in that they are ditched, rectangular sites, each enclosing an area up to approximately 0.25 hectares (Davies 1996, 77). For those that have been excavated, a date in the later Iron Age seems most appropriate. The site at Thornham, which was strongly defended or enclosed, appears, on the basis of the pottery assemblage, to date to the mid-first century AD (Gregory & Gurney 1986, 13). The site of Warham Burrows, which was constructed next to the ‘hillfort’ at Warham, has also been ascribed a later Iron Age date, with activity apparent at the site from as early as 200BC through to the first century AD (Gregory & Gurney 1986, 25). In addition, it has been suggested that the site at Wighton was constructed anywhere between 50BC and 50 AD (Gregory & Gurney 1986, 31). As with the ‘hillforts’, the way in which these sites functioned is unclear.

Despite problems with locating and defining Iron Age sites across the landscape of Norfolk, there are a number of ‘type’ sites that have been attributed to the period. The most notable sites in this county are the so-called ‘hillforts’. Northern East Anglia is not part of the ‘hillfort dominated zone’ of Britain (Cunliffe 1991b, 542), and not surprisingly, few of these monuments are known from the region. Indeed, there are only five possible examples that remain extant in the landscape. These include the structures at Warham, Narborough, Holkham, Thetford and South Creake. Rather than hilltop positions, the ‘forts’ in this region are located close to rivers, potentially at crossing areas, except the example at Holkham which is located on a promontory overlooking the sea (Davies et. al. 1991). They vary in morphology from the classic circular bivallate structure at Warham, to the sub-rectangular set of ditches seen at Holkham. Of these sites, Thetford Castle is the only example that has undergone investigation by excavation, and the material recovered seems to indicate a date of use in the middle of the Iron Age c. 500 BC - 200 BC (Gregory 1991, 13-15). In addition to Thetford, eleven sherds of pottery have been recovered from molehills at Warham dating from the third century BC through to the first century AD. This site has also produced several tegulae, a flue tile and a copper alloy brooch suggesting that although probably Iron Age in origin, the site was utilised during the Roman period. None of the hillfort sites from Norfolk has seen an extensive programme of excavation, or indeed field-walking or geophysical survey. Therefore, the date of construction and length and mode of use of these sites is, at present, unclear.

Morphologically similar to these rectangular enclosures is the site at Fison Way, Thetford, which was excavated in the 1980s. It comprises a rectilinear enclosure, which at its latest phase contained five circular structures. A range of ‘specialist’ activities were noted at the site, including metalworking and coin production, a combination of technologies that does not often occur together on one site (Wilthew, Bayley & Linton 1992, 143). In addition, it would seem that grain products were not being processed on the site, but arriving in a semi-cleaned state, suggesting that this site was not an agricultural settlement. The lack of domestic material, the range of artefactual evidence and the nature of the structure at Fison Way has lead to the suggestion that it was ritual in nature; potentially a temple site (Gregory 1992,199). It is possible, therefore, that some of the other late Iron Age rectilinear enclosures across the landscape of Norfolk may also have been ritual in nature. Rectilinear enclosures do not, however, necessarily function as temple sites, for example, as Tony Gregory points out, there is no supporting evidence that a range of rectilinear enclosures known in the Essex region, such as Rainham, Orsett Cock and Hadleigh, functioned in such a way (Gregory 1992, 199). Unfortunately, the limited information available regarding rectilinear enclosures of Norfolk ensures that, like the hillforts, their roles and functions within later Iron Age society are not well understood at present. However, as with the ‘hillfort’ sites, this class of enclosed site appears to be unusual in the settlement record from this region.

Given that these sites are unusual in the region and are situated in potentially strategic positions at places where rivers may have been crossed, it is possible that they are 6

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK: THE ENVIRONMENTAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RECORD

In addition to both open and enclosed settlements, there are a number of other features in the Norfolk landscape that have been attributed to the Iron Age. In a detailed study of maps in the Scole-Dickleburgh area of south-east Norfolk, Tom Williamson has noted the preservation of a relict pre-Roman landscape of co-axial field systems within the modern landscape (Williamson 1987, 419-32). Other relict landscapes have also been noted on the clayland areas of Hales and Loddon in south-east Norfolk (Davison 1990) and around the modern town of Wells on the north Norfolk coast (Williamson 1993, 25). Furthermore, there are a number of linear ditches that are now considered to have prehistoric origins (rather than Saxon e.g. Wade Martins 1974). These five linear features are located towards the west of the county and comprise the Launditch, Panworth ditch, Bichamditch, Devils ditch and the Fossditch (Wade-Martins 1974; Davies 1996, 75-77). These earthworks, which are in the main a single bank and ditch, have undergone little archaeological investigation, hence the varying opinions regarding their date. Only the Launditch has any conclusive evidence that it is at least pre-Roman. Excavation of one section of this ditch showed that it was cut by a Roman road, and in a field twenty-five metres to the west, a series of postholes dating to the Iron Age were found arranged in a linear formation running parallel to the ditch (Gurney 1993). The other ditch with possible prehistoric connections is the Bichamditch, which appears to be associated with the hillfort at Narborough.

‘Hillforts’ and rectilinear enclosures, although relatively uncommon and restricted in distribution, are, as noted, easy to find in the archaeological record through their appearance as ‘humps’ and ‘bumps’ in the landscape. The most common types of sites are not so easy to discover. Through metal-detecting and field-walking dense scatters of Iron Age material have been found across the landscape, as such, there are a number of sites dated to the Iron Age that are largely known from metaldetected finds. There is, for example, a density of material known from Woodcock Hall, Saham Tony in the central Breckland region of the county. This site, which has been systematically metal-detected and published by Robert Brown (1986), was initially thought to be a large settlement. A great deal of the material recovered, comprising mainly coins and brooches, was broken and found in an area that may have been waterlogged in the later Iron Age. It has, therefore, been suggested that this site may have been a focus of cult or ritual activity rather than settlement; the coins and brooches considered as the remains of offerings that had been ‘killed’ before entering the water (Haselgrove 1997, 66; Davies 1996, 80; Davies 1999 35). Metal-detecting has also produced a great deal of material at Caistor St. Edmund the site of the Roman civitas capital, located just to the south-east of Norwich. This site, which has not been investigated with its prehistoric antecedents in mind (e.g. Wacher 1974, 22738) has often been overlooked in terms of the Iron Age. However, a great deal of later Iron Age material has been recovered across the site itself and in the area immediately beyond the walls suggesting that it might have been the focus of pre-Roman activity (Davies 1996, 80; Davies 1999, 35-6). Caistor is not the only Roman site from which there seem to be later Iron Age antecedents. Recent excavations along the line of the Snettisham bypass have produced evidence that the site known as ‘1555’ may have been settled from the early to mid-first century BC in the first instance, before expanding in the Roman period (Flitcroft 2001). As at Caistor St. Edmund, exactly what the activity at site 1555 comprised is not, at present, clear.

A relationship between linear features and hillforts is one that has been documented in other areas of Britain. For example, in Hampshire, both the hillforts at Ladle Hill and Danebury are related to linear ditches (Cunliffe 1995, 34), and it would seem that although often earlier in date, portions of land boundaries become incorporated into later Iron Age sites (Bradley 2000, 148). As well as organised field systems and ditches, the Iron Age landscape of Norfolk would have been criss-crossed with routeways. Unfortunately, many of these are undatable, and many have probably been reused and or destroyed. However, there are a number of possible routes that have been assigned a pre-Roman origin. In particular, there is the Icknield Way which runs along the chalk ridge in the west of the county from Thetford to Holme-next-the-Sea. There is also the ‘Great Fen Road’ or ‘East Harling Drove’ that runs east-west across the south-west corner of the county. In addition to these two prehistoric routeways, there are a number of other portions of tracks that have been attributed a pre-Roman date such as Norwich Long Lane, Fakenham, in the north of the county (Robinson and Rose 1983, 10). As well as ‘known’ sites, field systems, ditches and routeways, there are, from a range of small scale archaeological ‘watching briefs’ and metal-detecting, other areas from which Iron Age material has been recovered across the county of Norfolk. For example, a roundhouse structure was recently recovered at Stoke Holy Cross just to the south

To summarise, it would seem across the diverse landscape of later Iron Age Norfolk, there were a range of unenclosed settlement types. Lack of excavation means that we do not have a clear idea regarding the lay out of such settlements, it is possible though, given their apparently extensive nature, that they shifted, and had new buildings built on fresh patches of land rather than on existing plots. If this is the case, it is likely that these sites would have been smaller at any given point in time than their expanse initially suggests. In addition to open settlements, which were located across the county, there are, in the west of the county, a number of ‘hillforts’ and rectangular enclosures. Such sites, it can be surmised, would have been rather striking in a landscape where enclosure by banks and ditches does not seem to have been the dominant way of defining space.

7

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Map 3: Distribution of all Iron Age material across Norfolk

Map 4: Distribution of ring-ditches and barrows across Norfolk

Hockwold-cum-Wilton areas, a high density of late Iron Age (and Roman) material suggestive of temple sites (Gurney 1986, 49-92).

of Norwich (Shelley 1999), and a further five such structures are known from Brandon Road, Thetford (Dallas 1993). There is also, in the Ditchingham and

8

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK: THE ENVIRONMENTAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RECORD ‘territory’ of Britannia from ‘as far as the Trent and Severn’ (Tacitus Annals 12.30). Tacitus documents that the Iceni revolted against this enforced disarmament, but were defeated by the Roman army. Importantly, we also learn that the Iceni were at this time, a ‘client’ or friendly kingdom of Rome. This meant that the ‘tribe’ was able to keep its own political rulers in power (Braund 1984; Potter 1997, 3). Despite their friendly kingdom status, we do not hear again of the ‘tribe’ until approximately thirteen years later in relation to events in AD 60/61.

Although the Iron Age archaeology of Norfolk has not been subject to intensive programmes of excavation, map 3 demonstrates the county was densely occupied during this period. This is also highlighted by Andrew Rogerson’s intensive fieldwalking surveys of the parishes of Barton Bendish and Fransham (Rogerson 1999, 125130; Rogerson 1995), where he comments that ‘the Iron Age produced a surprising number of settlement sites in the form of pottery concentrations’ (Rogerson et al 1997, 1). This densely occupied landscape was utilised in a variety of ways. We have a landscape with shifting ‘villages’; most likely comprising clusters of round houses. Areas of the landscape were organised into field systems, although whether they related to ‘villages’, ‘individual households’, or ‘estate owners’ is unknown. In addition to field systems for the production of food, there would probably have been a range of seasonally occupied sites at locations such as the Fen edge. It may be that certain areas of the landscape were more densely populated or utilised at different times of year, reflecting seasonal exploitation of resources. There seems to be a greater emphasis on enclosure in the western part of the county with ‘hillforts’, ditches and rectilinear enclosures apparently clustering in this area. However, our overall knowledge of Iron Age settlement and everyday living in this region is ‘bitty’. Indeed, the ‘disparate and rather scrappy evidence’ regarding the nature of settlement provides little insight into social organisation and development across the eastern region as a whole during the middle to later Iron Age (Cunliffe 1991b, 530). Despite being dogged with a poorly dated, difficult to find and difficult to interpret settlement record, Norfolk does appear in a number of historical sources referring to later Iron Age Britain. It is historic sources that have become central to discussions of later Iron Age society in this region (e.g. Sealey 1997; Robinson & Gregory 1987; Webster 1993).

In AD60/61, according to Tacitus in his ‘Annals of Imperial Rome’, ‘Prasutagus, King of the Iceni, after a life of long and renowned prosperity’ died (Tacitus, Annals 14.30). In Tacitus’ recording of events, Prasutagus had made his two daughters co-heir with the Emperor Nero on the event of his death. This practice was not uncommon when a ruler within the empire did not have a son upon whom to bestow his kingdom (Braund 1996, 133-4). Despite Prasutagus’ will, created in part to ‘preserve his kingdom and household from attack’ (Tacitus, Annals 14.30), the ‘tribal’ lands of the Iceni were looted, his wife flogged, daughters raped and kinsman treated like slaves on the event of his death. As a result, under the leadership of Prastagus’ widow Boudica, the Iceni and a number of other neighbouring ‘tribe’s, including the Trinovantes to the south, were incited to rebel against the Romans. Having raised an army of native Britons, Boudica first sacked Camulodunum (Colchester) where people had been driven from their homes by the establishment of a settlement for ex-Roman soldiers (Tacitus Annals 14.30). According to the account in Tacitus’ Annals, following the sacking of Camulodunum, Catus Decianus the procurator, was summoned for help. He supplied only 200 ‘incompletely armed’ men, who were massacred. Both Londinium (London) and Verulamium (St Albans) were then sacked by the native rebels and Decianus fled to Gaul ‘horrified by the catastrophe and by his unpopularity (Tacitus, Annals 14.32). The rebels were eventually routed in the midlands and according to Tacitus almost 80,000 Britons were killed (Tacitus, Annals 14.38). Boudica then poisoned herself.

The historical background From the middle of the first century BC Britain begins to emerge from prehistory. One of the regions that feature in the classical histories pertaining to Britain is the land of the Iceni, of which Norfolk is the heartland. The ‘tribe’ of the Iceni probably make their first appearance in Caesar’s records of his expeditions to Britain in 55 and 54BC. The particular reference comes after he documents that he made Mandubracious King of the Trinovantes, the tribe to the south of the Iceni, following his father’s assassination by Cassivellaunus. When Mandubracious rose to power under Caesars’ auspices, five further ‘tribes’ surrendered to him. One of these ‘tribes’ was called the Cenimagni, which has been interpreted as a reference to the Iceni (e.g. Webster 1993, 36). It is not until the Claudian annexation of Britain is in motion nearly 100 years later that the Iceni, if they were indeed the ‘tribe’ to which Caesar was referring, re-emerge in the historical texts. The first reference to the ‘tribe’ is in relation to events of AD 47. In this year the governor, Ostorius Scapula, attempted to disarm the whole

References to the Iceni and this account of the Boudican rebellion has had a profound effect on the way in which many aspects of later Iron Age archaeology in Norfolk are studied and interpreted. There has, for example, been a focus of attention in defining the historic ‘tribe’ of the Iceni through the archaeological record. In particular, silver coins from this region have been attributed to the Iceni (Allen 1970), and their distribution mapped in order to establish the extent of Icenian ‘territory’. Furthermore, it has been suggested that ‘ornamental horse harness fittings’ have a Norfolk and north Suffolk bias, i.e. Icenian bias in terms of distribution (Martin 1999, 85). A relationship between decorated horse harness and northern East Anglia is also noted by Morna MacGregor, who suggests that ‘platform decorated terrets appear to be an Icenian invention’ (1976, 45). In addition to an 9

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Age Norfolk. Quite apart from avoiding a deconstruction of the inherent biases within this historical document, the fact that there is more than one version of the Boudican rebellion is often overlooked (e.g. Sealey 1997; Frere 1974; Webster 1993). For example, Tacitus mentions the uprising of AD60/61 in his earlier work the Agricola, although in this version of events, he does not mention the Iceni, instead he refers to the whole island rising-up in support of Boudica (Tacitus Agricola 16). In the Agricola he comments that the impetus for the uprising was in anger over taxes and slavery, the death of Prastuagus and the seizing of Icenian territory are not mentioned (Tacitus Agricola 15). Prasutagus and the Iceni are also missing in Dio Cassius’ version of the uprising, instead he refers to the calling-in of money loans to ‘foremost Britons’ that were given by Claudius and lent by Seneca (Dio Roman History VII, 42.2.1). In essence, the historical references to the Boudican uprising and the Iceni are not as straightforward as often presented. As such, linking the archaeology of this region directly to historical sources is less secure than perhaps is usually considered.

emphasis on ‘finding’ the Iceni through material culture, the Boudican rebellion has had an impact on the dating and interpretation of a range of deposits. Following the assumption that coin hoards are buried for safe keeping in times of stress (e.g. Crawford 1969), silver Iron Age coin hoards from this region are often associated with the Boudican rebellion (e.g. Clarke 1956, 5; Allen 1970, 19; Chadburn & Gurney 1991, 223; Chadburn 1992, 82). This link has been further strengthened by the discovery of a hoard containing a coin of Nero dated to AD60/61 at Scole (17) near Thetford in the south of Norfolk (Burnett 1986). Such an auspicious terminus ante quem non date for the deposition of the Scole hoard has led to the suggestion that ‘mixed Icenian and Roman hoards, even when they contain no coins later than Tiberius, were deposited during Boudica’s revolt’ (Burnett 1986, 7). This proposal has been recently challenged by John Creighton (1994) who suggests on the basis of simple seriation, that Iceni coin hoards (based on a sample from Norfolk, Suffolk and north-east Cambridgeshire) can be sequenced. In particular, he proposes that the hoards probably ‘represent a series concealed at a range of dates from the conquest or sometime thereafter to the revolt’ (Creighton 1994, 329). However, further research proposes that the sequence of coin hoard deposition remains an ‘open archaeological question’ (Orton 1997, 224).

Given the problems with using the historical record, a potential solution to studying later Iron Age Norfolk is to turn attention to the archaeology of the region; to develop an archaeologically lead research agenda. The difficulty developing such an agenda is the apparent lack of archaeological evidence. We have glimpses of a densely populated landscape with shifting ‘villages’. There are some enclosed sites in the west of the county, and a number of known field systems, routeways and boundaries. We also have glimpses of the environment in the region at the end of the first millennium BC and the turn of the first millennium AD. However, as noted, there is an overall lack of detailed information regarding settlement and site based archaeology in the region. Norfolk is, however, rich in metal artefacts and given the paucity of conventional types of archaeological evidence, i.e. settlement and environment, these metal finds are central to studying the later Iron Age in this region.

The influence of the historical record does not stop at the interpretation and dating of metalwork and coin hoards. For example, in his discussion of the rectilinear site at Fison Way, Tony Gregory is open about drawing on the historical events of AD60/61. With reference to the passage in Tacitus’ which declares that ‘any ‘tribe’ that had wavered in its loyalty or had been hostile was ravaged with fire and sword’ (Tacitus Annals 14.38-9), Gregory proposes that the purposeful demolition of the site at Fison relates directly to the rebellion. ‘under such circumstances it would be expected that the timber work would be demolished, by a military or military-controlled labour force in order to level the site and to reduce its potential as both defensive structure and as a ‘tribal’ focus. Such an operation would be expected soon after the suppression of the revolt’ (Gregory 1991, 190).

Studying the later Iron Age of Norfolk: a new approach to metalwork and coins Metalwork and coins have, as noted in the previous section, often been used to define geographically the ‘tribe’ of the Iceni and prove, archaeologically, the Boudican rebellion. In his recent paper ‘Where Eagles Dare: The Iron Age of Norfolk’, John Davies begins to make a move away from this historically lead research framework. Instead, he focuses on building a model of Iron Age settlement and social development across the county through plotting distributions of metal-detected artefacts, of which there are ‘prolific quantities’ (Davies 1996, 63). His research is a welcome addition to our knowledge of later Iron Age society in this region, working towards creating a narrative out of an otherwise difficult archaeological record. Building on John Davies’ research, this study also focuses on metalwork items

In essence, the historical record has set the agenda for Iron Age archaeology in this region, and has influenced the way in which the archaeological record has been interpreted. Defining the Iceni and defining archaeologically the events of AD60/61 have become central elements of investigations of the later Iron Age of this region. Iron Age research in Norfolk has been historically rather than archaeologically lead. This approach is problematic. In particular, there is little criticism of the main historical source (i.e. Tacitus Annals) which is drawn upon for understanding later Iron 10

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK: THE ENVIRONMENTAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RECORD recovered in the main by chance or metal-detector. In total, 175 artefacts or groups of artefacts (torcs, coin hoards and items of horse equipment), from 126 locations form the basis of this research (see catalogue). Again, following Davies, examining patterns in the distribution of material across the county is also a feature of this study. This dissertation also seeks to question some of the conventional views regarding later Iron Age Norfolk. In particular, the first assumption to be investigated is the popular understanding that this region can be defined through its quantity and types of metal artefacts (see chapter 3). The date of the material under study is also reviewed. There has been a tradition of working with a ‘short’ chronological sequence in this region. Torcs are usually dated to the first century BC and the Boudican rebellion acts as a dating ceiling, with nothing ‘Iron Age’ in style being dated beyond AD 60/61. As such, the majority of the metalwork under study has ‘traditionally’ fallen into a short time-span. The dates ascribed to items of Iron Age metalwork tend to cluster towards the end of the period. Chapter four investigates the date of all the material under study in this research, and drawing in part on recent research on the dating of coins, puts forward a new chronological sequence of torcs, coins (focusing particularly on hoards) and items of horse equipment for this region, that is broader than usually considered. The next section of research focuses on developing and outlining a ‘contextual’ approach to using largely unstratified finds for investigating later Iron Age society in this region (chapter 5). As noted, although unstratified metal finds can be plotted across the landscape, creating distributions of material culture and interpreting the social meaning behind distribution patterns can lead to false assumptions. The methodology developed, therefore, seeks to move beyond creating and interpreting distribution maps of metal-detected finds alone. Instead, patterns in the deposition of metal work finds within a ‘social’ landscape are examined alongside distribution patterns (chapters 6,7 & 8). With an assessment of the concentration of metal artefacts in this region, an evaluation of the chronological framework of the artefacts under study and a detailed examination of patterns in their distribution and deposition across the ‘social’ landscape, a view of later Iron Age Norfolk will be built up over the course of this thesis that will enable the Snettisham hoards, the Iceni and Boudican rebellion to be placed and understood within their broader historical context (chapter 9). The next chapter investigates whether there are, indeed, ‘real’ concentrations of later Iron Age metal artefacts in the Norfolk region.

11

Chapter 3 Later Iron Age Metalwork and Coins: Norfolk in its National Context. other areas of the country are comparatively poor in terms of excavated sites and published information. In order to overcome the biases in the information on Iron Age metal artefacts across England, a range of resources including Sites and Monuments Records, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, published artefact catalogues, the Celtic Coin Index and other published information have been used in order to establish whether Norfolk has a ‘real’ concentration of later Iron Age torcs, coin hoards and horse equipment. The first category of material to be explored is torcs

It has often been noted that just as hillforts typify the Iron Age of central southern Britain, purposeful deposits of metalwork, particularly into watery locations, typify the Iron Age (and Bronze Age) of eastern England (e.g. Cunliffe 1993, 531; Bradley 1993, 8-9). Indeed, it is popularly understood that Norfolk and the land of the Iceni are particularly rich in metalwork. As noted in the previous chapter, the ‘tribe’ of the Iceni and their territorial area has been defined through examining the distribution of particular types of so-called ‘Icenian’ metal-artefacts. The aim of this chapter is to assess whether Norfolk is richer than other areas of England with regard to later Iron Age metalwork, and to discover whether this region can be defined through its metalwork.

Torcs Of the three categories of artefacts to be examined as part of this research, torcs form the smallest group. Although there is no central database for torcs, the majority of examples known from England are published. The most famous torc discoveries from England are, of course, those recovered from Snettisham in north-west Norfolk (e.g. Clarke 1949; 1954; Fox 1958; Sealey 1979; Stead 1991a; Fitzpatrick 1992a). As can be seen on table 1, there are a number of other counties across England that also have produced examples of later Iron Age torcs.

The three categories of metalwork that form the focus of this research are torcs, coins and items of horse equipment. Each one of these categories of material will be considered in turn; an investigation being made as to whether there are more of each material type known from Norfolk compared to other counties in England. Assessing whether this county is rich in these three groups of material is not straightforward. Of particular hindrance to carrying out a comparison of artefact numbers between counties is the lack of standard recording methods used across England. For example, in Norfolk, local archaeologists, recognising the importance of material being recovered by metal-detectorists, started to use metal-detectors on archaeological excavations (e.g. Gregory & Rogerson 1984). Since the 1970s, metaldetected finds have been recorded on the Norfolk County Sites and Monuments Record. The first recording of such finds took place in 1973, and metal-detected material now accounts for over one third of the information contained on the Norfolk SMR (Gurney 1997, 529). However, although the Sites and Monuments Record in Norfolk has a long tradition of recording metal-detected finds, in other counties this is not the case. Some counties, such as Hampshire, have seen a greater degree of archaeological excavation and publication of Iron Age sites, whereas

In recent years, the number of torcs known from Britain has increased. For example, two sets of unusual ‘torc’ necklaces together with pairs of gold ‘boss and bow’ type brooches, chains and bracelets were recently recovered from Hampshire (Hill 2001, 1). Two further examples of torcs were also recovered from Staffordshire in 2001 (JD Hill pers. com.). Despite the increase nationally in known examples, it can be seen on the above table that here is a marked concentration of torcs, not only in terms of numbers of artefacts, but also with regard to the number findspots that is peculiar, at present, to Norfolk. It has been noted several times in this dissertation that Norfolk is rich in metal-detected finds. Could it be then, that the apparently high quantity of torcs from this county reflects high levels of metal-detecting?

Table 1: Counties in England from which Iron Age torcs have been recovered. County

Number of findspots/torcs

Reference

Hampshire

?2 findspots, ?2 torcs

Bushe-Fox 1915; Ftizpatrick 1997.

Lincolnshire

1 findspot, 3 gold torcs

Cuming 1859; Leeds 1933b

Norfolk

7 findspots, over 100 torcs and torc

Clarke 1951b; Clarke 1954; Stead

fragments

1991a.

Staffordshire

4 findspots, 7 torcs

Portable Antiquities Scheme;

Suffolk

1 findspot, 6 torcs

Brailsford & Stapley 1972; Owles

Somerset

1 findspot, 1 torc

Smith 1925; Clarke 1954; Jope 2000

Leeds 1933b; Painter 1970. 1969; 1970.

12

LATER IRON AGE METALWORK AND COINS: NORFOLK IN ITS NATIONAL CONTEXT The first types to be examined are the Gallo-Belgic coins; a series of early imported coins into Britain. This will be followed by an investigation of British coins, which were produced in this country and broadly post date GalloBelgic coins (see chapter five for more detailed information regarding the dating of these coin series). In terms of Gallo-Belgic hoards, according to information held on the Celtic Coin Index, Norfolk has the third highest number of hoards containing coins of these types known from across England (table 3).

Interestingly, the majority of the torc finds from the county were not recovered through metal-detecting activity. Indeed, four of the seven sites from which these artefacts have been recovered were found as the result of deep ploughing after the war (e.g. Clarke 1954, 28). It would seem, then, that at present the concentration of torcs known from this region is not a reflection of metaldetecting activity in this region. Rather, it is likely that the great quantities of these artefacts known from Norfolk reflect late Iron Age practices in this region rather than modern recovery and recording practices. If this is the case for torcs, is the same true regarding coins?

Table 2: Number of coin hoards per county. Information compiled from the Celtic Coin Index.

Coins

County

Coins are the most common late Iron Age artefact recovered in England with over 21,000 provenanced examples known (Haselgrove 1993, 31). Coins have been recorded on a multitude of databases. There is the Celtic Coin Index housed in Oxford, which is probably the most comprehensive database of Iron Age coins from England. There are the gazetteers created by Richard Hobbs, Robert van Arsdell, Colin Haselgrove and Derek Allen that also provide lists of provenanced coins (Hobbs 1996; van Arsdell 1989; Haselgrove 1977; Allen 1960). Establishing a comprehensive list of single Iron Age coins for each county across England would be an enormous task, one that is beyond the scope of this research project. There are, though, a number of distribution patterns that are already well documented in the literature on coins. For example, Gallo-Belgic coins have their greatest density in the south-east of England, particularly in Kent and Essex; a distribution evident on the maps in the volume on Coinage and Society in Britain and Gaul (Cunliffe 1981, fig 39-44). This same pattern is seen in the more recent maps created by Philip de Jersey from the Celtic Coin Index (map 5). In addition, following Gallo-Belgic coins, the British series show marked regional distributions (e.g. Cunliffe 1981, figs 5167). The distribution of British coins is understood to reflect late Iron Age polities, as such, the various regional groups of coins have been attributed to late Iron Age ‘tribes’ including the Iceni, Durotriges and Dobunni etc.

Hampshire

No. of IA Hoards 27

County Cornwall

No. of IA Hoards 3

Norfolk

16

West Yorkshire

3

Essex

14

Berkshire

2

Kent

14

Devon

2

Suffolk

11

Hereford and W

2

Dorset

10

Oxfordshire

2

Lincolnshire

9

Somerset

2

Wiltshire

7

Surrey

2

Cambridgeshire

6

Avon

1

London

6

Bedfordshire

1

West Sussex

6

Gloucestershire

1

East Sussex

5

Isle of Wight

1

Humberside

5

NorthYorkshire

1

Hertfordshire

4

Warwickshire

1

Buckinghamshire

3

It might be surmised that this density of Gallo-Belgic hoards from Norfolk might reflect metal-detecting practices. However, the pattern across the country as a whole suggests that this is not the case. For example, the majority of gold Gallo-Belgic hoards are situated in the east: Essex, Norfolk and Kent. By way of contrast, Hampshire, which has the highest number of Iron Age coin hoards overall, does not display a particularly high number of Gallo-Belgic hoards. It would seem, therefore, that Gallo-Belgic coins were hoarded particularly in Eastern England, suggesting that the concentration of hoards from Norfolk reflects this broader national pattern, rather than a pattern of metal-detector activity in this county alone.

Comparing the number of individual coin finds between counties is, as discussed, beyond the scope of this research. It has been possible, using information from the Celtic Coin Index to compare the number of Iron Age coin hoards documented from counties across England (table 2). When this information is plotted on a map (map 6), it is immediately apparent that there is an easterly and central southern British focus in terms of distribution of coin hoards.

Turning to hoards of British coins, as shown in table 4 below, it would appear that a great number of these can be attributed to the late Iron Age ‘tribes’ of the Durotriges and Atrebates. Both of these ‘tribes’ occupied parts of what is now the modern-day county of Hampshire, although the focus of each is to the west and east of this county respectively. This might explain why so many British coin hoards have been recovered from Hampshire (table 5).

In order to examine whether metal-detecting is playing an important role regarding the number of hoards known from Norfolk it is necessary to break the coin hoards down into two major types; Gallo-Belgic and British.

13

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Table 3: Number of Gallo-Belgic coin hoards per county, organised by coin types (Allen 1960). Information compiled from the Celtic Coin Index. County

G-B A

Essex

6

Kent

4

Norfolk

G-B B

G-B C

1

3

G-B E

TOTAL

7

14

1

2

11

(including GB-D) 5

9

1

2 (from Snettisham)

2

Hampshire Hertfordshire

G-B D

3 1

1

Humberside London

1

1

Cambridgeshire Cornwall

1

Oxfordshire

1

2

5

1

3

3

3

1

3

2

2 2

1

Suffolk

1

Dorset

1

2

1

2 1

1

East Sussex

1

West Sussex

1 1

1

Table 4: Number of coin hoards per later Iron Age ‘tribe’. Information compiled from the Celtic Coin Index. Late Iron Age ‘Tribe’

No. of British Iron Age Coin Hoards

Durotriges

32

Atrebates

25

Iceni

23

Cantiaci

15

Corieltauvi

15

Trinovantes

13

Dobunni

6

Table 5: Number of British Coin hoards per county. Information compiled from the Celtic Coin Index. County Hampshire

No. of British IA Coin Hoards 22

County Humberside

No. of British IA Coin Hoards 2

Kent

11

Devon

2

Suffolk

9

2

Dorset

9

Hereford and Worcestershire Avon

Lincolnshire

9

Bedfordshire

1

1

Norfolk

7

Gloucestershire

1

Wiltshire

7

Isle of Wight

1

West Sussex

5

NorthYorkshire

1

Cambridgeshire

4

Warwickshire

1

East Sussex

4

Hertfordshire

1

London

3

Cornwall

1

Buckinghamshire

3

Essex

0

W.Yorkshire

3

Oxfordshire

0

Somerset

2

Surrey

2

14

LATER IRON AGE METALWORK AND COINS: NORFOLK IN ITS NATIONAL CONTEXT

Map 5: Distribution of Gallo-Belgic C, D and E coins across England (maps created by Philip de Jersey and reproduced here with his kind permission)

hoards, it would seem that the concentration in this region is reflecting an overall easterly distribution of these coin types. With regard to the British coins, it would seem that again, Norfolk as part of the wider ‘Iceni’ region is not unusual in terms of coin hoard deposition. ‘Tribal’ coin series from other regions have also produced a high number of hoards, particularly the Durotriges and the Atrebates. Overall, although there is a concentration of hoards from Norfolk, an investigation of the national distribution of later Iron Age coin hoards discovered and recorded suggests that this concentration is not solely a product of the work of metal-detectorists. Norfolk fits into a broader national pattern on of:

It has long been suggested that the Iceni coin series is unusual in terms of the number of hoard finds (Allen 1970; Hobbs 1996, 29) and as can be seen, Iceni have the third highest number of coin hoards attributed to them as recorded on the Celtic Coin Index (table 4). The ‘tribal’ area of the Iceni is not, however, exclusive to Norfolk. As discussed in the Introduction and chapter two, the Iceni are understood to have incorporated north Suffolk and north-east Cambridgeshire; essentially northern East Anglia. Defining the actual number of coin hoards from Norfolk alone is problematic. The records regarding coin hoards are not always as detailed as they could be (see chapter seven). For example, on the Celtic Coin Index, seven British hoards are attributed to Norfolk, but, from the (conservative) survey undertaken as part of this research, at least twelve hoards of British Iceni coins have been recovered from this county. Given that there are concentrations of coin hoards from other areas of England, the number of hoards of British coins from Norfolk is not unusual. As with the Gallo-Belgic hoards, there is no apparent bias in this region that may have resulted from the action of metal-detectorists.

• •

hoarding of Gallo-Belgic coins in the east of England hoarding British coins across the country.

Metal-detecting might be responsible for enhancing our knowledge of hoards in this region, but it does not seem to have created an unduly false concentration of coin hoards in this region. The pattern emerging from metaldetected material is reinforcing patterns that were already apparent. Is this also the case with items of horse equipment?

To summarise, Norfolk does have a high number of known later Iron Age coin hoards. Indeed, according the Celtic Coin Index this county has the second highest total number of recorded hoards. In terms of Gallo-Belgic 15

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Map 6: Number of Iron Age Coin Hoards per County across England

Palk’s catalogue comprises a survey of artefacts from museums and published information across the British Isles and Ireland. Her catalogue is, therefore, the most comprehensive and up to date national corpus of late Iron Age horse equipment available. In addition, this data-set is flexible as it can be utilised to provide information regarding the number of findspots that have produced horse equipment in each county across England, as well as the actual number of artefacts from each county.

Horse equipment Over 100 items of later Iron Age horse equipment have been recovered from Norfolk. These include terrets, bridle-bits, linch-pins, strap unions and other ‘miscellaneous’ items such as horn-caps, hooks and harness mounts. Of the three categories of material under study, this group is most difficult to view in its national context. As a group of material it is much larger than the torcs, and therefore much more unwieldy to investigate. Unlike the coin hoards, there is no centralised national database of later Iron Age horse equipment that can be interrogated. In order to test whether there is a distinctive concentration of horse and vehicle equipment in Norfolk, three data-sets have been investigated: Natalie Palk’s catalogue on the ‘Metal Horse Harness of the British and Irish Iron Ages’ (1991b), County Sites and Monuments Records and the Portable Antiquities Scheme database.

The second source of data for investigating the national distribution of later Iron Age horse equipment derives from county Sites and Monuments Records (SMRs). In April 2001, the author contacted eighty-two county, district and city SMRs across England by post, requesting information regarding quantities horse equipment. Of the eighty-two contacted, replies were received from around fifty. Unfortunately, some of the fifty SMRs that did reply were still awaiting computerisation and could not 16

LATER IRON AGE METALWORK AND COINS: NORFOLK IN ITS NATIONAL CONTEXT greatly across England. Norfolk, as noted, has a longstanding tradition of recording single artefacts recovered by chance or through field-walking and metal-detecting. Other counties do not record metal-detected material at all. Therefore the information gathered from this source is not standardised and not always representative of the number of findspots that have produced late Iron Age horse equipment from any given county. The PAS scheme also has problems of sample bias. In particular, the PAS is new and only contains material that has been recovered in the last five years. In addition, the PAS started with a number of pilot schemes in only a few counties, and at present does not have a liaison officer in every county; it is limited, therefore, in terms of coverage across England.

provide synthetic information through the post, and one refused to deal with student enquiries! Of those that could and did reply, the information regarding horse equipment was, in the main, of a useful standard. In particular, material gathered from the SMR provides figures for the number of findspots in any given county that have produced horse equipment. Finally, the third data-set interrogated derives from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). The PAS was launched in 1997 with the aim of building relationships with metal-detectorists across England and Wales in order to encourage the recording of finds of archaeological interest. To achieve this, there are a number of liaison officers employed in various counties and regions across the country who provide an identification and recording service to local metaldetectorists. Material recorded is then entered onto a central database that is available for public scrutiny at www.finds.org.uk.

There are, then, a number of problems with each dataset; none of the sources is comprehensive. This makes it difficult to produce a complete national distribution map of later Iron Age horse equipment with which to compare Norfolk against other counties. Some of these problems are more or less negated by utilising all three databases in conjunction with one another. By using all three, it is possible to examine whether patterns suggested by one data set are upheld by the others and, therefore, to test whether Norfolk has a concentration of late Iron Age horse-equipment.

Each one of these data-sets has its own limitations. Natalie Palk’s catalogue was completed in 1988, therefore, it does not include finds that have been recovered and recorded in the last fourteen years. The SMRs may include data that has been recorded after the completion of Palk’s catalogue; however, the type of data and detail of information recorded on SMRs varies

Investigating the National Distribution of Later Iron Age Horse Equipment Table 6: Number of locations or findspots that have produced items of later Iron Age horse equipment across England. Data compiled from County Sites and Monuments and Palk Catalogue. County Norfolk Essex Hampshire Gloucestershire Suffolk Northumberland Humberside Somerset North Yorkshire Kent Hertfordshire Dorset Cambridgeshire London

SMR information 105 13 33 2 5 5 -

Palk Catalogue 40 18 13 13 12 11 10 8 8 8 7 7 7 6

Lincolnshire

5

6

Cumbria

-

6

Oxfordshire

-

5

15 6 -

5 5 4

Leicestershire Berkshire West Sussex

County Surrey Wiltshire Northamptonshire East Sussex Worcestershire Staffordshire Cheshire Buckinghamshire West Yorkshire Warwickshire Shropshire Isle of Wight Cornwall Avon Nottinghamshire Northumberland National Park North York Moors National Park Lancashire Durham Devon

17

SMR information 2 7 2 1 1 5 2 2 1 1

Palk Catalogue 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 -

1

-

1

-

-

-

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK eastern seaboard of England from Essex northwards, and west central southern Britain around the counties of Dorset, Hampshire, Somerset, Gloucester and Wiltshire.

From table 6 above, it can be seen that there is in Norfolk, compared to other counties, a distinctive concentration of findspots or locations from which later Iron Age horse equipment has been recovered (a findspot or location being hoard, a burial, settlement etc where material has been found through field walking, chance discovery, metal-detecting or excavation, i.e. Danebury is one findspot, as is the location from which the Polden Hill hoard in Somerset was recovered). From map 7, it can be seen that nationally, there are two areas of England where horse equipment is concentrated: the

This pattern in is further emphasised when investigating the number of individual items of later Iron Age horse equipment recovered from each county. As can be seen from table 7 the counties of the eastern seaboard north of Essex are prominent, as are the counties of west central southern Britain (map 8).

Map 7: Number of locations per county from which Iron Age horse equipment has been recovered (data compiled from Natalie Palk’s catalogue 1991)

18

LATER IRON AGE METALWORK AND COINS: NORFOLK IN ITS NATIONAL CONTEXT Table 7: Number of items of later Iron Age horse equipment recovered from counties across England. Information compiled from Palk Catalogue County Somerset

Individual Number of artefacts 69

County Oxford

Individual Number of artefacts 7

North Yorkshire

65

East Sussex

5

Humberside

50

Leicestershire

5

Norfolk

48

West Sussex

5

Hampshire

30

Wiltshire

5

Suffolk

24

Cumbria

4

Essex

19

Surrey

4

Northumberland

18

Buckinghamshire

3

Gloucestershire

15

Cheshire

2

Kent

14

Shropshire

2

Dorset

13

Staffordshire

2

Northamptonshire

13

West Yorkshire

2

Hertfordshire

11

Worcestershire

2

London

11

Avon

1

Lincolnshire

8

Cornwall

1

7

Isle of Wight

1

7

Warwickshire

1

Berkshire Cambridgeshire

such as Yorkshire or Somerset in comparison to Norfolk during the later Iron Age. Thirdly, rather than reflecting Iron Age practice, it may be that the way in which finds are being recovered and recorded varies in different counties. Indeed, the quantities of horse equipment in Norfolk cannot be explained in terms of one or two large hoards, or as the result of excavated sites of burials. Could it be, then, that the number of findspots producing Iron Age horse equipment, and the quantities of artefacts being recovered is a direct reflection of metal-detectorist activity?

At the time Palk completed her survey, Norfolk did not have the greatest number of items of late Iron Age horse equipment. In 1988 Palk recorded Somerset, Yorkshire and Humberside as having more artefacts than Norfolk. Interestingly, the concentrations of material in these three counties are the result of distinctive hoarding events. Both Yorkshire and Somerset have produced the largest hoards of horse equipment known from England: the Stanwick (MacGregor 1962) and Polden Hills (Brailsford 1975) hoards respectively. Indeed, within Palk’s catalogue the Stanwick hoard accounts for 78% (51 out of 65) of the material from Yorkshire, and the Polden Hills hoard, 62% (43 out of 69) of the material known from Somerset. Equally, 66% (33 out of 50) of Humberside’s data derives from the ‘chariot’ burials, a depositional characteristic of that region. At the time of Palk’s survey, Norfolk had only two known hoards of horse equipment; the material from Ovington, Saham Tony and the Ringstead hoard, and these made up 14% (7 out of 48) and 6% (3 out of 48) of the objects known from the region respectively.

The impact of metal-detecting In comparison with other counties, the PAS liaison officers working in Norfolk record more artefacts recovered by metal-detectorists than any other English county in the current scheme (Dorset/Somerset, Hampshire, Kent, Suffolk, Northamptonshire, West Midlands, North Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, North-west). In 1998-99 over 13,000 objects came through the service in Norfolk and in 1999-2000, over 15,000 items were recorded (Portable Antiquities 1998-99, 38; 1999-2000, 39). The next highest number of artefacts seen by one county was Suffolk, which recorded over 3,000 artefacts in 1998-99 and over 5,000 in 1999-2000 (Portable Antiquities 1998-99, 38; 1999-2000, 39). Clearly, a great deal of archaeological material recovered in Norfolk is found by metal-detectorists. Given this, it is not surprising that the county should produce one of the highest total numbers of Iron Age artefacts seen by the PAS (Portable Antiquities 1998-99, 40; 1999-2000, 41). However, as can be seen on table 8, the percentage of recorded material that is Iron Age from Norfolk is not unusually high in comparison to other counties.

On the basis of Palk’s survey, it would seem that late Iron Age horse equipment from Norfolk is much more widespread than compared to other counties with a high number of artefacts. The number of items of horse equipment does not derive from one or two large hoards, rather, there are more findspots from which horse equipment has been recovered. This implies several things: firstly, it could be that there is a difference in the way items of horse equipment were entering the archaeological record in different parts of the country. This is certainly the case in Humberside with its ‘chariot’ burial tradition. Secondly, it may be that horse equipment was not as widespread or available in regions

19

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Map 8: Number of items of horse equipment per county across England (data compiled from Natalie Palk’s catalogue 1991)

material of every period being recovered). It also suggests that in comparison to other chronological periods, the sample of Iron Age material from Norfolk is not biased; metal-detectorists are not targeting Iron Age sites or Roman sites that are producing Iron Age material in particular.

For example, in 1999-2000, of the 15,126 artefacts recovered in Norfolk, only 1.2% was Iron Age. This percentage is reflected in other counties, for example, Suffolk produced a total of 5,477 artefacts, 1.3% of which were Iron Age, Yorkshire produced 4,140 artefacts, 2.2% which were Iron Age (Portable Antiquities 1999-2000, 41). Kent, on the other hand, recovered a total of 859 artefacts in the 1999-2000 period, 11.6 of which were attributed to the Iron Age (Portable Antiquities 1999-2000, 41). Therefore, the ratio of Iron Age artefacts to material of other periods is not unusually high in Norfolk. This suggests that although the total quantities of late Iron Age metalwork reflect, to some degree, the nature of recovery and recording in this county (i.e. there is, in total, more

To summarise, there is more metalwork recovered and recorded in Norfolk compared with most other counties in England, and although this results in a greater number of Iron Age artefacts, the percentage of material overall that is Iron Age is no higher than any other county. Rather, Norfolk has a good sample of metalwork. What has not been established, however, is the percentage of Iron Age material recovered from Norfolk that falls into

20

LATER IRON AGE METALWORK AND COINS: NORFOLK IN ITS NATIONAL CONTEXT The author, from her own work with the PAS and from information provided by Katie Hinds (portable liaison officer for Norfolk), has calculated the information pertaining to Norfolk for the year October 2000 to October 2001.

the category of horse equipment. Is there an unusually high percentage of horse equipment being recovered from this county? Table 8: Total number of artefacts, total number of Iron Age artefacts and the % of Iron Age artefacts (including coins) recovered by the Portable Antiquities Scheme in the year 1999-2000.

County

Total number of Objects

Total % of number of objects IA objects

Norfolk

15, 126

187

1.2%

Suffolk

5,477

69

1.3%

1, 395

21

1.5%

Hampshire

1,565

12

0.8%

Kent

859

100

11.6%

2,763

21

0.8%

1,501

63

4.2%

1,611

28

1.7%

4,140

90

2.2%

Dorset

and

Somerset

North Lincolnshire Northampton shire West Midlands Yorkshire

What is apparent from these figures is that horse equipment makes up seventeen percent of the Iron Age material from Norfolk for the year 2000/2001. Horse equipment also makes up a high percentage of Iron Age material from Lincolnshire (17%), Suffolk (9%), and Yorkshire (12%) since they were incorporated into the scheme in the late 1990s. By way of contrast, counties such as Kent, which are producing high quantities of Iron Age artefacts, are not producing many items of horse equipment. The concentration of finds in Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Suffolk and Yorkshire reflects the easterly distribution of late Iron Age horse equipment that was seen from data derived from Palk’s catalogue and the SMRs in general. The Portable Antiquities Scheme, it would seem, is reinforcing patterns already apparent in the national data. This would suggest that metaldetecting activity, although in part responsible for the overall density of Iron Age material in Norfolk, is not responsible alone for the apparent concentration of horse equipment in this county. The distribution of horse equipment across Norfolk must partly, therefore, reflect Iron Age practices rather than just modern recovery and recording methods.

IA

In the previous chapter, it was noted that both Edward Martin and Morna MacGregor suggested certain types of ornamental horse equipment are concentrated in northern East Anglia, particularly in the area understood to be the territorial region of the Iceni. On closer investigation of Palk’s catalogue, it would seem that this is indeed the case. For example, on a detailed analysis of Palks catalogue, twenty percent (18 out of 89) of the enamelled terrets she recorded were recovered from Norfolk; thirtynine percent (31 out of 89) were recovered from Norfolk

In March 2002, Sally Worrell, the then PAS finds liaison officer for Hampshire compiled information on the total number of Iron Age artefacts (including coins) and total number of items of horse equipment recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme so far for seven of the counties in the scheme (Hampshire, Kent, Northants, Lincolnshire, Somerset/Dorset, Suffolk and Yorkshire).

Table 9: Number of Iron Age artefacts per county recorded by the Portable Antiquities scheme, and number of items of horse equipment. Figures derived from information by Sally Worrell, Katie Hinds and the author.

County

Number of Iron Age Records

Number of Items of Horse Equipment

Percentage of Horse Equipment to Total Number of IA records

Hampshire

108

6

5%

Kent

572

4

0.6%

Northants

94

8

8%

Lincolnshire

192

33

17%

Somerset/Dorset

26

3

11%

Suffolk

136

13

9%

Yorkshire

85

11

12%

Norfolk(10/00 – 10/01)

47

8

17%

21

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK and Suffolk, the major area of the Iceni. The remaining sixty-one percent were recovered across the rest of Britain and Ireland. From the survey undertaken in this research, of the eighty-seven terrets recorded, twentythree, or twenty-five percent are enamelled, ornamental types (platform decorated, flat ring and enamelled transverse wing types: see chapter four). Not only is Norfolk rich in terms of horse equipment, particular types of these items are concentrated in this region. Conclusions From this brief survey of later Iron Age metalwork and coins from England Norfolk does appear to be richer than many other counties. There are more torcs from Norfolk than anywhere else in England. The region also has the second highest number of Iron Age coin hoards known from England and a concentration of items of horse equipment. And it seems that the activities of metaldetectorists do not appear to have created an unduly biased sample of these types of material. With regard to horse equipment, it seems fair to comment that there are more items known in this county due to metal-detecting. Natalie Palk documented forty items of later Iron Age horse equipment from the county in 1988, whereas the author has recorded 137 items twelve to thirteen years later. This huge disparity may have occurred because Palk did not investigate the SMR as part of her survey, only the Museum. However, it would seem that metal-detecting is not the reason for the apparent concentration of such material in this region. There does, for example, appear to be a general concentration of horse equipment in the east of England in the counties north of Essex. Within this eastern distribution, there are certain types of horse equipment, such as ornamental items that are restricted to Norfolk and north Suffolk in particular. Horse equipment is also entering the archaeological record in Norfolk differently from some other areas of Britain, i.e. the majority of items do not appear to be related to hoards or burials as they are, for example, in Yorkshire and Humberside (north Lincolnshire). To conclude, although metaldetecting has enhanced our knowledge of Norfolk’s Iron Age metalwork database, overall the ‘prolific quantities’ of metalwork recovered from this region reflect Iron Age practices and rather than modern recovery and recording methods. Norfolk is indeed rich in metal artefacts, with certain types clustering in this area. Therefore, the popular belief that the ‘tribe’ of the Iceni, or the inhabitants of later Iron Age Norfolk can in part be defined by their metal accoutrements, appears on current evidence, to be the case. In the next chapter, the dating of torcs, coins and items of horse equipment from Norfolk will be investigated.

22

Chapter 4 Torcs, Coins and Horse Equipment: the Chronological Sequence horizons.

In the previous chapter, it was established that the county of Norfolk is rich in later Iron Age torcs, coin hoards and items of horse equipment. The aim of this chapter is to investigate the dating of this material and organise it into a chronological sequence. Defining the chronological relationships between each group of metalwork is fundamental, as it will provide the temporal backbone around which the hoards of torcs from Snettisham, the Iceni and Boudican rebellion can be historically contextualised.

This chapter not only aims to organise the material under study into a chronological sequence, but it also introduces the artefacts in some detail before they are considered in terms of distribution and deposition (chapters six, seven and eight). Each material type is considered separately. Firstly, the dating of torcs from Norfolk is examined. This is followed by a discussion of the date of later Iron Age coins from the region. The section on horse equipment is broken down into different types, i.e. terrets, bridle-bits, harness mounts etc. The chronology of each sub-category is then considered. Finally, a broad sequence or timeline of deposition of each material type is presented in the last section of this chapter. The numbers in brackets e.g. (4/1) or (73) are referring to the catalogue at the back of the book, where illustrations of many of the artefacts under discussion can be found.

Few of the artefacts under study derive from stratified deposits; many are surface finds that have been recovered by metal-detectorists, or by chance when ploughing fields and harvesting crops. Consequently, it is necessary to date many of the items under discussion with reference to other, better dated examples. With regard to coins, defining and refining the dating sequence of these later Iron Age artefacts in Britain has been a source of dynamic and ongoing debate (e.g. Allen 1960; Haselgrove 1987; 1993; Cunliffe 1981; van Arsdell 1989; Mays 1992). As such, this research will draw upon recently established sequences of later Iron Age coins (e.g. Haselgrove 1987; 1993; 1999). Torcs and items of horse equipment, however, have not seen the same focus of attention regarding their date. For example, until the British Museum’s 1991 report on Snettisham (Stead 1991a), Rainbird Clarke’s suggestion that the torcs from this county were manufactured between 100BC and 25BC and deposited between 25BC and AD10 (Clarke 1954, 69) had not been challenged in print. There has also been little recent synthetic work on investigating the date of many items of horse equipment from Britain. The catalogues by Morna MacGregor (1976), Mansel Spratling (1972), and drawing heavily on these two, the catalogue by Natalie Palk completed in 1991(b), form the standard texts from which the majority of items of horse equipment are dated. These sequences were constructed at least thirty years ago, at a time when the Iron Age chronological framework relied on historical references for constructing absolute dates. Relying on comparative material for dating torcs and items of horse equipment from Norfolk is, therefore, problematic as such material is itself often dated on the basis of unchallenged sequences. One particular problem regarding existing sequences, as a result of drawing on the historical record for ‘absolute’ dates, is the tendency for artefacts to cluster around certain specific times. As noted in the introduction and chapter 2, many later Iron Age artefacts in this region have been dated to AD 60/61, but not later, or much earlier. Therefore, although recently established sequences regarding later Iron Age coins will be drawn upon, this chapter will suggest new chronologies for torcs and certain items of horse equipment, which give a broader dating sequence, one that is not hampered by the imposition of specific historic events as exact dating

Torcs Iron Age torcs or neckrings in bronze, gold and silver are known across Continental Europe from the fifth century BC through to the first century AD, although these artefacts have a long ancestry originating back in the Bronze Age. On the Continent, bronze torcs are generally early Iron Age and seem to be associated with females, a number having derived from female burials. From the fourth and third century BC onwards, pictorial representations of torcs and those found in burials, particularly gold ones, were often associated with men and warriors (Eluère 1987, 23). The torcs known from the Continent occur in a variety of types. For example, there is the neckring from the Vix ‘princess’ burial in Burgundy, France, with its massive ‘balloon’ terminals and miniature horses dated to approximately 500BC (Megaw & Megaw 2001, 46-7). At the other extreme are the delicate neckrings from Erstfield in Switzerland, again dating to the earlier part of the Iron Age (Megaw 1970, 80-1, pl 84; Megaw & Megaw 2001, 92-3). As well as these early examples, there are a number of torcs dating from the first century BC known from the Continent such as the twisted, buffer terminal torc from Tayac in the Gironde in France or the tubular torc from the Saint Louis hoard near Basel in Switzerland (Megaw 2001, 182-4; Furger-Gunti 1982). Iron Age torcs from Britain and Ireland vary in type. There are a few examples of tubular torcs such as those from Snettisham (hoard A & F) and the Broighter torc from Ireland. The majority of examples are twisted rope or bar types with ‘ring’, ‘loop’ or ‘buffer’ terminals. The ‘ring’ and ‘loop’ terminal types are recognised as being a specific feature of torcs found in Britain (Eluère 1987, 22). Examples have been recovered from as far south as 23

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Hengistbury Head in Hampshire (Bushe-Fox 1914) and as far north as Netherurd in Scotland (Feacham 1958). Yet the majority of torcs from Britain have been found in Norfolk, and it is the collections from this region, particularly those recovered from Snettisham in the northwest of the county, that offer the greatest potential for understanding the nature and dating of later Iron Age torcs. As noted in the beginning of this chapter, until recently, a date in the last quarter of the first century BC through to the early part of the first century AD was the accepted date for the deposition of the torcs from Snettisham (Clarke 1954, 69; see also Megaw 1970, 168). This date has been pushed back to the first quarter of the first century BC (Stead 1991a, 455). The aim of this section is to review the date of deposition of the Snettisham torcs and discuss the dating of other torcs known from the county.

examples of torcs and one bracelet from the site were created from tubes of gold, a technique that suggests the torcs may have been emulating Continental types such as the example from the Saint Louis hoard in Switzerland (Clarke 1954, 42-5; Stead 1991a, 450, 452). A range of terminal types are also displayed in the hoards. There are numerous complete and fragmentary examples of loop terminals of the type characteristic of the British torc (1/6). A few have cast-on ring terminals, much like the example of the ‘Great Torc’ from hoard E (1/4), and others have buffer terminals similar to the example from Clevedon in Somerset (Jope 2000, vol 1 p.254, vol 2 pl. 120-1) and Hengistbury Head in Hampshire (Bushe-Fox 1914, 60 pl IX). In addition to these common types of terminal, two rather unusual types were discovered during the 1990 excavations; ‘cage’ and ‘reel’ terminals (Stead 1991a, 455).

Hoards of torcs from Snettisham

Other than the complete tubular torcs, which were discovered together in hoard A, the hoards comprise a variety of torcs. For example, in hoard L complete torcs with ‘ring’, ‘buffer’, ‘loop’ and ‘cage’ terminals were all present, as are torcs constructed using twisted wire and twisted ‘bars’ (see Plate 6).

Since 1948, eleven probable hoards of gold, silver, electrum and bronze torcs have been recovered from the ‘gold-field’ in Snettisham. Several of the torc finds were discovered by chance during agricultural activity and metal-detecting. The site at Snettisham has also been the focus of two campaigns of excavation. The first of these, undertaken in the early 1950s, was directed by R.Rainbird Clarke, who was the then keeper of archaeology at Norwich Castle Museum. Subsequently, in 1990, under the directorship of Dr Ian Stead, the British Museum undertook a series of excavations in the ‘gold field’.

Given the variety of torc types, and the mixture of types present within each of the hoards, dating or creating a chronological sequence on a typological basis will never be straightforward. There were, however, a number of coins found with some of the hoards. These were recovered as part of the collections of ‘scrap’ metal hoards (B/C and F) and comprise Potin types and GalloBelgic A, C and D types (Dolley 1954, 72-86; Sealey 1979, 165-66). In the terminal of the ‘Great Torc’ of hoard E, a Gallo-Belgic D quarter stater was also recovered (Clarke 1954, 59). Recent research on the date of Potin and Gallo-Belgic A coins proposes that they may be as early as the early second century BC (Haselgrove 1999, 125-7, 165). Gallo-Belgic C and D types are later and may date from the later second century BC through to the early first century BC (Haselgrove 1999, 134-36, 165). It could be suggested, therefore, that hoards B, C and F, and the ‘Great Torc’ of hoard E could have been deposited in the late second century BC rather than the first century BC, at least 100 years earlier than supposed by R. Rainbird Clarke. What is of significance is that there are no examples of Gallo-Belgic E coins known from the hoards. Dating Gallo-Belgic E staters is problematic. Their production has been linked with the Gallo-Belgic wars, providing them with a mid-first century BC date (Scheers 1977; Haselgrove 1984). However, more recently, it has been suggested that production may have commenced earlier in the first century BC, potentially overlapping with the latest phase Gallo-Belgic C staters, although certainly post-dating Gallo-Belgic A types (Haselgrove 1999, 136-7). When such coins were introduced into Britain is not clear, however, the lack of these coins supports a date of deposition before the middle of the first century BC for the ‘scrap’ hoards B, C, F and the ‘Great Torc’ of hoard

During R. Rainbird Clarke’s excavations three hoards of torcs were recovered (A, B and C) comprising one collection of ‘tubular’ torcs (A), and two collections of ‘scrap’ metal (hoards B and C) including coins, fragments of twisted wire, items fused together, fragments of torcs and ingot rings, and bracelets (Clarke 1954). In addition to the material from the excavation, two more torcs were found in the early 1950s during ploughing; the ‘Great torc’ from hoard E (1/4) and the torc from hoard D (1/3). A further hoard of ‘scrap’ was recovered partly by a metal-detectorist and partly by Ian Stead during the British Museum excavations in 1990 (hoard F) (Stead 1991a, 450-1). A further five hoards were recovered in 1990 comprising nests of complete torcs (G,H, J, K, L). In the 1990s, a hoard of silver ‘lumps’ (hoard M) was found by a metal-detectorist. A hoard of coins was also uncovered in the vicinity, unfortunately, this hoard was removed by metal-detectorists at night and has never been fully recorded, however, it would seem that some of the coins were silver Iceni and Trinovantian types which were buried in a metal bowl (Stead 1998, 149; Richard Hobbs, pers.com) The torcs recovered from Snettisham are constructed using a variety of techniques; there are several formed out of twisted strands of wire and others assembled using thicker ‘bars’ of metal, again twisted together. Five 24

TORCS, COINS AND HORSE EQUIPMENT: THE CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE E. Extending this date of deposition to all of the hoards of torcs from Snettisham is not straightforward, none of the nests of complete torcs were found with coins. However, it is likely that they are related in terms of date. For example, based on terminal types, the majority of torcs, complete and fragmentary, can be divided into five main groups (excluding tubular torcs): loop, ring, buffer, cage and reel terminals (Stead 1991a, 454). As noted, these types occur across the hoards, and are mixed within the collections of complete and ‘scrap’ artefacts from the site. In essence, there are no appreciable typological differences between the collections of torcs from Snettisham that would assist in a simple seriation of the deposits. This implies that although not necessarily manufactured at the same time, the range of torcs from Snettisham may have been deposited around the same time. That not all the torcs were manufactured at the same time is evidenced by the recovery of examples that are potentially second or even the third centuries BC in date. In particular there is a torc from hoard L with ‘plastic’ decoration that seems to represent a face (Stead 1991a, 458; Jope 2000, vol 1 p. 253, vol 2 pl. 113), a style of decoration that is not dissimilar to some Continental heavily moulded ‘plastic’ style artefacts of the third and second centuries BC known from the Continent (e.g. Megaw 2000, 139; Jacobsthal 1945, vol 2 pl 145-151). Other torcs seem to show no signs of use, and at least two examples show signs of repair (Stead 1991a, 455).

hoard of horse equipment from Norfolk, with its decorated bridle-bits, and the hoard of torcs from Ipswich in Suffolk.

To summarise, contrary to published opinion it is possible that the torcs from Snettisham were deposited in the late second rather than first century BC. The sequence of deposits is not clear, but it is likely that the hoards contain torcs that may have been manufactured at different times, i.e. there is a mixture of ‘old’ and ‘new’ torcs within the deposits. Given the mixture of torc types, it is possible that they were deposited within a relatively short time span, although the suggestion that they entered the ground as part of one act of deliberate deposition (e.g. Stead 1991a, 463) is not, at present, supportable.

Coins

Other torcs from Norfolk In addition to the hoards from Snettisham, there are six other locations from which torcs have been recovered in Norfolk (Sedgeford 3, Marham 5, North Creake 2, Bawsey 4/1-4, Narford 7 and East Winch 6). None of the finds from these locations has been recovered in association with coins, and it is therefore only on a stylistic basis that they can be compared to the Snettisham finds. All the other torc finds from the county, which are discussed in more detail in chapter 6, fall into the three main terminal type categories, namely ‘loop’, ‘ring’ and ‘buffer’ types. As with the Snettisham material, a variety of construction techniques are known. For example, there are twisted bar torcs with loop terminals known from East Winch (6) and Bawsey (4/14). Twisted wire torcs with buffer teminals are also known from Bawsey (4/1-4) and Narford (7). Ring terminals, decorated in the ‘Snettisham gold style’, are also found at Sedgeford (3) and North Creake (2). Although none of the torcs from Norfolk is closely datable, it is possible, on their close stylistic similarity to the examples from Snettisham, that they may have been deposited in the second century BC or early first century BC.

The earliest Iron Age coins from Norfolk to be studied in this research are Gallo-Belgic types. It is generally understood that the Gallo-Belgic coin series originated in north-east Gaul and was introduced into Britain during the second and first centuries BC, initially into the southeastern corner of the country. A number of theories have been put forward to explain their appearance in Britain including the traditional invasion/migration hypothesis; the suggestion being that coins came over with Caesar’s Belgic settlers (Allen 1960, 102). Trade has also been offered as an explanation for the introduction of coinage into Britain (van Arsdell 1989) as has the payment of mercenaries (Kent 1978; Nash 1987). It has also been suggested that coins entered Britain through other existing socio-economic networks. This is based on the assertion that there would have existed an integrated set of social relationships between south-east Britain and Belgic Gaul. Taken to extremes, this could potentially be characterised as the existence of a single political unit in south-east Britain and Belgic Gaul (Burnett 1996, 9). It is possible, however, that some types within the series may have actually been struck in Britain (Burnett 1996, 9; Haselgrove 1999, 165).

A number of the torcs from Snettisham are decorated in a recurrent style that incorporates asymmetrical designs in relief with characteristic ‘half-moons’ or ‘trumpetswirls’, raised dots and in some cases basket weave decoration. This style has become known as the ‘Snettisham gold style’ and is the art style that was the backbone of Fox’s ‘East Central School’ of Celtic metalsmiths (Jope 2000, vol 1 p.255; Fox 1958, 44). This style is traditionally dated to the first century BC (Fox 1958, 44; Clarke 1954, 69; Stead 1991a, 455). Given that current thinking regarding the dating of coins suggests an earlier date for the deposition of the torcs than previously suggested, it is probable that the ‘Snettisham gold style’ has a genesis in the second century BC, or perhaps earlier. Understanding the date of the ‘Snettisham gold style’ is important as it has been recognised and used to date a number of other artefacts such as the Ringstead

Coins from Norfolk Later Iron Age coins from Norfolk are found in hoards and as single finds. The aim of this section is to outline 25

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK The next major category of gold Iron Age coins recovered from Norfolk, again as both single and hoard finds, are British rather than Gallo-Belgic types. The earliest of the indigenous gold coins from Norfolk are known as the British J staters, or more commonly, because of their distinctive imagery, as ‘Norfolk Wolf’ staters. These coins seem to adapt some of their imagery from Gallo-Belgic E coins (Haselgrove 1993, 41) and a date from around the middle of the first century BC has been proposed (Hobbs 1996, 31). The early Norfolk Wolf staters had a right facing ‘wolf’ on the reverse, whereas the later and more common examples had a left facing wolf. A number of single finds of Norfolk Wolf staters are known from the ‘gold-field’ at Snettisham, although these are not directly associated with the torc hoards. There is also one hoard from Heacham in northwest Norfolk that comprises nine Norfolk Wolf staters and two ‘Snettisham’ type staters (15).

the chronology of the main categories of coins in this region, and thus the sequence of the hoards. As noted in the previous chapter, the coins under study can be categorised into three main groups: Gallo-Belgic types, British gold types and British silver or Iceni silver types. In his formative study of Iron Age coinage in the 1960s, Derek Allen classified Gallo-Belgic coins into six groups; A though to F (Allen 1960). The main Gallo-Belgic types recovered from Norfolk are A, C, D and E types. The only Gallo-Belgic A coins (early second century BC), that are known from the county derive from the Snettisham torc hoards. There are, at present, no single finds of Gallo-Belgic A staters known from this region. Gallo-Belgic C coins were also recovered in association with the Snettisham torc hoards, however, a further three single finds are known from the county and one hoard (Ingoldisthorpe 8). This hoard comprises solely GalloBelgic C coins. As discussed in the previous section, a date from the late second century BC through to the early first century BC is most likely for these types (Haselgrove 1999, 134-6, 165). The Ingoldisthorpe hoard represents the earliest of the coin hoards from this region.

‘Snettisham’ type staters, which are named after their identification as a distinct type from a coin hoard found in 1987 in Snettisham (16) (not at the ‘gold field’ site), seem to be copied from the ‘Whaddon Chase’ or British L examples, of which a few are also known from Norfolk (Gregory 1992, 50-1). The Snettisham coin hoard (16) is unusual as it contains three early silver coins. The mixing of gold and silver coins in Iron Age coin hoards is rare and this is the only example of a mixed hoard known from Norfolk. Dating the early British gold coins from Norfolk is problematic as there are no fixed dating points. The beginning of the sequence, the Norfolk Wolf staters, are attributed to the mid-first century BC (Hobbs 1996, 31). It is likely therefore, that the Heacham hoard and the Snettisham hoards were deposited in the second half of the first century BC.

More substantial in numbers are Gallo-Belgic E coins. Five hoards (Fring 9, Buxton-with-Lammas 10, Wormegay 11, Weybourne 12 and Sedgeford 13) and at least twenty single finds are known from across the county. Although there are clearly more single finds of Gallo-Belgic E coins known than C, the majority have been recovered from hoards (over 300 coins in total). Dating Gallo-Belgic E coins is, as discussed in the previous section, problematic. Given the vast quantities that were minted, the interpretation that they were first circulated during the Gallic wars as payment to soldiers is influential (e.g. Scheers 1977). However, some types may have been minted earlier, potentially in the 70s/60s BC (Fitzpatrick 1992, 10; Haselgrove 1987, 80-1; 1993, 35). When they entered Britain is unclear (Haselgrove 1999, 165). Despite these problems a date in the second quarter of the first century BC (75 – 50 BC) is most likely for these particular coin deposits.

The British L series provides a close stylistic link with another gold type known from northern East Anglia – the ‘Freckenham’ or British N type. Freckenham staters are mainly known from a hoard of coins found in the later nineteenth century at Freckenham in Suffolk, however, there are at least ten single finds of Freckenham staters known from Norfolk, and one hoard (Runton 14). In terms of date, although absolute dating of the British coin series in this region is not known, it is likely that the Freckenham types follow after both the Norfolk Wolf staters and ‘Snettisham’ types (Hobbs 1996, 31). A date in the second half of the first century BC, potentially later than the Heacham (15) and Snettisham coin hoards (16) is most likely, on present information, for the deposition of the Runton hoard.

The largest of the Gallo-Belgic E hoards (Fring 9, Weybourne 12), were found in association with GalloBelgic D coins. It has been suggested that Gallo-Belgic D quarter staters circulated in association with GalloBelgic E staters (e.g. Sealey 1979, 166-7). However, it is possible that the quarter staters were minted earlier than the Gallo-Belgic E types (Haselgrove 1999, 165). Interestingly, the Ds from the Fring hoard (9) are more worn than the Es, potentially supporting such a suggestion (Williams 1987, correspondence in SMR file 1661). As noted, a Gallo-Belgic D quarter stater was also found within the ring terminal of the ‘Great Torc’ of hoard E from Snettisham. The proposition that the torcs from Norfolk were deposited somewhere in the later second century to early first century BC would also, therefore, support the suggestion that Gallo-Belgic D quarter staters are earlier than E types.

Silver coins attributed to the Iceni make up the final part of the Iron Age coins series from Norfolk. Silver coins of the Iceni are relatively abundant in comparison to gold coins. There are over 350 locations from which silver coins have been recovered and at least seven hoards known from the county (Scole 17, Fring 18, North Creake 19, Dereham 20, Forncett 21, Honingham 22 and Weston Longville 23). The Iceni silver coin series from 26

TORCS, COINS AND HORSE EQUIPMENT: THE CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE represents a breakaway in term of imagery with earlier Iceni coins. Another group of later, rare Iceni coins is the ‘ALE SCA’ types (Allen 1970, 14; Hobbs 1996, 30). There is some evidence that suggests the inscribed silver series can be dated to the first century AD rather than BC, in particular, the Iceni coin hoard from Field Baulk in Cambridgeshire, which comprised 70% ‘Pattern/Horse’ types was buried in a pot, dated on typological grounds, to AD 40-60 (Chadburn 1992, 75).

Norfolk (and north Suffolk and north-east Cambridgeshire) has been scrutinised by a number of numismatists over the years (e.g. Allen 1970; Chadburn 1992; 1999; Gregory 1992; Creighton 1992; 1994). Allen’s original study of the coins has stood the test of time in terms of terminology and broad dating. Unfortunately, like the gold coins, few absolute dates are available, but a relative chronology has been built up through studies of dies, wear patterns and hoard seriation (Hobbs 1996, 31). The basic sequence, as outlined by Derek Allen in the 1970s, orders the coins from ‘Boar/Horse’ to ‘Face/Horse’, and then to ‘Pattern/Horse’. It would seem that the earliest coins were minted in two streams. There is a series of early ‘Boar/Horse’ types, which appear to be closely related to the later Freckenham gold staters, and a series of early ‘Face/Horse’ types. That these two types were broadly contemporary is suggested by the appearance of later Freckenham staters and three early ‘Face/Horse’ coins from the Snettisham coin hoard. The early ‘Face/Horse’ types seem to have been preceded by the so-called ‘Bury’ types.

Because of the lack of absolute dates for the silver coin series, sequencing the hoards from Norfolk is not straightforward. As noted in chapter 2, the sequencing of the hoards is further complicated by history. Norfolk, as the heartland of the Iceni, is famed for the revolt against the Romans led by Boudica in AD 60/61. The question of whether Iceni silver coin hoards from Norfolk are related to the events of AD 60/61 will be discussed further in chapter 9, however, in table 10, the hoards under investigation have been listed in order of latest coin. This does not provide a series of dates of deposition, but rather a sequence of terminus ante quem non dates. Two hoards of Roman silver denarii have also been included in this list as they consist of coins that date to or pre-date AD 60/61 and therefore, on coin date alone, fall into what is considered to be the Iron Age rather than Roman period proper in this region (Davies 1996, 65), although of course they could have been deposited later in the first century AD.

Following on from the ‘Boar/Horse’ and ‘Face/Horse’ types, are the ‘Pattern/Horse’ coins. Unlike the earlier coins in the sequence, ‘Pattern/Horse’ coins are generally inscribed (except the earliest types). The first inscribed issues bear the word ‘ANTED’, these are followed by coins of ‘ECEN’. Both of these issues have associated gold staters and silver fractions. The ‘ECEN’ type coins appear with a number of variations in the inscriptions including ‘ED’, ‘EDN’, ‘ECE’ and ‘ECEN’. The penultimate coins in the ‘Pattern/Horse’ sequence are the ‘SAENV’ and ‘AESV’ coins. The latest coins in the Iceni sequence are rare and again include inscriptions. There is the well known ‘SVB RI PRASTO/ESICO FECIT’ coins which is Roman rather than ‘Celtic’ in style, and as such

On current thinking regarding the dating of Iceni silver, it can be seen that the latest coins within all the hoards date to the first century AD. Whether they were all deposited in AD 60/61 is not, on the basis of coin dating alone, a proven fact. It is possible that some of the hoards predate AD60/61.

Table 10: Late Iron Age silver coin hoards from Norfolk organised by date of latest coin. Coin Hoard

Iceni Coins

Roman Coins

Latest Coin Present

Scole (17)

202

87 denarii

AD 60/61 (Nero)

Needham (25)

-

8 denarii

AD 60/61 (Nero)

Norton-Sub-Course (24)

-

116 denarii

AD 41/2 (Claudius)

Forncett (21)

10

4 denarii

AD 36/7 (Tiberius)

Dereham (20)

4

4 denarii

Fring (18)

192

-

AD 36/7 (Tiberius) Pattern-horse SAENV (1st century AD)

Honingham (22)

343

-

Weston Longville (23)

150-300

-

North Creake (19)

15

-

27

Pattern-horse SAENV (1st century AD) Pattern-horse AESV (1st century AD) Pattern-horse ECEN/EDN (?1st century AD)

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Mansel Spratling categorised terrets as part of a detailed study on ‘Bronzes of the Southern British Iron Age’ (1972). He again divided them into numerically labelled groups, Groups I to IX, and gave each category a descriptive label. A third major catalogue of Iron Age bronzes is the corpus in Celtic Art in Northern Britain published by Morna MacGregor in 1976. This catalogue focuses in particular on artefacts from northern Britain, but does draw from material across the country when discussing morphology and chronology. MacGregor, in her catalogue, discusses seven types of terret, each of which is also given a descriptive label. Most recently, as discussed in the previous chapter, is the catalogue of later Iron Age horse equipment from Britain and Ireland compiled by Natalie Palk (1991b). Leeds, Spratling, MacGregor and Palk all classified terrets on the basis of their morphological characteristics. Drawing on the categories outlined in each of the above catalogues, the author has grouped the terrets from Norfolk into nine main categories: simple, parallel-wing, transverse-wing, platform-decorated, knobbed, flat-ring terrets, massive and mini.

In summary, the earliest Iron Age coins recovered from Norfolk are examples of Gallo-Belgic types. These range broadly from the later second century BC through to the middle of the first century BC. These are followed by the British gold coins that date from the middle of the first century BC. Finally, the silver series has its origins in the middle/later first century BC and runs through into the middle of the first century AD. Horse equipment Dating horse equipment is extremely difficult, as there are very few examples that derive from stratified contexts. Instead, horse equipment is generally known from single ‘chance’ finds. There are, however, a number of hoards, such as those from Polden Hills in Somerset, Stanwick in Yorkshire and Santon in Norfolk (Brailsford 1975; MacGregor 1962; Spratling 1966) that are central to identification and dating of Iron Age horse equipment because of their associations with other more dateable material. For example, the Thistle brooches (AD 1 – AD 60) and Dolphin brooches (post 43AD) included in the Santon hoard suggest an earliest date of deposition for this hoard in the middle of the first century AD. Although it could date to the later first century AD. The same is true of the Polden Hills hoard which contained Colchester brooches (late first century BC – first half of first century AD) and Dolphin brooches (post 43AD). In addition, recent research on the alloys of the Stanwick hoard also supports a date in the mid-first century for the production of this hoard (Dungworth 1995)

There are, in addition, a number of undiagnostic fragments that could not be categorised Of these nine groups, the ‘simple’ and ‘mini’ terrets are the least sensitive in terms of dating. ‘Simple’ terrets, of which there are six identifiable examples from Norfolk (73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78), are characterised by plain rings lacking in decoration. These terrets have, from other parts of the country been recovered in contexts that date from the first century BC or earlier through to the first century AD. There is, for example a ‘simple’ terret that was found in association with a strap-union and two button-and-loop fasteners in the floor of a hut in the hillfort of Danebury in Hampshire (Jope 1984, 345). This group of material was recovered in a stratified late ceramic phase 7 context (c. 300-100BC) (Cunliffe 1995, 97, table 19). As well as this group of horse equipment, another plain terret, again from a ceramic phase 7 context, was recovered from the bottom of a pit in Danebury, (Palk 1991a, 332). Supporting an early date for ‘simple’ terrets are the mould fragments discovered from Gussage All Saints, Dorset. In pit 209 at Gussage All Saints, a site occupied throughout the Iron Age, 7,318 fragments of lost-wax casting moulds were recovered. The majority of the terret moulds recovered from this pit were for the production of ‘simple’ terrets (Foster 1981, 11). Radiocarbon dates from the pit suggest a date from 390 BC – 10 BC or 190 BC – AD 50, and it has proposed on stylistic grounds that the material largely dates to the first century BC (Foster 1980, 7). Further to examples of ‘simple’ terrets that date to the first century BC and earlier, are a number of examples from later contexts. In particular the sites of Ardoch, Chesters and Corbridge have all produced examples of ‘simple’ terrets that date to the first century AD (MacGregor 1976, 41). ‘Simple’ terrets were a long-lived type and as such it is not possible to date the examples from Norfolk any more

The range of horse equipment from Norfolk, mirrors that found across Britain and includes terrets or rein-rings, strap-unions, bridle-bits, harness mounts, horn caps and linch-pins. Of these groups of material, terrets are the most common. There are, in fact, eighty-eight examples of Iron Age terrets surveyed in this research alone. Because of their sheer quantity, the dating of terrets will be discussed first. Terrets: single finds Terrets, or rein-rings were used in paired draught to guide the reins from the horse’s mouth to the ‘driver’. Although commonly found in isolation, evidence from the Stanwick hoard (MacGregor 1962) and the cart burials from east Yorkshire (Stead 1991b) suggests that British terrets were produced and utilised for paired draught in sets of five; a set of five comprising one large and four smaller terrets, all following a similar morphological and decorative theme. British terrets come in a variety of types and as such have prompted a number of academics to produce a classification and categorisation of these artefacts. The first comprehensive study was undertaken by E.T. Leeds in his book Celtic Art in the British Isles down to AD 700 (1933) where he suggested eight groups of terret types to which he gave numerical labels. Following his work, 28

TORCS, COINS AND HORSE EQUIPMENT: THE CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE Suffolk. The Westhall hoard is usually dated to the first century AD (Harrod 1855; Spratling 1972, 308; MacGregor 1976, 43), however, there is some controversy over this date due to the recovery of a Roman lamp and coin of Faustina in close vicinity to the hoard. The retrieval of these items has led to suggestions that the hoard is second century AD in date. However, the actual association of these later finds with the hoard is unclear, indeed, it is stated that the second century AD items were not found in association with the hoard of horse equipment (Henderson 1949, 106). At present, without further close study, it is not possible to suggest a firm date for the Westhall hoard, other than first century AD or potentially later. Despite the quantity of flat-ring terrets within this hoard, they are at present no more closely dated than single unstratified finds from elsewhere in the country. There is, however, one example of a flat-ring terret from Richborough in Kent that was recovered from a post-conquest context (BusheFox 1949; MacGregor 1976, 43; Palk 1991b, 38). Despite the few stratified examples of flat-ring terrets, their characteristic symmetrical designs of ‘lobes’ and ‘trumpet like’ swirls is reminiscent of the harness mounts incorporated in the Polden Hills hoard and the Santon hoard in Norfolk, both of which have been dated to the first century AD (see 69, 70, 129 & 131). This lends support for a mid-first century AD date for these types of terrets. Of the examples known from Norfolk, eight are decorated with ‘lobes’ and ‘swirls’ (129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137). However, two examples are decorated with a series of triangular cells that were originally infilled with enamel (135, 137). No close parallels are known for these particular examples, although the geometric enamelled decoration echoes that seen on a range of other later Iron Age horse trappings such as those from the Seven Sisters hoard (Davies & Spratling 1976) and the terrets, strap-union and bridle-bit from the Ovington, Saham Tony, Norfolk hoard (see below). One of the harness mounts from the Polden Hills hoard displays triangular decoration alongside the ‘lobes’ and ‘swirls’ type decoration suggesting that both styles were concurrent (see Brailsford 1975, pl XXIII). It is possible, therefore, on a morphological and stylistic basis, that these particular examples also date to the first century AD.

closely than as later Iron Age; third/second century BCfirst century AD. ‘Mini’ terrets, of which there are thirteen examples known from Norfolk (79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91) display a similar range in terms of date. Morphologically, ‘mini’ terrets look like other types of terret, except smaller. As a rough classification, mini terrets are less than 2cm in width and height, whereas other terrets are over 2cm. Unlike other terret types, which seem to have been produced in a way that suggests both sides of them were meant to be seen, ‘mini’ terrets are often plano-convex, or flat on one side. Given that reins ran through terrets, it is strange that the ‘mini’ terrets have been assigned to the same category given that they are too small for a leather strap or rein to pass through. In the Kirkburn chariot burial, a ‘miniature’ terret was found near the head of one of the linch-pins. It has been suggested that it may have been attached to the linch-pin via a thong and was used in such a way as to prevent the linch-pin from becoming dislodged (Stead 1991b, 46). In terms of date, as discussed above, ‘mini’ terrets, have a long life span ranging from at least the second century BC through to at least the first century AD. The example from the east Yorkshire burial at Kirkburn provides a date in the late second/early first century BC, as does the example from Thetford Castle (Stead 1991b; Gregory 1991, 10). However examples from later contexts are also known, such as those from the Honly coin hoard dating to the first century AD (Richmond 1925) By way of contrast to the broad date ranges of ‘simple’ and ‘mini’ terrets, the remaining categories of terrets from Norfolk (transverse/parallel-winged, platform decorate, flat-ring, knobbed, massive, three-lipped) seem to date mostly from the first century AD. For example, although there are no securely dated examples of either ‘transverse wing’ or ‘parallel-wing terrets’ from Norfolk, examples from other parts of Britain point to a first century AD date. The example from Wroxeter has been dated to AD 60-80 and the one from Newstead has been allocated a date of AD 80-100, i.e. Roman contexts (MacGregor 1976, 44). The examples from the Stanwick hoard, Yorkshire, have been dated to the middle of the first century AD, and a similar date has also been postulated for the examples in the Polden Hills hoard, Somerset (MacGregor 1962, 36; Fitts et al 1999; Spratling 1972, 309; Brailsford 1975, 233-4; Dungworth 1995, 85). It seems likely, then, that the examples from Norfolk (109, 110, 111, 112, 113) also date to the first century AD.

In addition to the ‘flat-ring terrets’, there is one example (139) of a terret which has enamelled ‘lobes’ and ‘swirls’ decoration, but not have a flat-ring. Instead the ring is almost circular in section, with a groove running around the length creating a ‘split lip’ like effect. There are no known parallels for this particular terret, but, given the style of decoration, it is again possible that this example dates to the first century AD.

In addition to the ‘transverse wing’ and ‘parallel-wing’ terrets, ‘flat-ring’ terrets have been attributed to the first century AD or later. ‘Flat-ring’ terrets, which are characterised by broad, flattened rings usually decorated on both sides with red enamel, have been recovered from few datable contexts. The most commonly quoted examples are those from the Westhall hoard from

Further to the examples of ‘flat-ring’ terrets that can be placed into the first century AD, there is a series of ‘miscellaneous’ examples (92, 93, 94, 95, 96). These examples all have broad, flat-rings, but do not follow the same decorative style. Three of these examples are 29

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK example are not as highly decorated as other ‘transverse wing’ terrets, such as the enamelled examples from Snettisham (110) or Banham (112). Therefore, they do not, in my opinion, seem to be related to ‘transverse wing’ terrets on a ‘visual display’ basis. This rather more ‘muted’ design of terrets has been placed together. Unfortunately, dating this group is rather difficult; there are no well-dated, stratified examples. If some of them were to be placed in the ‘transverse wing’ category, a date in the first century AD might be postulated. However, these examples cannot, it would seem, be more closely dated than the late Iron Age and as such have been attributed a date in the first century BC/first century AD.

decorated with areas of punched dots (92, 93, 96) and as such, may form a coherent group. Of the other two, one appears to be a plain, ‘flat-ring’ ‘mini’ terret (94) and the other appears to have inset circular areas into which some kind of decorative attachment was mounted (enamel, coral?). There are no datable examples of these terret types, however, given that they can be categorised morphologically as ‘flat-ring’ types, a date towards the end of the Iron Age seems most likely, possibly from the first century BC/first century AD. Like the ‘flat-ring’, ‘transverse wing’ and ‘parallel-wing’ terrets, there are a number of single finds of ‘platformdecorated’ terrets known from Norfolk (119, 121, 121, 122, 123). ‘Platform-decorated’ terrets, characterised by three flattened decorative projections around the ring, each with geometric designs in-filled with enamel, have been recovered from a number of first century AD contexts such as the examples from Colchester (e.g. Hawkes & Hull 1947, pl XCIX.5). The style of decoration and use of various colours of enamel, including blue and yellow on these terret types is also reminiscent of ‘Dragonesque’ brooches, always dated to the post-conquest period of the first century AD and beyond (Johns 1996, 151-3; Megaw 2001, 239; Hattat 1985, 171; Hill & Jundi 1997). It is possible, therefore, that these particular types of terret date more closely to the later first century AD. Without well-stratified examples, it is not easy to be precise, however, all the single examples of these terret types from Norfolk derive from Roman sites (see chapter eight), again supporting a later date for these examples. A later first century date has implications regarding the view of the impact of the Boudican rebellion (see below and chapter nine).

In addition to the ‘categorised’ examples of terrets from Norfolk there are seventeen terrets that have remained unclassified (144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160). This is either because the fragments are undiagnostic, or because there is no illustration or description available. Discussion What is striking about the terret assemblage from Norfolk is its bias towards the end of the Iron Age and early Roman period, with an apparent focus in the first century AD. There are thirty-five examples of characteristically late terret forms such as ‘transverse’ and ‘parallel-wing’ types, ‘flat-ring’ and ‘platform-decorated’ types known from this county. Seventeen of the terrets surveyed have been dated to phase two/three. The remaining thirty six terrets are unphased, either because they are undiagnostic, or because they are types that appear to be long-lived such as mini and plain terrets, and as such, are not closely datable. However, within the unphased terrets, it is notable that there are no examples of characteristically early forms such as the ‘ribbed’ or ‘lipped’ terrets like those recovered from the King’s Barrow and Lady’s Barrow in the Arras cemetery in East Yorkshire (Stead 1979, 47-52). There are no examples of terrets at present that are decorated in the ‘Snettisham style’ like those known from Bury Hill in Hampshire (Cunliffe 1996, 34). Norfolk is, therefore, conspicuous by its absence of early terret types, and by its concentration of late types.

Two other categories of terrets recovered from Norfolk are also attributed to the first century AD. These are the ‘massive’ and ‘knobbed’ terrets. There is only one example that has been described as a possible ‘massive’ terret from this county (143). ‘Massive’ terrets, characterised by a hidden attachment and pronounced ‘lip-like’ mouldings above the attachment bar, have a predominantly northerly distribution (MacGregor 1976, 47). These terret types are late in date and it has been suggested that they were ‘introduced during the Roman period, probably some time after the first century AD’ (Palk 1991b, 58). ‘Knobbed’ terrets are equally late, with the majority being Roman rather than Iron Age in date (e.g. MacGregor 1976, 46). There are two examples from Norfolk (141, 142) that appear on the basis of their expanded collared mouldings on either side of rectangular sectioned attachment bars, which then taper into the ring of the terret, to be more Iron Age than Roman in form.

Strap-unions Strap-unions, as their name suggests, were used to hold two straps together rather like a buckle, although there are no buckles known from the Iron Age. It is likely that these items were used in a number of areas of domestic life, however, that they were associated with horse equipment is demonstrated by their appearance in a number of the ‘chariot’ burials from East Yorkshire (Stead 1991b; 1979), and their associations in a number of hoards of horse equipment such as the Ovington, Saham Tony and Ringstead hoards from Norfolk and the Polden Hills hoard from Somerset. The standard typology developed for strap-unions is that by Taylor and

The final group of terrets surveyed has been classified as terrets with ‘three lip-like’ mouldings around the ring (97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108). Several of these terrets have been classified by other authors as ‘transverse wing’ types, like the example from Longham (101; Palk no. 118). Terrets like the Longham 30

TORCS, COINS AND HORSE EQUIPMENT: THE CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE of Iron Age bridle-bits refers to them as ‘single-jointed’, ‘double-jointed’ and ‘straight-bar’ snaffles (MacGregor 1976, 24-31; Palk 1984). Effectively ‘single-jointed’ snaffles are the same category as ‘two-link’ bits and ‘double-jointed’ and ‘straight-bar’ snaffles are the same as ‘three-link’ bits and ‘three-link’ derivatives.

Brailsford published in the 1985 volume of the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. It is this typology that is referred to in this section. There are six single finds of later Iron Age strap-unions from Norfolk. Of these six, four can be grouped as Type 1 strap-unions (36, 39, 40, 41). Type 1 strap-unions are characterised by a central figure of eight, or two conjoining circles, flanked in either by a vertical bar (Taylor & Brailsford 1985, 247). Of the four Type 1 strap-unions from Norfolk, the example from Yarmouth (41) is rather unusual in so far as it has four central discs with an elongated comma motif situated above and below the discs. It is flanked on either side by vertical bars. Dating Type 1 strap-unions is not easy, as it appears to have been a long-lived form. There are, for example, two recovered from Bury Hill, Hampshire, exhibiting ‘Snettisham style’ decoration (Cunliffe 1996, 34), suggesting a second/early first century BC date. There are examples from Old Down Farm in Hampshire that derive from first century AD contexts (Davies 1981; Taylor and Brailsford 1985, 253, no. 21). Of the examples from Norfolk, only the one from Burgh Castle has been ascribed a date. This particular example is decorated with circles surrounding raised rosettes of pellets, similar to the examples from Bury Hill (Cunliffe 1996, 34), it is possible that this example is relatively early with a date from the second century BC or early first century BC at the latest.

In total, there are four single finds of later Iron Age bridle-bits known from Norfolk (26, 27, 28, 29). Of these four, only the example (26) from Swanton Morley is a ‘three link bit’ (Green 1962, 386). Three link bits are, in general, considered to be earlier in date than ‘two link’ bits. Supporting this are the examples from Hunmanby and King’s Barrow in East Yorkshire (Stead 1979, 4849). The other four single finds from the county are all examples of ‘two link’ bits. These particular types, known from a number of later Iron Age hoards including those from Polden Hills, Stanwick and Seven Sisters are generally dated to the first century AD (Brailsford 1975; MacGregor 1962; Davies and Spratling 1976). Of the examples from Norfolk, only one, again from the parish of Swanton Morley is complete (27). This particular bridle-bit, perhaps better described as a ‘two-link’ bit derivative given its moulded side-links, has moulded and enamelled decoration in each of its cheek rings. Decorated cheek rings are not unusual on later Iron Age bridle-bits; there are a number of others known from across the country such as the example from Holderness (Smith 1925, 103 pl VIII.4). The example from Swanton Morley is unusual in so far as the decoration within each cheek piece is different; it does not follow the same theme. In one there is a disc, flanked by two smaller discs, that has been decorated with enamel, in the other, there is a moulded ‘fleur de lys’. Given the use of blue as well as red enamel and the classical motif, it is possible that this particular bit is late in the Iron Age sequence, potentially late first century AD, i.e. post-conquest.

The other two single finds of strap-unions (37, 38) from the county do not fit into Taylor and Brailsford’s classificatory scheme (1985). The example from Gaytonthorpe (37) is rather usual, comprising two back to back D-shapes conjoined with a single ‘attachment’ bar. This particular artefact is not closely paralleled elsewhere, although the shape of each component is not dissimilar to a ‘massive’ terret in style. The example from Fring (38) is a three way strap-union. At the centre of the three rings is a raised area, which although worn, looks to be an image of a human face. Three way strapunions are known from elsewhere in country. In particular there is an example from Camerton in Somerset which has been attributed a date in the first century BC/first century AD (Jackson 1990, 34). Unlike terrets, strap-unions are not well dated, and the examples from Norfolk can not be more closely dated than to the second century BC or earlier, through to the first century AD.

Linch-pins Linch-pins generally occur in two main varieties, those made entirely out of iron and those with a copper-alloy head and foot and an iron shank. Of the eleven single examples known from Norfolk (44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56), ten are of the composite type. Composite linch-pins occur in a number of varieties, the two major types being ‘vase-headed’, such as the example from Llyn Cerrig Bach (Fox 1946, pl XV.42.), and ‘crescentheaded’ like the example from King’s Langley in Hertfordshire (Ward-Perkins 1940, pl. LVI). In addition, there are a number of ‘ring-headed’ linch-pins, a type particularly dominant in the Stanwick hoard (MacGregor 1962). Of the ten composite examples from Norfolk, six are ‘vase’ headed examples (46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53).

Bridle-bits Iron Age bridle-bits are constructed in two ways traditionally known as ‘three-link’ bits and their derivatives, and ‘two-link’ bits. This terminology, devised by Ward Perkins in 1939 is still in general use. As with any artifact type that displays variations in terms of construction, different authors have used other terminology. For example, Morna Macgregor in her 1976 catalogue refers to bits after the Ward-Perkins classification, whereas Natalie Palk in her 1984 catalogue

Like strap-unions, linch-pins are not easy to date closely. ‘Vase-headed’ types occur in a variety of contexts, including the east Yorkshire chariot burials (Stead 1979, 45-6) and the Stanwick hoard (MacGregor 1962, fig 11; 75.76.77), suggesting that this particular style was long31

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK example from Reffley Wood in west Norfolk (67), and the incomplete examples from Shelton in south-east Norfolk (63) and from Snettisham (65) are all decorated in the ‘lobed’ style with red enamel. The fourth fragment of a harness plaque from Holme Hale (72) is decorated with a border of parallel lines, a style also seen on one of the plaques from Polden Hills (Brailsford 1975, pl XXII).

lived; middle and late Iron Age. Of the examples from Norfolk, it is possible on a stylistic basis to date two to the first century AD. Firstly, the Weeting linch-pin (51) is decorated with blue/green, red and yellow enamel, suggesting a potential post-conquest date (Gregory 1980, 338-4). The example from Broome (47) is decorated on the flat top of the head with a red enameled ‘lobed’ design seen on plaques attributed to the first century AD from the Polden Hills hoard (Brailsford 1975) and Santon hoard (Jope 2000, pl 296), and also on a number of flatring terrets. The remaining four ‘vase headed’ linch-pins are not closely datable (46, 47, 48, 49). Furthermore, of the ten examples of composite types from Norfolk, four comprise only the foot, (45, 54, 55, 56) as such, it is not possible to classify the type of linch-pin from which they derive, or to date them.

Dating the ‘hangers/danglers’ (59, 57, 71) is more problematic. There are several of these items known from the Stanwick hoard, however, the examples from this hoard are not decorated with open-work triskele. Triskele or whirligigs are a long-lived and common feature of later Iron Age art, (e.g. Jope 2000, 336-37) as such, it is not possible to date these artefacts any closer than to the first century BC/first century AD and beyond. Of the remaining five miscellaneous decorative mounts, it is possible to suggest a potential first century AD date for at least three of these on the basis of their decoration. The mount from Swanton Morley (64) is decorated with a variation on the ‘lobe’ and ‘trumpet’ design seen on a number of late harness plaques. The design on this mount is infilled with blue red and yellow enamel, again supporting a first century AD date. The other two (66, 62) employ geometric designs, similar in style to the decoration seen on ‘platform-decorated’ terrets, which are dated to the first century AD. Again, the designs on these pieces are decorated with at least two colours of enamel. Less closely datable are the examples from Ashill (61) and Little Barningham (58) which although have red enamel decoration, can not, on a stylistic or morphological basis, be attributed a date any more accurate than first century BC – first century AD.

One linch-pin from Thornham in Norfolk (44) emulates those made entirely from Iron. Iron examples usually have a curved shank and appear with a range of head types including loops, ‘vase’ shapes, flattened discs rather like a nail head, and crescent heads (e.g. Cunliffe 1984, 362; Carter 1998, 82). The examples from the most recent east Yorkshire burial (Hill 2002) and the later Iron Age/Romano-British Orsett ‘Cock’ enclosure in Essex (Carter 1998) again demonstrate that the overall type was long-lived. There does seem to be some chronological difference in terms of the heads. For example, the crescent style head on the example from the Orsett ‘Cock’ enclosure is typical of a later Iron Age or early Romano date (Carter 1998). The example from Thornham has a curved shank and a flattened, subrectangular head, similar to the ‘box-headed’ linch-pin from east Yorkshire (Stead 1979, 14), but it is rather unusual in so far as it is cast from copper alloy. Given its similarities to the east Yorkshire example, this example is attributed a date in the middle Iron Age (400 BC – 100 BC).

Hook and ‘horn-cap’ The final two items of horse equipment to be considered are the strap-joiner and ‘horn-cap’. A number of strap-joiners or hooks probably designed to take an easily detachable strap have been recovered from Britain. In particular, there are the Y-shaped examples from the Seven Sisters hoard found in Neath, Glamorgan and the Polden Hills hoard from Somerset (Brailsford 1975, pl XXIII; Davies & Spratling 1976, 129 fig. 5). Both of the hoards have been dated to the first century AD and it is possible that the fragment of a strap-joiner or hook (162) known from Norfolk also dates to the first century AD.

Mounts A variety of decorative fittings or mounts of later Iron Age date are traditionally associated with horse equipment (e.g. Palk 1991b). From Norfolk, the author has surveyed thirteen single finds of decorative fittings ranging in type from ‘hangers/danglers’ which consist of open-work ‘triskele’ ornament with single looped shanks on the underside (59, 57, 71) similar to examples known from the Stanwick hoard (MacGregor 1962, 39, fig 4), through to enamelled plaques (63, 65, 67, 72). In addition to these morphological types there are a number of other decorative mounts from the county that may also have originally derived from horse gear (58, 54, 61, 66, 62, 60).

Horn-Caps or bronze shaft finials, like the strap-joiners are rather enigmatic artefacts. It is thought that they may have been attached to the end of a pole situated at the back of a chariot and used as a hand-grip to climb onto the body of the chariot. It is also possible that they may have been yoke finials or even a capping for a ceremonial staff (Jope 2000, vol 1 p. 315). In terms of date, it seems likely that they are pre-Roman although close dating is not at present possible (Jope 2000, vol 1 p. 315). The only stratified example is the one known from Maiden

It is possible, given the first century AD date attributed to the harness plaques from the Polden Hills and Santon hoard, that the unstratified examples from Norfolk derive from this century too. Supporting such a late date is the style in which these are decorated. The complete 32

TORCS, COINS AND HORSE EQUIPMENT: THE CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE Findspot ‘B’ produced two copper-alloy horse bits (33, 34), an iron and copper-alloy linch-pin (52), a pair of manacles (dated from first to mid-third century AD) and some fragments of metal, mainly iron (Bates 2000, 201). The linch-pin is of the composite type with a ‘globular’ copper alloy and ‘hoof’ shaped foot and a square sectioned iron shank. The foot is decorated with five circular recesses each filled with red enamel. The bits are both of the later two-link variety and similar in style to those recovered from the Polden Hills hoard (Davies 2000, 230). Based on the horse bits, a date in the mid to late first century has been postulated for this hoard.

Castle, which comes from a later pre-conquest layer. The example known from Norfolk (161) is, therefore, potentially pre-conquest in date, although whether it is second/first century BC or early first century AD is at present not clear. Hoards In addition to single finds, there are four hoards from Norfolk that are dominated by horse equipment, and one hoard that includes a number of items of later Iron Age horse equipment. None of the hoards dominated by horse equipment have any artefacts such as coins or brooches included within them that may provide an ‘independent’ date, therefore, the hoards are dated on typological grounds alone.

The third hoard of first century AD horse equipment known from the county was recovered at Ovington, also in the parish of Saham Tony, approximately 3km south of the hoards from Quidney Farm. The Ovington hoard, which was recovered by chance in 1838, was located within a rectilinear earthwork enclosure known as ‘High Banks’. In total, there are seven items known from this collection; five platform-decorated terrets (124, 125, 126, 127, 128) each with enamelled settings around the ring and on the ‘platforms’, a cruciform strap-union also decorated with enamel settings (43) and a cheek ring of a bridle-bit decorated in the same style (32). This hoard has been dated to the middle of the first century AD (Clarke 1939, 70) and therefore, it has been associated with the Boudican revolt (Hawkes & Hull 1947, 331). However, there is no direct evidence that it was made before AD 60 or buried during the Boudican rebellion. As noted in the section on platform-decorated terrets above, the style of decoration employed on these types of artefacts is not dissimilar to that seen on Dragonesque brooches which are dated to the late first/second century AD and beyond. Furthermore, ‘headstud’ brooches, dating from the middle of the first century AD through to the second century AD also employ similar decorative techniques, including rows of enamelled interlocking triangles (e.g. Hattatt 1985, 100-5). It is likely, then, that the hoard of horse equipment from Ovington, Saham Tony post-dates the Boudican rebellion.

The earliest of the horse equipment hoards is from Ringstead in north-west Norfolk (Clarke 1951a). This collection of material was recovered in 1950 through the action of deep ploughing. It comprises two bridle-bits (30, 31), a strap-union (42), two plates and two rivets, a button-and-loop fastener, a bronze cake or ingot and some metal fragments. The bridle-bits, which are the most chronologically sensitive of the items in the hoard, are of the earlier ‘three-link’ variety and are decorated in the ‘Snettisham-style’, much like the Ulceby bits from Lincolnshire (Cuming 1859, pl 22.1) and the terrets from Bury Hill (Cunliffe 1996, 36). In his detailed discussion of the bridle-bits, R.Rainbird Clarke suggested a date of around 50 BC for these two examples (Clarke 1951a, 219). Given that this style of decoration may have its origins in the second century BC and that ‘three-link’ bits have been recovered from the ‘chariot’ burials in east Yorkshire, which range in date from the fourth to first centuries BC (Stead 1979; 1991), it is possible that the Ringstead hoard is earlier than previously suggested, potentially as early as the second century BC or early first century BC. The other collections of horse equipment date to the midlate first century AD. Two of these later hoards were recovered from the same eight-hectare field at Quidney Farm, Saham Tony in central Norfolk in 1992. These two collections of material were both recovered by metaldetector and were not in close proximity to one another (see Bates 2000, 206, fig 3) suggesting that they represent two distinct deposits. The first collection, known as findspot ‘A’ comprises four complete terrets, a fifth broken terret and one incomplete example (114, 115, 116, 117, 118) (Davies 2000, 226-9). All of the terrets, other than the largest (76/6) are examples of first century AD ‘transverse wing’ types. The largest terret is rather unusual as it has decorative elements of both ‘transverse’ and ‘parallel’ wing types, with projections aligned along and across the ring. An enamelled roundel (68) was recovered, as was a plate brooch of a type that usually is recognised as dating to the late first century AD/ second century AD (Davies 2000, 230).

There is one other hoard from Norfolk that contains items of horse equipment. This is the hoard from Santon in southern Norfolk, which was recovered by chance in 1897. Unlike the hoards from Saham Tony and Ringstead, which are dominated by horse equipment, the Santon hoard comprises a diverse range of artefacts including tankard handles, scales and tools (Spratling 1966). The Santon hoard is most closely paralleled in terms of artefact diversity by the Seven Sisters hoard from Neath in Glamorganshire which also contained a wide range of objects including horse equipment, scales and vessel accoutrements (Davies & Spratling 1976). The most well known items of horse equipment from the Santon hoard are two, red enamel decorated plaques or mounts (69, 70)(e.g. Jope 2000, pl 296; Megaw 2001, pl XX). There is also a fragment of a ‘Polden Hill’ type bridle-bit (35) and the remains of at least three copperalloy and one iron nave-hoop. Amongst the material in 33

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Overlapping with the second/early first century BC date of torc deposition and moving on into the middle of the first century BC are deposits of gold coins, in particular the Gallo-Belgic types. These hoards are also attributed to phase one. In addition, a few items of horse gear and one of the hoards of horse equipment (Ringstead) are attributed to phase one.

the Santon hoard were four Dolphin type brooches, two Thistle brooches and a Hod Hill brooch without flanking knobs. This range of brooches suggests a first century AD date for deposition, the Dolphin types pointing to date in the latter part of this century. Horse equipment: summary To summarise, horse equipment from Norfolk spans the second century BC or earlier, through to the first century AD. With regard to the single finds of horse equipment, a number of artifact types, such as strap-unions and linchpins are not closely datable on the basis of morphology alone and could date from anywhere in this period. Terrets, bridle-bits and decorative mounts, however, suggest that there is a distinctive later component to the horse equipment known from this county, with a focus on the first century AD. Indeed, the discussion of horse equipment shows that a great deal of the material dates to the late first century AD, post-dating both the Roman conquest of AD 43 and the Boudican rebellion of AD 60/61. Hoards of horse equipment echo the dating pattern seen in the single finds from the count. Only the Ringstead hoard is attributed to the second century BC/early first century BC, all the others are dated to the first century AD.

PHASE TWO: mid first century BC – mid first century AD Gold and silver coins In phase two there is a change in the nature of material being deposited into the ground. This phase includes the British gold hoards of coins, but is largely dominated by the silver coin series that were minted from the first century BC through to the middle of the first century AD. A number of items of horse equipment also fall into phase two. PHASE THREE: first century AD Horse equipment Phase three is dominated by horse equipment. Horse equipment overlaps with phase two and phase one, with early components such as the Ringstead hoard and its characteristically early ‘Snettisham style’ decoration. However, a great deal of the horse equipment dates to the first century AD, with elements, such as the geometrically decorated harness fittings and terrets, and the bridle-bit recently recovered from Swanton Morley with its classical ‘fleur de lys’ decoration, continuing on into the later first century AD. On present evidence it has been suggested that these ‘latest’ Iron Age or Roman Iron Age horse fittings post-date the Roman conquest and the Boudican horizon of AD60/61, which has traditionally acted as a ‘ceiling’ for dating horse equipment in this region.

Coins, torcs and horse equipment: phases of use and deposition It has been the aim of the chapter to discuss the broad date range of the three groups of artefacts under study. Unfortunately, detailed dating of much of the material is not possible. Coins, in some cases bear closer definition, some of the horse equipment on the other hand, is not even datable to within fifty years. In addition, it is not easy to distinguish dates of manufacture, use and then deposition. This is particularly well illustrated in the Snettisham torc hoards, which comprise a range of material potentially from the third century BC though to the late second century/early first century BC. Despite these problems with dating, torcs, coins hoards and horse equipment can be divided into three distinct phases of deposition.

Conclusions There has been a tendency in Norfolk, drawing on the work of R.Rainbird Clarke, for clustering later Iron Age metal artefacts towards the end of the period. Until recently, the deposition of the Snettisham hoards was considered to have occurred in the late first century BC or early first century AD and hoards of silver coins and horse equipment have usually been dated to AD 60/61 or earlier. AD60/61 has usually been seen as the final date for Iron Age material in the region, with nothing of a ‘native’ style being dated beyond it. In essence, there has been a tendency to work within a ‘short’ later Iron Age chronology in this region. Drawing on recent dating sequences of coins it has been possible to start to pull the chronology out. In particular, rather than late first century BC, it is possible to suggest that the hoards from Snettisham, for example, were deposited as early as the second century BC. At the other end of the period, a closer reading of the evidence suggests that deposits of horse gear such as the hoards from Santon and Ovington,

PHASE ONE: second century BC to mid first century BC Torcs and gold coins Torcs represent the earliest phase of material to be examined within this research. As noted, some of the individual torcs within the Snettisham hoards may date from as early as the third century BC. The coins discovered within the three ‘scrap’ hoards and the ‘Great Torc’ of hoard E suggests a date for deposition for the Snettisham material in the second and early first century BC. Other torcs known from the county, with their characteristic ‘Snettisham gold style’ of decoration, also potentially date to the second/first century BC. 34

TORCS, COINS AND HORSE EQUIPMENT: THE CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE Saham Tony, and items such as the Swanton Morley bridle-bit (27) and platform-decorated terrets, post-date the Boudican rebellion, potentially by several decades. Working with a longer chronology and challenging the AD 60/61 dating ceiling in particular, does have implications regarding how an ‘Iron Age’ as opposed to a ‘Romano-British’ artefact might look. It opens questions regarding how materials and their associated behaviours are categorised. For example, if there are ‘Iron Age’ terrets that post-date the Boudican rebellion, there is a possibility that ‘Iron Age chariots’ were roaming around the countryside in northern East Anglia after AD 60/61. Such a prospect does not fit comfortably with the perceived decimation of society in this region at that time (e.g. Sealey 1997; Frere 2001). As well as questioning the nature of the end of the Iron Age, there are a number of other patterns that begin to emerge when working within a broader chronology. Specifically, there is a distinct change from gold to silver artefacts entering the archaeological record, which occurs around the middle of the first century BC. There is also an apparent ‘explosion’ of items of horse equipment in the first century AD, with very few examples of horse equipment from the second century BC or earlier. The patterns that have emerged from the discussion of the chronological framework will be returned to in the final chapter. The next chapter will investigate how torcs, coins and items of horse equipment will be used to investigate the later Iron Age of Norfolk in the rest of this research.

35

Chapter 5 Metalwork and Society: Towards Developing a Contextual Approach to Metal-Detected Material

concerns (Collis 1997, 298). Neither of these paradigms espouses one particular theoretical and methodological approach to examining and interpreting past societies; each is populated by a multitude of concerns and approaches (Johnson 1999). However, processual archaeology can loosely be characterised as a school of thought that is broadly positivist in its outlook, i.e. a school of thought that is concerned to some degree with the objectivity of scientific enquiry and ‘logical’ thought. By way of contrast, post-processual archaeology, or ‘Interpretative’ archaeology as it has more recently become known (Hodder & Preucel 1996; Johnson 1999), can loosely be characterised as a paradigm more concerned with recognising and investigating the active relationships between people and their world; ‘their world’ being ‘the sum total of human actions, skills and experiences, together with material consequences created by past human actions, which in turn structure future human action’ (Gosden 1997, 304).

In the introduction it was stated that the aims of this research were to place the hoards of torcs from Snettisham and the ‘tribe’ of the Iceni and Boudica in their broader regional and historical context. So far, it has been established that this region does have a concentration of certain types of later Iron Age metal work. In particular it is rich in torcs, has a high number of coin hoards and a distinct concentration of first century AD horse equipment compared to other counties. Chronologically, this material can be organised from the second century BC through to the first century AD and potentially beyond. Within this time frame, each of the artefact types, one after another, comes to dominance in the archaeological record; they form a sequence of deposits, overlapping in part, through time. In addition, certain items of horse equipment, usually considered to have been deposited around the time of the Boudican rebellion or before, have been suggested to be later in date, post-dating AD60/61. There are, then, a number of patterns and trends in the data that have been identified. However, it was also stated in the Introduction and chapter two that in order to achieve the aims of this thesis, research would focus on examining patterns in the distribution and deposition of torcs, coins and items of horse equipment across and within the landscape of Norfolk. The aim of this chapter is to outline in detail the method to be utilised in the next section of this study, and importantly, the theoretical basis for this method.

Expositions on the Iron Age from the 1970s onwards reflect the changing emphasis of archaeologists’ concerns from the positivist ‘processual’ to the more relativist ‘post-processual’ schools of thought. Encapsulating these changes are a number of books and papers that have centred around the most extensively excavated Iron Age site in Britain: Danebury hillfort in Hampshire. In the 1970s and into the early 1980s, under the broad banner of ‘processual’ archaeology, there was an emphasis on understanding the site at Danebury within an economic and social system. Enquiry focused on investigating where this site lay within a hierarchy of settlement, and by implication, the social hierarchy, and how it functioned economically with other sites (Cunliffe 1984). Models and methodologies from historical geography were drawn upon such as Christaller’s Central Place Theory (1966) and Theissen polygon analyses, with the resultant proposal that Danebury was a central place within a definable territory, at the top of a settlement system, and therefore social system, acting economically as a centre of storage and redistribution (Cunliffe 1984).

The first section of this chapter discusses recent approaches to Iron Age archaeology and the ‘new’ Iron Age. It then outlines problems with utilising metaldetected material for investigating a ‘new’ Iron Age of Norfolk. Finally, within this first section of the chapter, recent approaches to landscape archaeology are discussed with a view to establishing a ‘contextual’ way of studying material that has been discovered by chance or through metal-detecting. Following a discussion of the theoretical basis of the method developed in this study, the next section of the chapter focuses on the practical issues surrounding implementing the method. In particular, the levels of available information and the problems and biases with the data used.

From the later 1980s through into the 1990s, under the banner of ‘post-processual’ archaeology, this model of Danebury was challenged on a number of fronts. In particular, the use of quasi ‘scientific’ models was questioned, as were the assumptions that lay behind those models (e.g. Hill 1993; 1995; 1996). For example, interpreting Danebury as a site at the top of social hierarchy and economy, central in the redistribution of goods, suggests a set of given ‘facts’ about social organisation in the Iron Age. It implies, without question, that Iron Age society was hierarchical, an assumption derived from a ‘Celtic’ view of the period

The ‘new’ Iron Age Since the early 1980s there has been a change in the way past societies in this country are studied and viewed. There has been a shift from what has become labelled ‘processual’ archaeology, to a ‘new’ paradigm known as ‘post-processual’ archaeology. Rather than one set of theoretical concerns wholly replacing the other, it could be suggested that the shift in paradigms is subtler; more of a change in what are perceived as the dominant 36

METALWORK AND SOCIETY: TOWARDS DEVELOPING A CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO METAL-DETECTED MATERIAL Table 11: Recovery techniques. Some sites have produced material through chance finds, been metal-detected and then excavated. Material

Torcs Coin Hoards Horse Equipment

% of findspots investigated through Excavation

% of findspots investigated by Metal Detecting

14% 15% 10%

42% 73% 82%

% of findspots that have produced material that has been found by chance discovery 71% 31% 16%

The site at Danebury provides a useful case study demonstrating changing ideas about Iron Age archaeology and society. ‘Post-processual’ or ‘contextual’ archaeology has given birth to a ‘new’ Iron Age. The ‘new’ Iron Age does not rely on classical and early medieval literature, looking to ‘Celtic’ society for constructing models of social organisation. It has moved away from a teleological narrative, plotting the trajectory of societies from ‘primitive’ to ‘complex’. It has also moved away from a ‘normative’ and ‘functional’ reading of the archaeological record. Instead, there has been a shift towards examining in detail patterns in the deposition of material culture, and interpreting the nature of past societies by drawing on a range of recent social theory regarding the relationship between people, artefacts and the environment (e.g. Barrett 2001). The ‘new’ Iron Age seeks to understand this period of history through its material remains: its archaeology.

based on classical and early medieval Irish literature (e.g. Hawkes 1972). It also implies that the archaeological record of that site passively reflects the social system and economic activity. These ‘facts’ have been questioned and the site at Danebury has been (and continues to be) reinterpreted. One rereading of the archaeological evidence proposes that the site was occupied seasonally and used for communal storage (e.g. Stopford 1987). In addition, the range of ‘non-utilitarian’ social roles that the ‘defences’ may have played has been investigated, with an emphasises placed on their role in maintaining social and communal equilibrium (e.g. Bowden & McOrmish 1987; Sharples 1991). ‘Post-processual’ archaeologies call attention to the active role material culture plays in defining social relations. Artefacts are no longer considered as passive goods that reflect subsistence and economics alone, they are active in defining, and are defined by, social relations (Kopytoff 1986; Tilley 1991; 1999; Miller 1994; 1998).

In the introduction and in chapter two of this dissertation, the impact that the historical record has had on the interpretation of later Iron Age society in Norfolk was outlined. Drawing on the aims of ‘contextual’ archaeology, this research seeks to move away from a historically determined understanding of the later Iron Age in this region; it aims to place the hoards of torcs from Snettisham, the Iceni and the Boudican rebellion in their broader historical context through a detailed study of the archaeological record. As noted, there has been a trend within ‘new’ Iron Age archaeology to focus on investigating patterns in the deposition of material culture within the archaeological record, on the understanding that the record is meaningfully constituted (e.g. Hingley 1990; Hill 1995; Parker-Pearson 1996). These types of study have relied on well excavated and published Iron Age sites. Unfortunately, later Iron Age Norfolk is not blessed with an abundance of excavated and published sites. Instead, as discussed, it is characterised by metal finds, particularly torcs, coins and items of horse equipment, which have been recovered largely through metal-detecting or by chance discovery. As can be seen in table 11 above, very few items have been recovered through systematic excavation.

‘Material Culture can be seen as a medium of discourse by which social relations are negotiated and reproduced’ (Gwilt & Haselgrove 1997, 2). Such a view of material culture implies that the archaeological record comprises the remains of social activities and actions that were created and understood within their specific social and historical context or ‘reality’. This ‘reality’ need not have been concerned with the idea of economics and subsistence as envisaged by 1970s and 1980s ‘processual’ schools of thought. In essence, the past is different from the present. The aim of ‘post-processual’ archaeology or, to introduce another term, ‘contextual’ archaeology is, therefore, to understand the past in terms of its own social and historical context. In order to achieve this, there has been an emphasis on reinterpreting the archaeological record; investigating what it is a record of (e.g. Hill 1995). For example, from a detailed analysis of pit deposits from Danebury and a number of other sites in central southern Britain, Hill has proposed that the Iron Age archaeological record is not a record of rubbish, a passive reflection of past economies. Instead, he suggests that it is meaningfully constituted, the result of deliberate actions where ritual and its role in the reproduction of Iron Age social relations can be placed at the centre (Hill 1995).

Material that is recovered by metal-detector, field walking and by chance (largely through agricultural practice) is unstratified. It is not known, in most cases, whether the items under study in this research derive from settlement sites, structures, pits or ditches etc,

37

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK it was ‘active’ within society and would have fundamentally shaped where, how and why the material under study was deposited.

within such sites. Therefore, examining and interpreting patterns in the deposition of metalwork as a way investigating later Iron Age society in Norfolk does not immediately appear to be feasible. Part of the challenge of this research is to outline a way of recording and using metalwork finds that allows this region to be understood through its archaeology.

The suggestion that landscapes are ‘social’ places and that, therefore, ‘unstratified’ finds are located ‘meaningfully’ within the landscape, opens a new way of investigating such material. It provides the potential for research on metalwork finds to move beyond typological and technological analyses, and enables them to be active, and central in an analysis of a past society. As stated above, each artefact or group of artefacts under study in this research has a national grid reference, therefore, it will be possible to investigate patterns in their distribution and deposition across and within the landscape. In order to make these patterns meaningful, it is necessary that they are viewed across a ‘social’ and not purely physical landscape. Clearly, it is not possible to reconstruct an Iron Age landscape, either the physical or perceptual. However, there are a number of themes relevant to social landscapes that can be drawn upon to develop a theoretically engaged method. As noted above, landscapes are moved through, they are natural places imbued with meaning and places steeped in time; landscapes have pasts that shape them not only physically, but also perceptually. These themes can be glimpsed in the archaeological record in the form of routeways (e.g. Bevan 1997), the re-use of earlier monuments (e.g. Hingley 1996; 1999) and in the continuity and change of locales for depositing material (Bradley 1987; 1990).

Developing a contextual approach to metal-detected material culture ‘landscape offers an integrating framework for archaeology…a context which links dispersed acts’ (Thomas 2001, 175). Despite the unstratified nature of the majority of material under study in this research, each artefact or group of artefacts does have a national grid reference. Therefore, although detailed information regarding the physical archaeological context from which torcs, coin hoards and horse equipment derives is not always accessible, it is possible to investigate patterns in their distribution and deposition across and within the landscape. Over the last twenty years, there has been a great deal of literature investigating what constitutes a landscape. The shift from ‘processual’ to ‘post-processual’ schools of thought has had an impact in the way past landscapes are understood and studied. In particular, there has been a shift away from viewing landscapes as purely physical environments that people adapt to and adapt (e.g. Evans, Limbrey and Cleare 1975; Limbrey and Evans 1978). Instead, there has been an emphasis on understanding that landscapes are not only physical environments, but also individually, socially and culturally constructed concepts (Tilley 1994; Bender 1993; Cosgrove 1984; Thomas 1993; 2001, Gosden and Head 1994; McGlade 1999). In prehistoric archaeology, there has been a move away from measuring the landscape and plotting distributions of sites across it (e.g Grant 1984), towards an approach that focuses on the ‘experience’ of past landscapes (e.g. Tilley 1994; Ingold 1993; Thomas 1993). In addition, it has been recognised that natural features are often socialised places; physical and meta-physical markers within the environment (e.g. Tacon 1999; Bradley 1990; 2000; Smith van de Guchte 1999; Barnes 1999). They are not just external factors that determine the mode of human existence. Landscapes are also moved through and ‘dwelt’ in (Tilley 1994; Ingold 1993). They are viewed, utilised and experienced from different vantagepoints, not just settlement sites. Furthermore, they have histories that do not recognise the false time boundaries created through the periodisation of the past (Barrett 1999; Bradley 2002). The Iron Age landscape could be considered, for example, as ‘an inhabitation of Bronze Age residues’, (Barrett 1999, 258; e.g. Hingley 1996; 1999). In essence, landscapes are not only physical environments but also ‘social’ places, places that are imbued with meaning. The landscape into which torcs, coins and items of horse equipment entered the archaeological record was not merely a passive backdrop,

Therefore, drawing on these themes, each location from which artefacts have been recovered will be characterised in three ways: • • •

Nature of ‘natural’ or ‘landscape’ location Proximity to earlier monuments Proximity to known routeways or boundaries

Through characterising the location of each torc, coin hoard (patterns in the distribution of single coins will be investigated, but not their depositional location as there are over 500 examples) and items of horse equipment, it will be possible to ask a number of questions about each data-set :

38

1.

Are there patterns in the types of location or natural features into which torcs/coin hoards/horse equipment entered the archaeological record?

2.

Can this inform us about perceptions of certain types of landscape features?

3.

Is it possible to trace changes in the perceptions or potential importance of particular types of ‘natural’ place across the landscape of Norfolk through time?

METALWORK AND SOCIETY: TOWARDS DEVELOPING A CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO METAL-DETECTED MATERIAL 4.

Are torcs/coin hoards/horse equipment located in close proximity to routeways or boundaries within the landscape?

5.

Can this inform us about landscape organisation, the placing or marking of points within the landscape and movement through the landscape?

6.

Are torcs/coin hoards/horse equipment located in close proximity to historic features in the landscape?

7.

Can this inform us about perceptions of the past, and the active incorporation of earlier monuments within an Iron Age perception of the landscape?

choose to record, how they view it, and why and for whom it is recorded. However, to dismiss them as evidence for the later prehistoric past in this country would be as naïve as a non-critical reading of such sources. Iron Age communities and ‘tribes’ in this country were not isolated from Europe; although largely non-literate, they were not living in a vacuum. Rather, they would have been involved in relationships with the literate world. In his recent book, John Creighton proposes that political ties with the classical world may have extended to certain young ‘nobles’ from Britain receiving an education in Rome as part of the Emperor’s family (Creighton 2000). Such a suggestion implies complex political relationships between later Iron Age Britain and Rome, a complexity that could perhaps be underestimated by ignoring historical sources. Historical sources provide another form of temporally specific evidence, another form of cultural information. At the very least, they enable us to understand that Britain was part of a larger European world, where there was a mixing of cultures (e.g. Wells 2001).

In addition, each findspot will be characterised in a fourth way: •

evidence for other later Iron Age material in the area will be examined.

This will enable an investigation to be made as to whether torcs/coin hoards/items of horse equipment are located in areas of other later Iron Age ‘activity’ (e.g. areas of occupation) or whether they are in more remote places.

As noted, Norfolk, the heartland of the ‘land of the Iceni’ is known for one of the most evocative stories relating to later Iron Age Britain, that of the ‘Boudican rebellion’. This story has, on many occasions, been presented with little criticism of the source (e.g. Sealey 1997; Webster 1993; Frere 1974; 2001). There is often no mention made of various different versions of the story, the account in Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome being the preferred ‘description’ of events. This research will not focus on a detailed discussion of the historical sources pertaining to later Iron Age Britain. However, these sources do provide another level of cultural information that situates Britain, and this region in particular within a wider political world. As such, they will be re-introduced in the final chapter where the archaeology and history of the final Iron Age in this county will be considered together.

The ‘new’ Iron Age and history One of the criticisms, that ‘contextual’ or ‘postprocessual’ archaeology has made of studies of the Iron Age has been their use and reliance upon historical sources (Hill 1995; 1996; James 1999; James & Rigby 1997; Collis 1997). A romantic view of blue painted ‘Celts’, fearless warriors and mystical druids, visions derived from classical sources such as Caesar and Tacitus, have permeated the literature on Iron Age Britain. Indeed, the backlash against the use of historical sources for understanding the prehistoric past in this country has fuelled the ‘Celtic’ debate; a debate focusing on the reality of a ‘Celtic’ ethnicity in the past (e.g. Merriman 1987; Megaw & Megaw 1996; Collis 1997).

Summary The aim of this section has been to outline broad changes in the way in which the Iron Age has been studied and understood from the 1970s and 1980s though into the 1990s and beyond. Later Iron Age metalwork is an area that has seen little research under the auspices of ‘contextual. Therefore, drawing on the themes and approaches of ‘contextual’ archaeology or the ‘new’ Iron Age, a new approach to studying metalwork in the landscape has been outlined. Through implementing a method that seeks to investigate unstratified metal artefacts across a ‘social’ landscape, it may be possible to build up a picture of the changing relationships between people, places and metalwork from the second century BC through to the mid-late first century AD. These changing relationships will also be considered alongside the historical record pertaining to the region. By following such a method, unstratified metal-detected material can begin to play a central role in investigating later Iron Age society in Norfolk, making it possible to

Classical historical sources relating to Britain are not documents of historical ‘facts’. They were written from a Roman perspective for a Roman audience, and must be understood as an aspect of Roman culture and not as straightforward documentary evidence of later Iron Age culture (Braund 1996). It is important to understand that Britain, being situated in oceanus on the edge of the known world to the Romans, was considered to be a mystical place (Stewart 1995). Therefore, references to the country will have been made within a particular cultural view of what Britain and its inhabitants were like. The focus of attention within classical sources is often on military or political aspects of life, or on ‘barbaric’ aspects of Iron Age society, aspects that separate it from the ‘civilised’ classical world. Classical historical sources are biased in many ways. They are politically and metaphysically motivated in what they 39

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK SMRs Access database. The database was asked to produce a list of sites that included Iron Age finds (and for the latest finds, Roman material) within the designated area around each location under study. This analysis has shown that within a two kilometre area around each of the 127 locations under study, on average, ten percent sites have produced later Iron Age material (see appendix 1). Vita-Finzi developed ‘site catchment analysis’ as a method of investigating zones of resource exploitation. They suggested that most farming communities would exploit an area of up to five kilometres radius from a site, or up to one hour’s walk. The objective of looking at the percentage of sites that have produced Iron Age material within two kilometres of each location is not to assess resource availability, but rather, to gain an idea of whether torcs, coins and items of horse equipment were entering the archaeological record in areas where other material was also deposited, i.e. in densely ‘utlised’ areas of the landscape, or in places where few items were entering the archaeological record, i.e. in more remote parts of the landscape. The landscape across Norfolk is rich in Iron Age finds, both pottery and metalwork. In order to assess the immediate density of material around each location it was felt necessary to define an area smaller than five kilometres; the zone of suggested exploitation by Vita-Hinzi. Through assessing the percentage of sites producing Iron Age material within a two kilometre radius, it is possible to get a more focused picture of the density of material in the immediate area around each location. For example, within the designated area around the silver coin hoard at Western Longville (23) in central Norfolk, 1.4 percent (1 out of 71) of sites or find spots (either excavated or known through metal-detecting) have produced Iron Age artefacts. By way of contrast, thirty-four percent (23 out of 67) of archaeological find spots around the silver coin hoard at Fring (18) have produced Iron Age material. This would suggest that the Western Longville (23) hoard is in a comparatively remote location compared to the one at Fring, which appears to be in a more densely ‘utilised’ landscape, i.e. one where more material was entering the archaeological record during the later Iron Age.

begin placing the hoards of torcs from Snettisham, the Iceni and the Boudican rebellion within a broader historical context. Characterising locations: the methods and the problems As discussed in the previous section, it is the intention of this research to examine patterns in the distribution and deposition of these artefact types across the ‘social’ landscape of later Iron Age Norfolk, each location being characterised in four ways: • • • •

Evidence for other Iron Age material in the immediate locale Nature of landscape location Proximity to earlier historic features Proximity to routeways and boundaries

All the torcs, coin hoards and items of horse equipment under study have an eight-figure grid reference, allowing them to be plotted within ten metres accuracy of their actual places of recovery. However, characterising each location on the above criteria is not straightforward. The aim of this section is to outline the problems and methods of examining torcs, coin hoards and items of horse equipment in their ‘social’ landscape. Evidence for other Iron Age Material Few of the artefacts and hoards in this research have been recovered from excavated sites, although, certain artefacts have been recovered from areas where other items of later Iron Age (and often Roman) metalwork and pottery have been recovered, usually by metaldetectorists. These sites might in early medieval studies be labeled as ‘productive’, i.e. sites from which a great deal of material is recovered from the plough zone, but which are not further characterised. Certain ‘productive’ sites, on the basis of aerial photography, appear to have hidden features such as Romano-Celtic temples e.g. Hockwold-cum-Wilton (SMR 14737) in the south west of the county. Without detailed fieldwork, it is difficult to define the exact nature of these later Iron Age (and usually Roman) sites and assess whether they represent settlement, industrial or temple sites etc. However, it can be noted that they are locations at which later Iron Age ‘activity’ was taking place. Therefore, for each location examined, a note has been made as to whether there is other later Iron Age material known from the same ‘findspot’.

The nature of the ‘landscape’ location Characterising the nature of each landscape location or ‘natural place’ is also fraught with difficulties. In particular there is no palaeoenvironmental information for the places into which torcs, coin hoards and items of horse equipment entered the archaeological record. As discussed in chapter two, Norfolk can be divided into eight zones and each location can be characterised in terms of gross topography. It is not possible, however, to comment in detail on the nature of past vegetation in the immediate vicinity.

As well as noting the presence and absence of a concentration of Iron Age material from each location, drawing upon the ideas of ‘site catchment analyses’ (Vita-Finzi 1978), the percentage of ‘productive’ and excavated sites that have produced Iron Age finds, within a two kilometre square, or approximately half an hour’s walk, around each location has been investigated. The information was gathered through querying the Norfolk

In order to record information on the topographic location of each artefact or group of artefacts, the height above sea level has been noted using the 1:10 000 maps of Norfolk. The proximity of locations under study to water has also 40

METALWORK AND SOCIETY: TOWARDS DEVELOPING A CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO METAL-DETECTED MATERIAL ‘Iron Age track ways probably contribute more lines to modern maps than any other human factor [although] most of them are now undatable and unrecognisable’ (Robinson & Rose 1983, 10).

been measured, using digital maps. Proximity to water has been measured for a number of reasons. In particular, settlement sites are often located within close proximity to a source of water (Martin 1999) and it has long been recognised that water may have been conceived of as a liminal place in the Iron Age (Fitzpatrick 1984; Bradley 1990; Cunliffe 1991b). In addition to using maps, I visited many of the locations. This practical fieldwork element was to facilitate describing the nature of the location, e.g. downslope, north facing etc.

Earlier routeways are most likely to be curated within later features (Williamson 1993). These features may include field boundaries, parish boundaries, modern roads and Roman roads. It is not possible within the confines of this research to undertake a detailed landscape study of earlier routeways, but the proximity to each location under study in relation to known Roman roads is investigated, with a view to assessing whether these roads may indeed have earlier antecedents.

Proximity to ‘historic’ monuments Recording the proximity to earlier ‘historic’ monuments of each studied location is also problematic, as it is biased towards known sites. Although most barrows are no longer extant in Norfolk, there are, as commented on in chapter 2, many known from aerial photography. Over 1000 barrows and ring ditches are recorded on the SMR, and when plotted, it can be seen that barrows are distributed across the county (map 4). Fewer long mounds and henges are known from this county (Ashwin 1996), but given the apparent density of Bronze Age monuments, it is likely that many would have been extant in the later Iron Age landscape. In order to assess whether metalwork was entering the archaeological record in close proximity to these monuments, traces of barrows and ring ditches have been investigated within a 200 metre radius of each location.

Conclusion The aim of this chapter, and indeed one of the central themes of this research has been to develop a method of using unstratified material in such a way that it might inform us about Iron Age society. Clearly, it is possible to produce distribution maps of unstratified material across the landscape. Such maps, as demonstrated by John Davies in his synthetic work on Iron Age Norfolk (1996), provide a basis upon which models of society can begin to be built. The method developed as part of this research seeks to move beyond plotting distributions of material culture on ‘featureless’ maps, and focuses instead on examining patterns in the distribution and deposition of torcs, coins hoards and horse equipment across a ‘social’ landscape. Such an approach has been developed in order for the archaeology of later Iron Age Norfolk to be examined within, and be used to help constitute its social and historic context. The physicality of the later Iron Age landscape is no longer visible; routeways have disappeared, as have earlier features. Natural places can only be discussed in terms of gross topography rather than specific vegetational environment (e.g. woodland, copse, heathland etc), and other Iron Age material at each location can only be inferred from artefacts that have been recovered through metaldetecting, field walking and chance discovery for the most part, rather than excavation. This method cannot recreate the Iron Age landscape and the meanings imbued within that landscape. Characterisations of each location, although following a set of criteria, are somewhat, subjective. However, by undertaking a detailed analysis of the ‘landscape context’ of each artefact or group of artefacts under study, a more detailed view of later Iron Age society will emerge, one in which the torcs from Snettisham, the Iceni and the Boudican rebellion can be placed, rather than dominate.

A visibility study of barrows, i.e. assessing if torcs, coin hoards and items of horse equipment were located in places from which barrows were visible has not been undertaken. The reasons for omitting this type of study are practical. Firstly, Norfolk has up to fifty percent fewer public rights of way than many other counties in England (www.Norfolk.gov.uk); therefore, getting to all the locations is not possible. In addition, few barrows are extant in this region, as such, locating them and then visualising the height they may have been becomes so subjective as to be potentially meaningless. Proximity to routeways or boundaries Of all the attributes examined for each location, assessing the proximity to historic routeways and boundaries has been the most difficult. As noted in chapter two, there are very few prehistoric ditches or dykes known from this county, and those that are known are not closely dated. The earliest road systems, where known, are largely attributed to the Roman period with few dated to the earlier periods (map 9). Clearly Roman roads post-date much of the material under study in this research. However, it is likely that the number of Roman roads, the antecedents to these roads, and other routeways across the Iron Age landscape of Norfolk have been underestimated, indeed, it has been suggested that:

41

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Map 9: Prehistoric and Roman routeways

42

Chapter 6 Torcs: Deposition and Distribution found, nor were there any signs of a pit or other feature remaining in the sub-soil from which the wires may originally have derived. As well as the complete torcs and wire fragments, two decorated buffer terminals (4/4) have, after a wrangle in the courts, been provenanced to the same field in Bawsey (EDP 23rd, May 1989).

Introduction In the previous chapter, a method was outlined for examining distributions of material across and within a ‘social’ landscape. The aim of this chapter is to present in detail, patterns in the distribution and deposition of torcs across the landscape of Norfolk. Following an introduction to the torcs from this county, each location will be considered following the criteria set out in the previous chapter. First, the countywide distribution of the locations will be examined. This will be followed by a consideration of the evidence for other later Iron Age material in the immediate area. Next, the percentage of sites within a two kilometre radius around each location that have produced other later Iron Age material will be investigated; the average being ten percent (see appendix 1). Finally, the nature of the landscape location, proximity to ‘historic’ features and then boundaries and routeways will be considered. The information regarding each of the criteria is summarised on a table.

From Narford (7), part of a buffer terminal torc, which was partly melted and had fragments of twisted bar and loop terminal torcs fused to it, was recovered by metaldetector in 1980-81. A complete elongated loop terminal torc was subsequently recovered from Narford, as were a number of wire fragments (SMR 3974). Unfortunately, none of the material from this site went to the local Museum, it was recovered at night and then sold to an Antiquities Dealer, consequently there is no illustration, photograph or full report on these artefacts. The final four sites North Creake (2), Sedgeford (3), Marham (5) and East Winch (6) have only produced one torc or torc fragment. From North Creake a single torc terminal of the ring type was recovered during ploughing. Within the socket of the terminal were a number of broken wires suggesting that the main body of the torc was constructed from twisted wires (Clarke 1951a, 59). This example is decorated in the characteristic asymmetrical design of the ‘Snettisham Style’ and is not dissimilar in form and style to the terminals of the ‘Great Torc’ from hoard E. The torc recovered from Sedgeford, again whilst ploughing, is of the same type as that recovered from North Creake. It comprises a twisted wire neck-ring with two, cast-on ring terminals also decorated in the ‘Snettisham Style’. The example from Marham, which unfortunately was thrown away (SMR 0855) sounds like it may too have been similar to the North Creake and Sedgeford examples; although not officially recorded, it was described as being similar to the ‘best Snettisham’ torc. Given that the reference to the Marham torc was made in 1966, it is likely that the torc referred to is the Great Torc from hoard E. The most fortunate survivor of the single torc finds known from Norfolk is the example recovered from Blackborough End Quarry Pits, East Winch. This torc, which has triple loop terminals and a neck ring constructed from plaited wires similar to one found in hoard J at Snettisham (Stead 1991a, 454 fig 4) was recovered after it had been through the Quarry’s stone crusher (SMR 12559); miraculously it survived.

Torcs from Norfolk There are seven provenanced locations from which gold torcs have been recovered in this county (1/1-12, 2, 3, 4/1-4, 5, 6, 7). These locations have produced varying numbers of torcs, ranging from hoards through to single items. The acts or processes by which material enters the archaeological record as a hoard may be quite different to a single find. As such, single finds and hoards may display different and distinct patterning in the location into which they were deposited. Following an examination of the distribution and deposition of torcs, the nature of these deposits, investigating whether they do indeed represent two distinct types of depositional activity, i.e. hoards and single finds will be discussed. This will be followed by a broad discussion regarding the distribution and deposition of torcs across the county of Norfolk. The most famous of the seven sites from which gold torcs have been recovered in Norfolk is the site of Ken Hill at Snettisham (1) where, as previously discussed, at least eleven hoards comprising nests of torcs and collections of ‘scrap’ metal have been recovered by chance discovery, metal-detecting and excavation (Clarke 1954; Stead 1991a). Of the remaining six sites only two, Bawsey (4) and Narford (7) have produced more than one torc or torc fragment. The finds recovered from Bawsey consist of two complete twisted bar torcs with loop terminals (4/1 & 4/2). These were found by chance in 1941 and 1944 during ploughing (Clarke 1954, 50-51; Wake 1942). After a gap of over forty years, the site was metaldetected and a number of fragments of silver and goldsilver alloy wire were recovered (4/3). The area from which the wire was recovered was further explored by the metal-detectorist, but no other fragments of material were

Distribution and deposition County wide distribution. As can be seen from map 10, the torc deposits are striking in terms of their distribution. All seven locations from which torcs have been recovered in Norfolk are situated in the west and north-west of the county.

43

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Map 10: Distribution of torc hoards

A great deal of later Iron Age material has been recovered from the site at Snettisham (1/1-12). For example, a number of Norfolk Wolf staters have been recovered from the gold field, as was a hoard of silver coins, which was unfortunately looted (Stead 1991a, 455; Stead 1998, 147-8). Both of these post-date the torcs deposits. In addition, there is a polygonal enclosure ditch around the site containing Romano-British pottery, suggesting that this location was revisited through the 1st century BC and into the 1st century AD and beyond. It is also recorded in the SMR (SMR 1487) that during the 1950s a dump of ‘refuse’ was excavated in the woods, presumably the one next to the ‘gold-field’, containing oyster shells, coarse red brick tesserae, animal bones and wall plaster. Again, this supports the suggestion that this site was revisited after the deposition of the torcs. Despite the evidence for later Iron Age and Roman activity at Ken hill, Snettisham, there is no evidence to suggest the site was a focus of settlement or occupation.

Evidence of other Iron Age material at the location Catalogue Number 1/1-12

Site Name Snettisham ‘Gold-

Other Later Iron Age Material N - later IA/RB material

field’

at location

4/1-4

Bawsey

N

2

North Creake

N

3

Sedgeford

N

5

Marham

N

6

East Winch

7

Narford

N Undated IA activity in the form of pits in the immediate vicinity, but the torc was not directly associated with the pits. N Site of later Roman small town

Only the site at Snettisham (1) has seen any excavation and only two of the other sites have been subject to metal-detector activity (4, 7), therefore, the quality and quantity of information for each location varies to such a degree that characterising the nature of individual sites is difficult. Despite the problems with the data set, a number of trends can be seen. In particular, although there is other Iron Age material from a number of these sites, there is at present no firm evidence that the torcs were buried within settlement or occupation sites.

The sites at Bawsey and Narford which have both seen a great deal of metal-detecting have, like Snettisham, indications of later use. The site of Narford in particular, with its four stone buildings and large quantities of Roman material is recognised as one of the Roman villages or small towns of Norfolk (e.g. Gurney 1994, 345). Other than the torcs, there is one silver Iceni unit that has been recovered from the site that is of a later Iron Age date. There is no substantial evidence that would suggest the presence of an Iron Age domestic settlement,

44

TORCS: DEPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION day sea level. To the north of Sedgeford, the ground slopes quite steeply down towards the Heacham river, approximately 300 metres away. The site at Snettisham, although not as high as Sedgeford and North Creake, is located on a spur of land, which at thirty-five metres above present day sea level, is a high spot within its immediate surroundings, as is the site at East Winch which is also situated at approximately thirty-five metres above present day sea level. The site at Bawsey although only located at ten metres above present day sea level, is situated on a peninsula that would originally have jutted out into the estuary of the Gay River. Therefore, Bawsey is also located in a relative high spot within its immediate surrounding environment.

although, this location appears to have been visited and utilised in some capacity during the later Iron Age. The majority of the material from Bawsey derives from the Middle and later Saxon periods, although there is one item of later Iron Age horse equipment (104) and one Icenian silver coin that has been recovered in close proximity to the torc site. The torc from East Winch (6) was discovered just to the north of what appears to be an area Iron Age activity. The site has a series of pits with burnt material including Iron Age sherds. The pottery from this site is not discussed in detail in the brief SMR report (SMR 12559) therefore, establishing a date is not possible. It is unclear as to what activity was carried out at this location. Rather than a settlement site, it has been suggested that the area was being quarried for iron deposits (Gregory 1984). By way of contrast, North Creake (2), Marham (5) and Sedgeford (3) are in locations where there is, at present, no known contemporary material or later Iron Age material.

Nature of ‘landscape’ location

Percentage of Iron Age material in a 2 kilometre radius of each site. Catalogue Number

Site Name and landscape region

1/1-12

Snettisham ‘Gold-field’ W.Escarpment Bawsey Salt Fen North Creake Good Sands Sedgeford Good Sands Marham W.Escarpment East Winch W.Escarpment Narford Good Sands

4/1-4 2 3 5 6 7

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 10% : 19 out of 200

Catalogue Number 1/1-12

Site Name

‘Landscape’ location

Snettisham ‘Goldfield’

4/1-4

Bawsey

2

North Creake

3

Sedgeford

5

Marham

6

East Winch

7

Narford

35m OD Highspot On a spur of land 10m OD Highspot Fen Island 63m OD Highspot Hill top area 58m OD Highspot Hill top 22m OD In gently undulating landscape Approx 35m Highspot ? Land Quarried away 15m OD Near base of the Nar valley

8% : 8 out of 99 15% : 7 out of 46 17% : 26 out of 149 25% : 15 out of 61 6% : 6 out of 102

In contrast to those sites that are situated on high points in their landscapes, the sites of Marham and Narford seem to be in ‘unremarkable’ locations in terms of natural features. The site at Marham, for example, is situated in a gently undulating landscape at around twenty-two metres above present day sea level. The site at Narford is located at approximately fifteen metres above present day sea level, near the base of the Nar valley, within 200 metres of the river Nar. Of all the sites, the river side location of this one appears to be the most ‘suitable’ or likely situation for a settlement site (e.g. Martin 1999, 51; Martin 1988, 68-9), and indeed, Narford is the only one at present that has firm evidence of later settlement occupation. Finally, due to the nature of its recovery in a pile of stone after screening and crushing, it is not possible to make comment about the precise nature of the location from which the torc at East Winch was recovered.

24% : 31 out of 130

Torcs sites do not seem to be located in areas where there is a focus of other later Iron Age Material, but, as can be seen in the above table, other than in East Winch and Bawsey, a higher than average percentage of archaeological findspots have produced Iron Age material within a 2 kilometre radius around the torc finds. Therefore, although it seems unlikely the torcs were deposited in settlement sites, they are not located in completely isolated landscapes. Narford in particular shows that some of the locations became the focus of later activity and settlement. What is immediately striking is that five of the seven torc deposits are on high spots within their immediate landscape. In particular, the torc fragment from Sedgeford is located at fifty-eight metres above present day sea level and the find from North Creake is situated on a point approximately sixty-three metres above present

None of the torc locations are situated within close proximity to other historic features within the landscape. However, the site at Marham is opposite a Bronze Age 45

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Proximity to boundaries and routeways Catalogue Number 1/1-12 4/1-4 2 3 5 6 7

Site Name Snettisham ‘Gold-field’ Bawsey North Creake Sedgeford Marham East Winch Narford

Proximity to Routeways and Boundaries N N N N Within 500m of the Devils Dyke and 200m of a later Roman road N Within 200 metres of the Icknield way (upon which the Roman smalltown was founded

At the beginning of this chapter, it was suggested that hoards and single finds may have entered the ground as the result of different acts or processes. If this is the case, it might be expected that hoards and single finds would display different patterns in terms of their distribution and deposition. On the basis of the above study, it would seem that single finds and hoards of torcs are treated in similar ways. For example, of the four sites that are situated on high spots in their immediate surroundings, one has produced hoards of torcs (Snettisham), one has produced several examples of torcs (Bawsey), whereas the other two have only produced one torc apiece (North Creake and Sedgeford). Given that there are no distinctive patterns in the deposition of single finds in comparison to hoards, is it possible that single finds actually represent hoards that have not been recovered in their entirety, not reported, or recovered and lost over the last two millennnia?

barrow on Hangour hill, which may have been visible from the torc site. Few of the locations from which torcs have been recovered are located on known historic routeways. The Marham site is, though, located within 200 metres of a section of Roman road that runs approximately 500 metres to the east of and parallel with the Devils Ditch. In addition, the site at Narford is situated within 200 metres of the Icknield way, the routeway on which the Roman small town was founded. Discussion On current evidence, it would appear that torcs were not being deposited in contemporary settlement locations. Despite their apparent isolation from occupation, they are not in isolated or unpopulated landscapes. As evidenced at Narford and Snettisham, some of the torc sites become the focus of later activity, although the nature of activity is varied. At Snettisham, for example, there is no evidence of occupation debris, whereas at Narford there is a Roman small town.

Hoards and single finds: the nature of torc deposits On current evidence, the torc finds from Norfolk fall into two categories, single finds and hoards. Only the site at Ken Hill in Snettisham has any substantial evidence for hoarding in Norfolk; indeed, the quantity of torcs recovered from this site is unparalleled in Britain and Europe. Snettisham is not, however, the only site from which hoards of torcs are known. Closest to the Snettisham material is the Ipswich hoard from Suffolk. This group of initially five torcs, until a sixth was recovered the following year, was found as a part of discreet hoard during construction work in 1968 (Brailsford 1972; Owles 1969; 1970; Jope 2000, 84-86, pl 116-7). Stylistically the Ipswich torcs, with asymmetrical relief decoration on the terminals seem to be related to the Snettisham material, therefore, a similar date of second century BC/early first century BC is possible for this collection. Across the Wash, going north into Lincolnshire is the Ulceby hoard. This collection of artefacts, found in the nineteenth century, comprises two complete torcs; one twisted bar type with double loop terminals and a ‘plaited’ torc with quadruple loop terminals. Additionally a torc fragment, bracelet fragment and a bridle-bit decorated in the Snettisham Style formed part of this hoard (Leeds 1933, 466-68; Macgregor 1976, 111). Stylistic parallels in both the decoration on the bridle-bit and the ‘plaited’ torc (which is similar to the example in hoard J at Snettisham) suggests that this material is likely to be of a similar date. Further afield, in Scotland, a hoard of metalwork that

In terms of landscape location, there is a trend towards high points in the landscape for the placing of torc deposits, for example, the examples from Snettisham (1/1-12), North Creake (2), Sedgeford (3) East Winch (6) and Bawsey (4/1-4) are all located on high points within their immediate landscapes. By way of contrast the material from Narford is located near the valley base in close proximity to the river Nar. It would seem that the majority of known deposits of torcs in Norfolk entered the archaeological record in places that may have either been visible from quite a distance, or from places which commanded a good view. Only two of the torc deposits are located in close proximity to recognised historic routeways or boundaries. One of the routeways (near to Marham) is understood to be Roman and therefore not contemporary with the torc. However, it is possible, given that the torcs are in landscapes that have produced a relative concentration of Iron Age material, that the locations into which they were deposited are associated with earlier routeways that become consolidated during the Roman period. It could be suggested that some of the torc deposits, Narford and Marham in particular show evidence of marking traversed areas of the landscape.

46

TORCS: DEPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION Vix, Chatillon-dur-Seine, France dating to aproximately 500BC (Collis 1984, 95-7; Cunliffe 1997, 57-8; Megaw 2001, 45-7) and Waldegesheim, Bonn, Germany dating to fourth/third century BC (Jacobsthal 1944; Megaw 1970, 95-6; Megaw 2001, 113). There is little or no evidence to suggest that torcs were interred in the ground as part of burial practice in Britain. Human burial in the British Iron Age, either as inhumation or cremation is sporadic, and where it occurs seems to be regionally specific in style (Wait 1985, 84; Whimster 1978; Cunliffe 1991b, 498-510). There are, for instance, the ‘cart’ burials of East Yorkshire dating to around the middle Iron Age (Stead 1979; 1996), the inhumation cemeteries from south-western Britain including Mount Batten in Devon (Bates1871) and Harlyn Bay (Whimster 1978). There are also the later Iron Age Aylesford/Swarling Cemeteries of Kent (Bushe-Fox 1925; Birchall 1963; 1965; Stead 1976) and the cremation cemetery at West Hampnett, West Sussex (Fitzpatrick,1997). Of these sites, only West Hampnett has produced any possible evidence of torcs being utilised as grave goods, where in grave no.20095 a small fragment of gold foil was recovered, potentially deriving from a tubular torc (Fitzpatrick & Northover 1997, 97-9). Other than the example from West Hampnett, it is recorded that in Mildenhall, Suffolk, a torc was recovered within an extended inhumation grave that also contained a long sword and horse remains (Cunliffe 1991a, 504; Sealey 1979, 169; Clarke 1939, 43). This intriguing burial is problematic in so far as the torc was melted down soon after it had been recovered in 1862. All the other finds are lost too, which means that ascribing a later Iron Age date to this grave cannot be done with any confidence. It would seem, then, that depositing torcs in burials in the later British Iron Age was not a common practice, or even a practice that occurred at all. Therefore it is unlikely that any of the torcs from Norfolk derive from burials.

included a number of torcs was recovered at Cairnmuir, Netherurd in Peebleshire in the early 19th century (Feacham 1958). The only surviving torc fragment from the Cairnmuir hoard is similar in design to the ‘Great Torc’ of hoard E from Snettisham. This fragment, a ring terminal, also displays the characteristic assymetrical decoration of the ‘Snettisham Style’ (Jope 2000 pl 110; Fox 1958, 48; MacGregor 1976, no. 191; Fox 1958, 48,m pl 29; Clarke 1954 49-52, pl xvii; Leeds 1933, 131-136) which potentially puts it into the same date range as the material from Snettisham. Two torcs were also found in association with a range of other gold objects from Broighter in Ireland (Stead 1985, 32-3; Raftery 1984, 185; Raftery 1990, 117; Jope 2000, pl 128-30). The most famous torc from the Broighter hoard is the tubular torc, a form that is also known from Snettisham in Hoard A. There are, then, a number of hoards of torcs known from the British Isles dating from the second century early/first century BC. Therefore, despite being the only site with firm evidence for torc hoarding in Norfolk, Snettisham is not isolated in terms of national practice. The British Isles is not the only place from which hoards of torcs are known, there are a number of examples from continental Europe. There is the collection of seven delicately crafted torcs from Erstfield with their ornate and complex terminals decorated with animal and humanoid figures found in a Swiss Valley in 1962 (Raftery 1990, 25; Cunliffe 1997, 118-9; Megaw 1970, 80-1; Megaw and Megaw 2001, 92-3). This particular group date from around the later fifth/early fourth century BC and pre-dates the material known from the British Isles. There are also a number of later hoards of torcs known from the continent several of which, like the Snettisham hoards, have been found in association with coins. In particular, from Tayac in the Gironde a fragmented twisted buffer terminal torc was found together with several hundred coins probably second century BC. In addition, at Nierdiezer in the Rhineland, three torcs were found in a cloth bag along with fifty coins, and on the banks of the Rhine near Basel, the ‘Saint Louis’ hoard comprising two tubular torcs and a number of coins (Ferger- Gunti 1982; Eluere 1987; Megaw 2001, 182). That torcs were buried intentionally as part of hoards was a practice not confined to Snettisham, Norfolk, but one that was taking place in other parts of Britain and the continent. However, torcs are not only found as part of hoards. There are a number of Iron Age burials where torcs have been deposited as ‘grave-goods’. Is it possible, therefore, given that Snettisham is the only site in Norfolk with physical evidence for hoards, that some of the single torcs finds from this region originally derive from burials?

It has been established so far that torcs are often deposited in hoards both in Britain and on the continent. By way of contrast, placing torcs within human burials seems not to have been practiced in Britain. However, before taking the leap and suggesting that single finds of torcs from Norfolk were actually components of larger hoards, it needs to be established whether depositing torcs as single finds was a practice that has been documented elsewhere. Singles finds of torcs, like those from North Creake, Sedgeford, Marham and East Winch are not unparalleled. There are at least two single torc finds known from Staffordshire, one being the Needwood Forest torc which was recovered in the nineteenth century (Ellis 1849, pl viii; Leeds 1933(b), 466-7; Jope 2000, pl 118), the other from Glascote (Painter 1971; Jope 2000, pl 119). In addition, a buffer terminal from a torc was found in Clevedon in Somerset (Leeds 1933, 20, fig 7; Clarke 1954, 64-65, pl xvii; Jope 2000, pl 120-1). In essence, then, the same pattern of single and hoard finds of torcs as seen in Norfolk is paralleled across Britain. However,

The majority of torcs that have been recovered from burials are known from the continent and are of an earlier date than that attributed to the torcs known from Norfolk. For example, torcs formed part of the grave accoutrements from the well known ‘princess’s graves at 47

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Table showing the number of torc finds from each site and the mode of recovery Location (catalogue no.)

Number of Torc finds

Method of Recovery

Snettisham (1/1-12)

175 complete torcs + fragments from many others

Chance find, metal-detecting, excavation

Bawsey (4/1-4)

Chance-find, metal-detecting

North Creake (2)

2 buffer terminals 125 wire fragments 2 complete loop terminal torcs. 1 Buffer terminal 8 torc fragments 1 torc terminal

Sedgeford (3)

1 fragmentary torc

Chance-find

Marham (5) Blackborough End Pits (6)

1 ?ring terminal torc 1 Complete loop terminal torc

Chance-find Chance-find

Narford (7)

all single torc finds have a commonality in their mode of discovery. For example, all four of the single torc finds from Norfolk were recovered by chance. The locations from which they were discovered have not been subject to metal-detecting surveys (systematic or nonsystematic), field walking or excavation. In contrast, the sites of Bawsey and Narford, which have both produced several torcs and fragments of torcs, although no concrete evidence of hoarding, have been subject to metal-detector surveys. Strikingly, Snettisham, the site with the most material and positive evidence for hoarding, has not only been subject to systematic metal-detector surveys, but has also seen two excavations. Certainly in Norfolk it appears that there is, a direct relationship between the number of torcs or torc fragments recovered from a site and the nature and extent of archaeological investigation (see table above).

Chance-find, metal-detecting Chance-find

Conclusions On current evidence, later Iron Age torcs appear only to have been in circulation in the western part of the modern county of Norfolk. It would seem that they were taken out of circulation as the result of a specific process or activity; all being potentially deposited in hoards. In terms of location, it appears that all the torc deposits were in places outside areas of occupation, although the landscapes into which these torcs were put were not isolated. In fact, a number of the sites became the focus of later activity. In terms of the types of location, there is some variation in the types of places where torcs were deposited, but the general pattern suggests that they were usually situated on high spots in the landscape. A number of the deposits appear to be associated with later routeways, however, it would seem that there is no apparent reference to earlier historic monuments in terms of placing deposits of torcs into the ground.

Those sites that have been metal-detected have produced more torcs than those that have not, and the one site that has seen campaigns of excavation as well as metaldetecting has produced the greatest number of torcs and torc fragments. This pattern is paralleled in terms of single finds from other parts of Britain. The single find from Clevedon in Somerset and the two examples from Staffordshire were also found by chance and have not been subject to subsequent campaigns of excavation.

In chapter nine, patterns discerned in the distribution and deposition of later Iron Age torcs will be considered alongside patterns in the distribution and deposition of hoards and single artefacts of coins and items of horse equipment. These patterns will then be discussed and interpreted within a broader social and historic framework.

It could be concluded that whether torcs are found in hoards or as single finds reflects the nature of recovery and not necessarily the nature of original deposition. It is possible that all the torcs deposited in Norfolk, and possibly Britain, entered the ground as hoards. Such an explanation would fit the patterns in the distribution and depositional locations that torcs have been recovered from in Norfolk. There are no apparent distinctive patterns between the location of single finds and hoards, potentially because all the torc finds may originally have been deposited in the ground as hoards.

48

Chapter 7 Coins: Deposition and Distribution Introduction

Gallo-Belgic coins

The aim of this chapter is to examine patterns in the distribution and deposition of coins and hoards across the county of Norfolk. As noted in chapter five, this investigation focuses on hoards of coins; however, patterns in the distribution of single coin finds will also be discussed. As with torcs, each location will be considered following the criteria set out in chapter five. First, the countywide distribution of hoards and single finds will be examined. This will be followed by a consideration of the evidence for other later Iron Age material in the immediate area of the hoards. Next, the percentage of sites within a two kilometre area around each hoard location that have produced other later Iron Age material will be investigated; the average being ten percent (see Appendix). Finally, the nature of the landscape location, proximity to ‘historic’ features, boundaries and routeways of each hoard will be considered. The information regarding each of the criteria is, as in the previous chapter, summarised on tables.

Of the nine gold coin hoards known from Norfolk, six are hoards of Gallo-Belgic coins, which represent the earliest phase of coins in the county (see chapter three), the other three are made up of British gold coins. Of the GalloBelgic hoards, one is made up of C types (8), the others all consist of Gallo-Belgic D and/or E types (9, 10, 11, 12, 13). The hoard of Gallo-Belgic C coins was recovered in Ingoldisthorpe (8) by metal-detector in 1988. This is the smallest group of coins to be included as a hoard, with only two examples. The two coins were recovered within one metre of each other suggesting that they may have been deposited together. The largest hoard of GalloBelgic coins from the county is known from Weybourne (12) on the north Norfolk coast and consists of E and D types. Initially 12 coins deriving from this particular hoard were recovered on the beach in 1940. Sometime before 1952 a further two coins were found, followed by approximately eight more coins in the next two years. Since the 1950s there have been a number of further finds of Gallo-Belgic E coins found in the vicinity, which presumably derive from the same hoard. Until recently, the full extent of this hoard was unknown, but, in March 2002, a Mr C.J. Bell reported to Norfolk Museums Service that in 1954/55 he had recovered 206 gold coins from the beach. These coins were situated below two dark soil filled features in the clay ‘cliff’ that had become exposed following a storm. The description he provided of these coins indicates that they were Gallo-Belgic E types (i.e. uniface staters). The finder sold all the coins, retaining only two, one Gallo-Belgic E and one quarterstater of Gallo-Belgic D type.

Thirty-three collections of Iron Age coins from Norfolk have been defined as hoards (information collected from SMR, CCI and publications). Eleven of these groups of coins have very little substantial information to support their interpretation as Iron Age hoards. For example, it is recorded in the Parish of Brettenham in southern Norfolk that: ‘Between about 1910 and 1930. Below hedge on west side of lane south of Rushford village. Found while digging rabbits. Grey pot containing hundreds of small silver coins’ (SMR 15843).

The next largest collection of Gallo-Belgic types from Norfolk is the hoard from Fring (9) in the north-west of the county. This hoard consists of 170 Gallo-Belgic E coins and three Gallo-Belgic D quarter-staters. It had been scattered across an area approximately thirty metres by twenty metres by agricultural machinery and was recovered in 1991 by metal-detector. A further hoard of 14 Gallo-Belgic E coins, also found in 1991, was recovered at Buxton-with-Lammas (10) in east Norfolk. This hoard had also been found as a discreet scatter across an area of twenty by thirty metres by a metaldetectorist. More recently, four gold Gallo-Belgic staters were found in Wormegay (11) in west Norfolk. These coins were found within a discreet location over the course of two years (1998/99), again, by a metaldetectorist. Whether more of this hoard remains buried is at present unknown. Finally, during excavations of a multi-period site in Sedgeford (13) in north-west Norfolk, three Gallo-Belgic coins were found in one ‘context’ within two metres of each other in 1997.

On closer inspection of the records, a further four of the so-called hoards seem to be ‘scatters’ of coins or ‘cumulative finds’ (Haselgrove 1987, 15). In total, from the survey of recorded coin finds from Norfolk, there are eighteen collections of material that can be securely placed into the category of late Iron Age coin hoard. This is a conservative count, probably representing the tip of the iceberg in terms of coin hoards from the region. All eighteen of these coin hoards have enough detailed information to be interpreted as such (see catalogue), and importantly for the purposes of this study, have a national grid reference. These eighteen hoards, as discussed in chapters three and four, comprise three main categories: Gallo-Belgic coins, British gold coins and British silver coins. In the first instance, the distribution and depositional location of Gallo-Belgic coins will be investigated. This will be followed by a detailed examination of British gold coins and then silver Iceni coins. Finally, the material will be discussed as a whole with a view to drawing out broad patterns in the distribution and deposition of Iron Age coins in Norfolk. 49

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Distribution and deposition County wide distribution When plotting the distribution of Gallo-Belgic hoards from Norfolk, it can be seen that the majority are situated in the north and west of the county, a pattern that echoes that seen in the distribution of torcs (map 11). Of the two hoards that are not, one is situated on the coast at Weybourne and the other was recovered in the east of the

county at Buxton-with-Lammas. The distribution of Gallo-Belgic hoards, with its focus on the north and western areas of the county is not reflected in the distribution of single finds of Gallo-Belgic coins. These appear to be more evenly dispersed across the region (map 12).

Map 11: Distribution of Gallo-Belgic coin hoards

Evidence for other Iron Age material at the location Catalogue Number

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

8

Ingoldisthorpe

9 10

Fring Buxton-withLammas Wormegay Weybourne Sedgeford

?Y Situated to the east of a large IA/RB site N N

11 12 13

N N ?Y LIA material known nearby

50

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 10% : 17 out of 169 33% : 31 out of 95 5% : 10 out of 186 10% : 9 out of 93 11% : 13 out of 115 7% : 8 out of 118

COINS: DEPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION

Map 12: Distribution of single Gallo-Belgic coins

The sites at Wormegay (11) and Buxton-with-Lammas (10), although both having been metal-detected on at least one occasion, have no other later Iron Age material. Neither of these sites has produced any metalwork dating to the first centuries BC, AD and beyond into the Roman period, suggesting that they potentially were not located within places of occupation. The same appears to be true of the material recovered from Weybourne (12). Despite the lack of associated occupation or potential settlement activity, both the sites at Wormegay (11) and Weybourne (12) do not appear to be in remote parts of the landscapes; within a two kilometre square around these locations ten percent (9 out of 93) and eleven percent (13 out of 115) of findspots respectively have produced Iron Age material. Therefore, although they are isolated in terms of direct association with known sites, they not in ‘empty’ areas of the Iron Age landscape.

Of the six Gallo-Belgic hoards, two are potentially associated with settlement activity, although the settlements may post-date the hoards. The two coins recovered from Ingoldisthorpe (8) are situated just to the east of a large Iron Age/Romano British site that was partly excavated during the construction of the Snettisham bypass (Flitcroft 2001). It is also suggested in the SMR report on these coins that some of the Iron Age pottery recovered from within the vicinity may well be of a contemporary date (SMR 17626 notes on c. 52). The three coins found in Sedgeford (13) also appear to be directly related to a settlement site. The excavations, from which they were found, carried out by the Sedgeford Historical and Archaeological Research Project, have produced evidence of later Iron Age settlement activity in the surrounding area. Although it would seem that these gold coins were not actually located within a settlement, it is possible that they were interred in the ground near to a settlement site. The hoard from Fring (9), although not so directly associated with a settlement site, is located in an area where a great deal of later Iron Age material culture was entering the archaeological record. Within a two kilometre square around the hoard find from Fring (9), thirty-three percent (31 out of 95) of sites have produced Iron Age material. The Fring hoard (9) is, then, located within a densely utilised later Iron Age environment.

The only hoard that is situated on a relatively high-spot in the landscape is the example from Fring (9). This hoard is located at approximately forty metres above present day sea level, off the top of the hill over-looking the modern village of Fring, which is sited in the valley around a spring from which the Heacham river rises. By way of contrast, Sedgeford (13) and Ingoldisthorpe (8)) are situated in lower points in the landscape. The material from Sedgeford (13) is located near the base of a valley at approximately 130 metres from the Heacham river and at fifteen metres above present day sea level.

51

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK The gold coins from Sedgeford (13) are also situated approximately 300 metres from the Sedgeford torc find (3), which is near the top of the hill above the coin site. The Site at Ingoldisthorpe is situated at approximately eight metres above present day sea level on ground that gently rises out of the northerly reaches of the fens or salt marsh. It is a fen edge site, yet high enough that it would probably have been dry land during the later Iron Age.

Proximity to ‘historic’ features Catalogue Number 8 9 10 11 12 13

Nature of ‘landscape’ location Catalogue Number 8

Site Name and landscape region Ingoldisthorpe Salt Fen (bottom of W.Escarpment)

9

Fring Good Sands

10

Buxton-withLammas N-E Norfolk Wormegay Salt Fen

11 12

Weybourne Good Sands

13

Sedgeford Good Sands

Site Name Ingoldisthorpe Fring Buxton-withLammas Wormegay Weybourne Sedgeford

Proximity Feature N N N

to

Historic

N N N

None of the hoards of Gallo-Belgic gold coins were within close proximity to ‘historic’ features within the landscape.

Landscape Location 8m OD Close to water Fen edge, 150m from nearest water course 40m OD Highspot Overlooking the Heacham river 12m OD Close to Water 200m from river Bure 3m OD Close to water Potentially wet in LIA ?m OD Close to water Cliff top location – fallen onto beach 15m OD Close to water Valley bottom, 130m from river

Proximity to boundaries and routeways Catalogue Number 8 9

Site Name Ingoldisthorpe Fring

10

Buxton-withLammas

11 12 13

Wormegay Weybourne Sedgeford

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways N Y within 100m of the Peddars way Y Within 100m of course Roman road N N N

Two of the hoards of Gallo-Belgic coins appear to be located within close proximity to known historic routeways, although both routeways are attributed to the Roman period. The hoard from Fring (9) lies within 100 metres of the Peddars Way, located on a possible offshoot from that road. The hoard from Buxton-with-Lammas (10), lies within 100 metres of a known Roman road. The other four Gallo-Belgic hoards are not associated with any known historic routeways or boundaries.

The hoard at Wormegay (11) is also situated within a low lying landscape on the fen edge and may have originally been deposited in water or marshland. The modern village of Wormegay is situated on a small hillock or fenland island that rises to around five metres above present day sea level. The coins were recovered just to the south of the village, off the hillock at a height approximately two to three metres above present day sea level. Given that water levels were higher in the later Iron Age and that much of the present day fenland landscape is drained, it is possible that this area was marshy or wet when the coins were deposited.

Discussion On current available evidence, it would seem that GalloBelgic coins were not entering the archaeological record directly within settlement or occupation sites, or at least, not in sites that remain archaeologically visible at the surface. The two hoards that are most closely related to later Iron Age occupation are the examples from Ingoldisthorpe (8) and Sedgeford (13). These two hoards have the fewest number of coins in comparison to the others. It is possible, therefore, that these two collections do not represent hoards, or belong to the same category of deposition as the large, apparently more isolated collections of material.

The site at Buxton-with Lammas (10) in the east of the county is in a gently undulating landscape at approximately twelve metres above present day sea level. This hoard is also situated near to a river (the River Bure), although like Sedgeford (13) it appears to be above the floodplain. There are two other streams or ‘becks’ that are close to the coin findspot, the ‘Kings beck’ and the ‘Stakebridge beck’. Although the Buxton hoard is located close to these water sources, it does not appear to have been deposited into water.

In terms of ‘landscape’ location there is a degree of variation as to the types of locations into which these hoards were deposited. The hoard at Fring (9) is placed on a relatively high spot in the landscape, whereas the hoard from Wormegay is in a low-lying position on the edge of the flat fenland landscape. There is, though, an apparent correlation between water and Gallo-Belgic coin

Finally, is the hoard from Weybourne. This hoard was following its erosion out of the cliff and falling onto the beach. It can be assumed that this hoard was certainly interred in relatively close proximity to the sea.

52

COINS: DEPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION the north coast. As was noted with the distribution of single finds of Gallo-Belgic coins, single finds of British gold coin types are not confined to the north and west of the county, they are much more evenly dispersed (map 13).

hoards. Six of the seven hoards are located within close proximity to a water source, whether the fens, a river or the sea. Finally, none of the hoards are situated within close proximity to Barrows or other ‘historic’ features, but at least two are located in places near to Roman routeways.

The hoard from Runton was recovered on the beach. It seems that this hoard had washed out of the cliff. If there are more coins associated with it, they have not yet been found. Given the circumstances of this hoard, it is not possible to state whether it was located within a settlement. Within a two kilometre radius around the hoard, eight percent of archaeological locations or sites have produced Iron Age material. On current evidence, it appears that this area was not densely populated or utilised in the Iron Age in comparison to other parts of the county.

British gold coins There are three hoards of British gold coins which, as discussed in chapter four, are understood to post-date the Gallo-Belgic hoards. These hoards have been recovered from Runton (14), Heacham (15) and Snettisham (16). The hoard from Snettisham, which does not derive from the ‘gold-field’ where the torcs were found, is the largest and most diverse of the British Gold hoards from the county. It comprises forty-four Norfolk Wolf staters and 43 ‘Snettisham’ staters; a type that derives from the Whaddon Chase (British L) type. There is one quarter stater (British Qc) and rather unusually, three early FaceHorse silver coins. The mixing of silver and gold coins in one hoard is extremely rare; indeed, this is the only coin hoard in the county that such a mix is known. The hoard from Snettisham was recovered between 1987 and 1988 by a metal-detectorist. As is often the case with coin hoards, it had been dispersed through the action of agricultural machinery and was found in area spanning twenty by ten metres.

The hoard from Heacham (15) is in an area where there is more material dating to the Iron Age in the vicinity. Twelve percent of findspots within a two kilometre square around the site have produced Iron Age material. There are a few artefacts that date to the later Iron Age known from the immediate vicinity of the hoard, although being mainly first century AD bow brooches, it is likely that they post-date the coin hoard. There is not, then, on current knowledge, evidence for contemporary settlement or occupation activity at the location from which the coins were recovered, however, it is possible that there may have been settlement not too distant from the site, possible post-dating the hoard.

The hoard from Runton is considerably smaller, with only two coins of late Freckenham type. Like the earlier hoard of Gallo-Belgic E and D coins from Weybourne, this small collection of coins was found on the beach. Finally, the third hoard of British coins from Norfolk recovered in Heacham was discovered piecemeal by metal-detector over a period of four years from 1991 to 1995. This collection of coins consists of nine Norfolk Wolf staters and two ‘Snettisham’ type staters.

The hoard from Snettisham (16), like that from Heacham (15), does not on current evidence appear to be directly associated with occupation or other activities. There is, in the local vicinity scattered evidence of later Iron Age material in the form of the occasional find of a silver coin, fragments of pottery and bow brooches, although once again the majority of this material is probably not directly contemporary. Tony Gregory suggests in his discussion of the Snettisham hoard ‘that it is isolated from any possible settlement areas’ (1992b, 50). Although apparently not directly associated with occupation activity, the hoard from Snettisham (16) is

County wide distribution In terms of county-wide distribution, British gold coins reflect a similar pattern to that of Gallo-Belgic coin hoards and torc hoards. Two of the hoards are located in the north-west of the county and the other is situated on

Evidence for other Later Iron Age Material at the location Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

14 15

Runton Heacham

16

Snettisham

N N LIA material in the vicinity N Some LIA material in the vicinity

Catalogue Number

53

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 8% : 9 out of 107 12% : 17 out of 140 29% : 29 out of 100

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Map 13: Distribution of British gold single coins and hoards

northerly reaches of the salt fen. The coins from Runton (14) are situated further round the north coast and like those from Weybourne (12), must have been deposited within view of the sea.

located in a landscape where a range of later Iron Age material culture was entering the archaeological record. Twenty-nine percent of all archaeological findspots within two kilometres of the hoard location have produced Iron Age material.

Proximity to ‘historic’ features Nature of ‘landscape’ location Catalogue Number 14

Site Name and landscape region Runton N-E Norfolk

15

Heacham Salt Fen (bottom of W. Escarpment) Snettisham Good Sands

16

Catalogue Number 14 15 16

Landscape Location ?m OD Close to water Cliff – fallen onto beach. 5m OD Close to water Edge of salt fen. 60m OD Highspot

Site Name Runton Heacham Snettisham

Proximity Features N N N

to

historic

None of the British gold coin hoards are located in the immediate vicinity of earlier monuments in the landscape. Proximity to boundaries and routeways

British Gold Coin hoards appear to be interred in a variety of situations. The Snettisham (16) hoard, like a number of torc deposits and the Gallo-Belgic coin hoard from Fring (9), is located on a highspot in the landscape at approximately 60 metres above present day sea level. The Heacham (15) hoard, on the other hand is situated at around five metres above present day sea level, in a position not dissimilar to the Gallo-Belgic C hoard from Ingoldisthorpe (8); essentially, it lies on the edge of

Catalogue Number 14 15 16

Site Name Runton Heacham Snettisham

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways N N N

None of the British Gold coin hoards are located in close proximity to known historic boundaries or routeways.

54

COINS: DEPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION piece-meal over a period of four years from 1991 to 1994. In total 192 silver units have now been recovered along with a vessel into which the hoard was placed. The remaining Icenian hoards from the county are much smaller and have, as yet, not been published.

Summary As with Gallo-Belgic coins, there is a difference in the distribution of single finds and hoards. The hoards are situated to the north and the west of the county, whereas single finds are distributed across the county. There is also an apparent relationship between water and the location of British gold hoards, with the exception of the Snettisham hoard, which is located off the top of a hill. None of the British gold coins, on present evidence, were interred in areas directly associated with occupation. There is evidence for later Iron material in the immediate vicinity of both the sites at Heacham and Snettisham. The hoards are not, however, in remote parts of the landscapes, there is evidence of other Iron Age material within a two kilometre square area around each of the locations. None of the British gold hoards were located near to known historic routeways or earlier monuments.

The smallest collection of coins that has been interpreted as part of a hoard was recovered near Dereham (20), again in central Norfolk, in 1995. In total eight coins were recovered ‘in a small concentration’ comprising four Icenian silver units and four Roman silver denarii dating from 89 BC to AD 37 (Davies 1995). From North Creake (19) sixteen coins were found by metal-detector over a period of several years in the early 1990s. This hoard, which was spread over an area of ten square metres, consists of fifteen Iceni silver units and one republican denarii dated to 103BC. The final hoard of Iceni coins under study in this research was recovered in Forncett (21 in south Norfolk in 1996 by metal-detector. This hoard, which was spread over a contained area within five square metres, consists of fourteen coins. Ten were identified as Iceni silver units, although unfortunately the types were not recorded. The other four were Roman silver denarii, two republican and two Tiberian.

Silver coins As well as hoards and single finds of gold coins, there are at least nine silver coin hoards known from the area. Silver coin hoards, as established in chapter four, postdate the gold coin hoards and make up the majority of the material that has been attributed to phase-two (later first century BC – mid first century AD).

In addition to the seven hoards described above, there are two other hoards of silver coins that have been included in the research. These two hoards, one from Norton-subCourse (24) and one from Needham (25) in the south-east of the county comprise entirely Roman silver denarii. The reason for including them in the research is that they both consist of coins that date to or pre-date AD60/61. This is the date, as discussed in the introduction, of the Boudican rebellion and the date usually attributed to the end of the Iron Age in this region. Although these hoards consist of Roman coins, they are coins that date to the Iron Age in northern East Anglia, rather than what is considered as the Roman period ‘proper’. The smallest of these hoards is the collection of coins from Needham (25) where only eight coins were recovered during archaeological field work in 1992. The dates of the coins from this site range from 109 BC to AD 60/61. From Norton-sub-Course (24) a total 116 coins have been recovered, ranging in date from 150 BC through to AD41/2.

The largest of the silver Icenian coin hoards known from Norfolk was recovered in Honingham (22) in central Norfolk in 1954-5. This particular collection of coins, found whilst hoeing sugar-beet, was contained within a small pot which survived at the time of discovery (Clarke 1956, 1). In total, 340 coins were recovered in association with the pot, all of which were Icenian silver units. Over thirty years later, in 1988 a further three coins were recovered from the same location, suggesting they may have been part of the original hoard. The total coin count from Honingham (22) now stands at 344. The next two largest hoards from the county were discovered in Scole (17) in the central southern part of the county, and Weston Longville (23), which like the Honingham hoard (22) is situated in central Norfolk. The hoard from Western Longville (23), which was recovered in 1852 whilst digging a ditch on the edge of heathland was also interred within a vessel. Unlike the collection from Honingham (22) this hoard includes three Roman denarii the latest of which is dated to AD30 (RoachSmith 1853; Green SMR 7720). The hoard from Scole, which was found during building works in the early 1980s, also includes a number of Roman denarii. Of the 289 coins, eighty-seven are Roman denarii, the latest of which is Neronian dating to AD60/61 (Burnett & Bland 1986).

County-wide distribution When plotting the distribution of silver coin hoards across the county, there is a marked difference in their distribution compared to that of gold coin hoards. Two of the hoards are located in the north-west of the county, where the hoards of gold coin and torcs cluster and the remaining seven are situated in the centre and south-east (map 14). This distribution is not reflected in the overall distribution of single finds of silver coins, where they seem in general to be dispersed across the county (map 15). In addition, this pattern is not reflected in the ‘scatters’ of Iceni coins which are located in a band across the southern part of the county, with at least one

The only hoard that resembles the collection from Honingham in so far as it lacks any Roman coins, is that recovered in Fring (18) in north-west Norfolk (Chadburn & Gurney 1991). This particular hoard was recovered 55

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Evidence of other Iron Age material at the location Catalogue Number

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

17 18

Scole Fring

19

North Creake

20 21 22

Dereham Forncett Honingham

RB town Y In dense LIA landscape Y LIA material in the immediate vicinity N N N

23 24

Weston Longville Norton-sub-Course

25

Needham

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 4% : 3 out of 69 33% : 23 out of 67 5% : 4 out of 82 8% : 6 out of 73 11% : 13 out of 123 4% : 3 out of 73

N

1% : 1 out of 71

Y Within 100m of RB site Y RB in vicinity 1st century AD

5% : 5 out of 101

Map 14: Distribution of silver coin hoards

56

5%

COINS: DEPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION

Map 15: Distribution of single silver coins

‘scatter’ in the north. That the general distribution of single finds of these coins does not reflect the more discreet distribution of the hoards is a pattern also seen in the gold coins.

have been recovered from the surrounding area suggesting it was not a remote location. This hoard is also situated approximately one kilometre away from the gold coin hoard on the opposite side of the valley.

Of the nine hoards of silver coins, only one has direct archaeological evidence of having been located within the immediate vicinity of a first century AD settlement. This is the site at Scole (17) where excavations have produced the remains of a Romano-British town. Of the other sites, the hoard from North Creake (19) seems to be situated in close proximity to some first century AD material as evidenced by a number of brooch and coin finds in the adjacent field. In addition, a late Iron Age terret type was found in the immediate area (107). Although it would seem that the hoard was not necessarily buried within a settlement, occupation or activity of a potentially contemporary nature is located in the surrounding area. This seems to be the case for both the hoards of preconquest Roman silver denarii. Neither appear on present evidence to be situated within a settlement, but there appears to be potentially contemporary material in the vicinity. In particular, just to the east of the hoard at Needham (25), there is a Romano-British Kiln site with a range of associated material culture dating from the first century AD onwards. Within 100 metres of Norton–SubCourse (24) there is evidence of a Romano-British settlement, however, the date range and extent of this site is unknown. Although there have been no other finds in the immediate location of the hoard at Fring (18), there are a number of items of first century AD material that

None of the other sites appear to be located within close proximity to occupation. Despite some metal-detecting in the area of the Honingham hoard (22) in the late 1980s, no other later Iron Age or early Roman material was recovered. Within a two kilometre square around the hoard from Honingham (22), only four percent of sites have produced Iron Age material. The same is true of the Weston Longville (23) hoard where a metal-detector survey carried out in the late 1980s failed to find material of any date in the immediate vicinity; furthermore, only one percent of archaeological findspots within a two kilometre square around the site have produced Iron Age material. The site from where the hoard of silver coins was found in the parish of Dereham (20) also appears to be devoid of other archaeological material, despite having been metal-detected in the 1990s. The surrounding landscape has produced a higher number of Iron Age finds (eight percent of findspots), but this represents a below average percentage in terms of Iron Age material culture. Finally, the site at Forncett (21) appears to be equally isolated in terms of contemporary material within the immediate vicinity of the findspot, however, within a 2 kilometre square area around the site, eleven percent of sites have produced Iron Age material. 57

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Nature of ‘landscape’ location Catalogue Number 17 18 19

Site Name and landscape region

Landscape Location

Scole Clay

25m OD Close to water 150m from the river Waveney 30m Hillside location towards valley bottom 25m OD Close to water 40m from the river Burn 55m OD Highspot high plateau 40m OD gently undulating landscape 44m OD Highspot off the top of the hill 35m OD Highspot Just off hilltop 5m OD Close to water low lying landscape, off Norton marshes 30m OD Close to water Overlooking river Waveney

Fring Good Sands North Creake Good Sands

20

Dereham Claylands

21

Forncett Claylands Honingham N-E Norfolk

22 23 24 25

Weston Longville N-E Norfolk Norton-sub-Course Broadland Needham Clayland

meadows. It is probable that this location would have been dry when the hoard was deposited, although it was overlooking a marshy, wet area. Norton-Sub-Course (24) was recovered at a height of approximately five metres above present day sea level in a low lying landscape overlooking Norton marshes and the hoard from Needham (25) is located at thirty metres above present day sea level overlooking the River Waveney, which is between 200 and 300 metres away. The hoard from Forncett (21) was recovered at a height of forty metres above present day sea level within 150 metres of the nearest water source. The landscape in this region of the county is gently undulating.

Silver coin hoards appear to have been deposited in a variety of locations. There are a number of sites that seem to occupy ‘off-hilltop’ locations, these include Weston Longville (23), Honingham (22) and Dereham (20). Weston Longville (23) is situated near the top of a steep slope at approximately thirty –five metres above present day sea level. The same is true of Honingham (22), which is situated near the top of the valley at a height of forty-four metres above present day sea level, overlooking the river Tudd. The Dereham (20) hoard echoes that of Weston Longville (23) and Honingham (22). It is located at fifty-five metres above present day sea level, in a gently rolling landscape. It is, however, 450 metres from the nearest present day water source and in an area from which nothing else dated to the later Iron Age and early Roman period have been recovered, thus supporting the suggestion that this hoard is rather isolated. The site at Fring (18) is around thirty metres above present day sea level, near the base of the valley, overlooking the modern village of Fring.

Proximity to ‘historic’ features Catalogue Number 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

North Creake (19), Scole (17) and Norton-sub-Course (24) and Needham (25) are all placed in relatively lower lying positions within close proximity to waterways or water meadows. North Creake (19) is situated at a height of twenty-five metres above present day sea level, at approximately thirty metres from the present course of the River Bure. Scole (17) is also situated at approximately twenty metres above present day sea level, with the hoard located just off the modern water

24 25

Site Name Scole Fring North Creake Dereham Forncett Honingham Weston Longville Norton-sub-Course Needham

Proximity Features N N N N N N N

to

Historic

N N

None of the silver coin hoards are located within close proximity to earlier monuments within the landscape.

58

COINS: DEPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION through the sequence, the ratio between the number of coins found in hoards compared to singletons changes. For example, approximately 442 Gallo-Belgic E coins are known from Norfolk. Of these only twenty (four percent) have been recovered as single finds, the rest are known from hoards. Only a small percentage of Gallo-Belgic coins were entering the archaeological record as single finds. By way of contrast, of the eighty-three examples of Norfolk Wolf staters from Norfolk, thirty (thirty-six percent) were recovered as single finds. A similar pattern is seen in the silver coin single/hoard finds ratio. For example, over 350 locations in Norfolk have produced single silver Iceni coins, making a total of approximately 530 single finds. The number of coins recovered from the hoards in Norfolk currently stands at approximately 1050, making a (probably conservative) total of approximately 1580 silver coins known from the county. Therefore, from the authors survey, approximately thirtythree percent of silver coins seem to be entering the archaeological record as single finds rather than in hoards.

Proximity to boundaries or routeways Catalogue Number 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Site Name Scole Fring North Creake Dereham Forncett Honingham Weston Longville Norton-subCourse Needham

Proximity to Boundaries or Routeways Y Pye Road N N N N N N N N

Of the silver coin hoards, only Scole is situated close to a known historic routeway; the Pye road. None of the other silver coin hoards appears to be associated with known routeways or boundaries. Summary Of the nine silver coin hoards, five are located in close proximity to later Iron Age material (Scole 17, North Creake 19, Fring 18, Norton-sub-course 24, Norton 25). Three of these five are the latest of the coin hoards (17, 24, 25, see chapter four). It would seem then, on current evidence, that there is a general trend towards the end of the silver coin hoard sequence for deposition in close proximity to settlement. All those hoards associated in close proximity to other later Iron Age material, are also in close proximity to water. By way of contrast the three examples located within higher spots in the landscape (20, 21, 23) are relatively isolated in terms of evidence for later Iron Age material in the immediate and surrounding area. These three hoards are also clustered in the centre of the county within ten kilometres of each other.

In terms of location there are a number of trends that can be documented through the coin sequence. First and foremost, it would seem that, like the torc hoards, coin hoards are not deposited with reference to earlier historic monuments in the landscape. In addition, the majority are not located in close proximity to known routeways and boundaries. In terms of landscape location, there is variety in the places into which the hoards were interred. Within this variety, however, there seems to be a relationship between coin hoards and rivers; although only one of the hoards (Wormegay Gallo-Belgic E hoard) was placed in a location that may have been wet during the Iron Age. As we move through the series, there seems to be more of an emphasis on placing hoards in areas where there is evidence of later Iron material, potentially occupation activity. For example, only two of the six Gallo-Belgic hoards seem to be located within close proximity of settlement sites (Ingoldisthorpe 8 and Sedgeford 13). In addition, two of the three British coin hoards are located in areas where there appears to be later Iron Age activity of some kind close by (Heacham 15 and Snettisham 16). However, of the nine silver coin hoards studied, at least five are situated in areas where there is possible occupation in the immediate vicinity (Scole 17, Fring 18, Needham 25, Norton-sub-Course and North Creake 19). There are then a number of changes in distribution and deposition of coin hoards through time. These changes will be discussed alongside torcs and items of horse equipment within a broader historical and social framework in chapter nine.

Gold and silver coins: patterns in distribution and deposition The coin hoards under study in this research date from the late second century BC through to the middle of the first century AD. It is the only data set where we can be confident of the sequence; and there are a number of changes that can be documented through this sequence. First and foremost, it becomes apparent that gold coin hoards, Gallo-Belgic and British, cluster in the north and west of the county, reflecting the distribution of the earlier torc hoards. The silver coin hoards, which are of a later date, break this mould and are located across the county with two in the north and west and the others located in the centre and south-eastern areas of the county. Despite the move away from the focus of hoarding in the north and west by the first century AD, all three groups of coins are similar in terms of the distribution of single finds. Unlike the hoards, these do not seem to cluster in one area of the county, but are more evenly distributed across the region. As we move 59

Chapter 8 Horse Equipment: Distribution and Deposition nearer the centre of the county, with the Santon hoard situated on the modern Norfolk/Suffolk border, just to the east of Thetford (map 16).

Introduction This chapter deals with the final category of material under study in this research: horse equipment. The aim of this chapter is to present in detail, patterns in the distribution and deposition of items of horse equipment across the landscape of Norfolk. Of all the categories this is the largest and like the coin hoards, spans all three phases. As with torcs and coins, each location from which an item of horse equipment has been recovered will be considered following the criteria set out in chapter five. First, the countywide distribution of the locations will be examined. This will be followed by a consideration of the evidence for other later Iron Age material in the immediate area. Next, the percentage of sites within a two kilometre area around each location that have produced other later Iron Age material will be investigated; the average being ten percent (see appendix 1). Finally, the nature of the landscape location, proximity to ‘historic’ features, boundaries and routeways will be considered. In the first instance, hoards of horse equipment will be discussed; the rest of the chapter presents, in detail, information regarding the distribution and deposition of single items of horse equipment by phase and by type. On diagnostic, phased single items of horse equipment are discussed in detail within this chapter, the aim being to understand patterns in the distribution of horse equipment through time.

Evidence for other Later Iron Age Material at the location

In the final section of this chapter, the discussion will focus on the nature of deposits of horse equipment. In total this research has surveyed 137 items of horse equipment. Twenty-five of these derive from hoards. The first section of the discussion will focus on assessing whether it is possible that single items of horse equipment potentially derive from hoards. In addition, changes in the deposition and distribution of horse equipment through time will be discussed.

Catalogue Numbers

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

30, 31, 42

Ringstead

N

32, 43, 124, 125, 126, 127

Ovington, Saham Tony

68, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118

Quidney Farm, Saham Tony

33, 34, 52

Quidney Farm, Saham Tony

35, 69, 70

Santon

Y Deposited in a rectilinear enclosure known as High Banks Y Site of LIA metalworking Y Site of LIA metalworking Y LIA/RB material in immediate vicinity

% of sites that have produced IA material within a two kilometres square (average = 10%) 6% : 7 out of 125 14% : 14 out of 97

19% : 15 out of 78 19% : 15 out of 78 13% : 8 out of 63

The phase-one hoard from Ringstead, seems, on current knowledge to have been deposited in a relatively remote location. Excavations at the location from which the hoard was recovered, produced no other late Iron Age material (Clarke 1951a, 215). Within a two kilometre square area around the hoard, only six percent of sites (seven out of 125 locations) have produced Iron Age material. By way of contrast, the three phase-three hoards from the parish of Saham Tony are all located within areas that have produced other first century AD artefacts. This suggests that these hoards were not deposited into the ground in remote places. For example, the two hoards from Quidney Farm were found in association with a later Iron Age ‘industrial’ site (Bates 2000). The excavations undertaken at the site have produced little evidence of crop processing, an activity usually associated with settlement occupation. There is little cess, supporting the suggestion that the site was not a settlement. However, there is evidence of metalworking from the site, and it would appear that specific woods, such as the heartwood of Oak, were being selected for their thermal properties, presumably to be used in the smelting of metal (Gale 2000, 233).

Hoards Four hoards of late Iron Age metalwork that have horse equipment as their dominant component are known from Norfolk, and one composite hoard that includes a number of items of horse equipment. The earliest of these hoards is the collection from Ringstead, which has been attributed to phase-one (see chapter four). The other four hoards, two from Quidney Farm, Saham Tony. One from Ovington, Saham Tony and the Santon hoard are all attributed to phase three. County Wide Distribution In terms of county-wide distribution, it can be seen that the Ringstead hoard is situated in the north-west of the county. This location is similar to the distribution of torc and gold coin hoards. The other hoards are all located

The Ovington hoard, which was recovered from a 60

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION

Map 16: Distribution of hoards of horse equipment

rectilinear enclosure known as ‘High Banks’ may also have been deposited in an area of other later Iron Age/early Roman activity. The date of the ‘High Banks’ enclosure is unclear, however, there has been a quantity of early Roman pottery including a first century AD component, recovered in and around the enclosure (Bates 2000, 203; Norfolk SMR, sites 16140, 25782).

Nature of ‘landscape’ location

As well as having been deposited in sites where there was other contemporary ‘activity’, in the immediate hinterland around both Quidney Farm and Ovington there is evidence for other Iron Age material. Within a two kilometre square around Quidney Farm, nineteen percent of archaeological sites have produced Iron Age material, and fourteen percent of findspots have produced Iron Age material around the site at Ovington.

Catalogue Numbers 30, 31, 42

Site Name and landscape region Ringstead Good Sands

32, 43, 124, 125, 126, 127 68, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 33, 34, 52

Ovington, Saham Tony Claylands Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Claylands Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Claylands Santon Breckland

35, 69, 70

Like the Saham Tony hoards, the composite hoard from Santon was also located in a place that has produced a number of other later Iron Age/Roman artefacts. Thirteen percent of sites within a two kilometre square around the site have also produced Iron Age material, supporting the suggestion that Santon was not located in a remote area of the Iron Age landscape.

Landscape Location 41m OD Highspot Overlooking the Wash 75m OD Highspot On high plateau 80m OD Highspot On high plateau 80m OD Highspot On high plateau 10m OD Close to Water Within 50m of Little Ouse river

The hoard of horse equipment from Ringstead was recovered at a height of approximately forty metres above present day sea level. It is situated on a ridgeway that looks north towards the coast at Holme-next-the-Sea. The site of Quidney Farm, Saham Tony is situated at just over

61

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Summary

eighty metres above present day sea level. Similarly, the Ovington hoard is located on a high spot in the landscape at approximately seventy-five metres above present day sea level. These two sites are located on a relatively high plateau in central Norfolk, both occupying high points on the plateau. By way of contrast, the hoard from Santon is situated at about ten metres above present day sea level, within fifty metres of the Little Ouse River. Although this hoard was deposited in a valley near to the river, it is unlikely that it was placed into water as the iron components of the hoard remain (Spratling 1966, 1).

The Ringstead hoard, which is the earliest of the hoards of horse equipment, appears to have been deposited within a remote isolated location. It does, however, seem to be situated in close proximity to a routeway. It is also located at a relatively high point in the landscape overlooking Holme-next-the-Sea. Interestingly, although the hoard is not located within close proximity to earlier monuments, the Bronze Age ritual site of ‘sea-henge’ would have been visible from the Ringstead site. In addition, it is situated in the north-west of the county, the region where torc hoards of a potentially similar date have been found.

Proximity to ’historic’ features Catalogue Numbers 30, 31, 42 32, 43, 124, 125, 126, 127 68, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 33, 34, 52 35, 69, 70

Site Name Ringstead Ovington, Saham Tony

Proximity Features N N

Quidney Farm, Saham Tony

N

Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Santon

N

to

Historic

The nature of the locations from which the Quidney Farm and Ovington hoards were recovered is quite different. They are also situated in high spots within the landscape, but rather than being isolated, it is probably that the sites were the focus of later Iron Age activity. The activities taking place on these sites does not appear to be directly associated with settlement. The excavations at Quidney Farm have produced evidence suggesting that this site was involved with the production of metal and was not a place of permanent settlement. Unfortunately, the enclosure at Ovington from which the other Saham Tony hoard was discovered has not been investigated in any detail, but other rectilinear sites in the region, including the site just to the north at Ashill, have produced evidence of ritual activity. In particular, the site at Ashill enclosed three wood-lined wells or shafts, one of which contained a number of complete urns dating from AD50-90 (Gregory 1977). It is possible, therefore, that the enclosure at Ovington, may potentially be related to ritual rather than settlement activity. It was noted that the majority of the material associated with the Ovington enclosure is of Roman date, with an early Roman component. If this hoard is associated with the use of the enclosure, it supports the proposal that this collection of horse equipment is late in date, potentially late first century AD or beyond (see chapter four).

N

None of the hoards of horse equipment are located within close proximity to ‘historic’ features in the landscape. Proximity to ‘boundaries’ and routeways Catalogue Numbers 30, 31, 42

Site Name Ringstead

32, 43, 124, 125, 126, 127 68, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 33, 34, 52

Ovington, Saham Tony

35, 69, 70

Santon

Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Quidney Farm, Saham Tony

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways Y Within 10m of ‘Green Bank’, possible prehistoric trackway abutting the Icknield way. N 500m from possible Roman road N 200m north of possible Roman road N 200m north of possible Roman road N

The composite hoard from Santon which is also attributed to phase-three is, like the Saham Tony hoards, in an area where there seems to be some degree of other later Iron Age/early Roman activity. However, unlike the hoards from Saham Tony, this hoard is located in a valley off the floodplain of the river Little Ouse; a potentially suitable settlement location.

Only the Ringstead hoard appears to be directly related to a routeway. This hoard was deposited within ten metres of a trackway known as ‘Green Bank’ which abuts the Icknield way, a circumstance that led R. Rainbird Clarke to suggest that the hoard had been buried hurriedly by a ‘wayfaring metalsmith beset by sudden danger’ (Clarke 1951a, 224). The site of Quidney farm lies approximately 200m north of the postulated route of a Roman road (Bates 2000, 202). It is also within one and a half kilometres of the Panworth ditch (Bates 2000, 202). The hoard from Ovington is situated approximately half a kilometre south of the same postulated Roman road. There is no evidence that the site at Santon was situated on a routeway.

Single finds of horse equipment Due to the large number of single finds of horse equipment they will be organised and discussed by material type and phase. There is only one single item of horse equipment that has been attributed to phase-one. This is a bridle-bit from Swanton Morley (26) (Green 1967) situated in the middle 62

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION Phase-one (second century BC – mid-first century BC) Bridle-bit

Catalogue Number

Site Name and Complete landscape Artefact region

26

Swanton Morley Claylands

Y

LIA activity

% of sites with IA Proximity material to earlier within two monuments kilometres

Route Way

Natural Feature

N

4% : 3 out of N 74

N

33mOD west facing slope

Strap-union

Catalogue Number

36

Site Name and Complete landscape Artefact region

Burgh Castle Broadland

Y

LIA activity

N

% of sites with IA material within two kilometres

4% : 5 out of 119

Proximity to earlier monuments

Route Way

N

?Y on straight routeway leading to Burgh Castle

Natural Feature 10m Close to Water Off the floodplain of the river Yare

appear, on current evidence, to have entered the archaeological record in relatively remote places. The pattern for the early single finds, therefore, reflects the situation of the phase-one hoard of horse equipment from Ringstead, which was also located in an apparently isolated location.

of the county. This ‘three-link’ bridle-bit is complete and was recovered by chance. It was located at thirty-three metres above present day sea level on a west facing slope in an area where there does not appear to be other later Iron Age material in direct association. Within a two kilometres square around the bit, only four percent of findspots have produced evidence of Iron Age material (three out of seventy-four total findspots), and it is not situated within close proximity to any earlier monuments. It would seem that this bridle-bit was deposited in a relatively remote location.

Phase 2/3 (mid-first century BC – first century AD) Terrets There are seventeen terrets that have been attributed to phases-two/three. These seventeen examples have been divided into two groups: miscellaneous ‘flat-ring’ types and terrets with three ‘lipped’ mouldings around the ring.

The only other single find that is attributed to phase-one is a strap-union recovered from Burgh Castle (36). This strap-union, which is complete, was recovered at approximately ten metres above present day sea level off the flooplain of the river Yare. It is not in close proximity to an earlier prehistoric monument, but it does appear to be situated on a routeway that leads to the Roman site of Burgh Castle. This site is a ‘Saxon-Shore’ fort, which post-dates this particular artefact, therefore, it is likely that this strap-union is also located in an isolated environment. Only four percent of archaeological findspots in this area have produced Iron Age material (five out of 119)

Terrets: miscellaneous ‘flat-ring’ types Catalogue Number 92 93 94 95 96

Site Name

Complete

Burlingham Cawston Wyndomham West Rudham Hockwold

Y Y Y N Y

Countywide Distribution The five terrets that make the miscellaneous ‘flat-ring’ group (92, 93, 94, 95, 96) seem to be distributed across the county (map 17). Three of the examples are complete (92, 94 and 96), with one near complete example (93).

To summarise, there is very little horse equipment that can be attributed to phase-one. Those items that do appear to date from the second/early first centuries BC

63

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Map 17: Distribution of miscellaneous flat-ring terrets

apparent density of Iron Age material in their immediate surroundings. Within a two kilometre square around the terret find from Hockwold (96) and Burlingham (92), eighteen percent and seventeen percent respectively of sites have produced Iron Age material. Around the West Rudham site ten percent of sites have produced Iron Age material, whereas in the vicinity of Wymondham and Cawston there is relatively little Iron Age material known. Only two percent and three percent of findspots respectively have produced Iron Age artefacts.

Evidence for other Later Iron Age Material at the location Catalogue Number

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

92

Burlingham

N

93

Cawston

N

94

Wyndomham

95

West Rudham

96

Hockwold

Y RB, little LIA Y Little LIA material N

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 17% : 5 out of 30 3% : 3 out of 111 2% : 4 out of 171

Nature of ‘landscape’ location

10% : 7 out of 73

Catalogue Number 92

18% : 17 out of 93

93

Only two examples, one from West Rudham (95) and one from Wymondham (94) appear to have entered the archaeological record in a place where other Iron Age material has been recovered. There are a few items of later Iron Age material known from West Rudham, however, the example from Wymondham appears to derive from an area where the emphasis is on RomanoBritish material culture rather than later Iron Age, although there a few finds of first century AD date. There is also a great deal of variety in terms of the

64

Site Name and landscape region Burlingham N-E Norfolk Cawston N-E Norfolk

94

Wyndomham Claylands

95

West Rudham Good Sands

96

Hockwold Breckland

Landscape Location 24m OD flat landscape 48m OD gently undulating landscape 45m gently undulating landscape 62m OD Highspot on a north slope – off the top of the hill. 3m OD Close to water Within 200m of the river Little Ouse – valley bottom (fen)

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION

Map 18: Distribution of three-lipped terrets

In terms of natural ‘features’, the example from Hockwold (95) is situated at approximately three metres above present day sea level within 200 metres of the river Little Ouse. By way of contrast, the example from West Rudham (95) is located at sixty-two metres above present day sea level on a north facing slope off the top of the hill. The other three are located in gently undulating and relatively flat landscape, neither on hill tops or sides or within close proximity to water. .

Proximity to boundaries and routeways Catalogue Number 92

Site Name

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways N – within 200m of parish boundary N – on the Holt road

Burlingham

93

Cawston

94

Wyndomham

95

West Rudham

N – within 200m of parish boundary N

96

Hockwold

N

Proximity to ’historic’ features Catalogue Number 92

Site Name Burlingham

Proximity Features N

93

Cawston

N

94

Wyndomham

N

95

West Rudham

N

96

Hockwold

N

to

None of the miscellaneous ‘flat-ring’ terrets appear to be situated on known prehistoric or Roman routeways. However, the terret from Cawston (93) was recovered on the modern Holt road, which may be a continuation of the Roman road known from Brampton. In addition, both the examples from Wymondham (94) and Burlingham (92) are located within 200m of modern parish boundaries, it is possible that parish boundaries follow earlier features in the landscape such as old trackways or routeways.

Historic

None of the terrets is located within close proximity to earlier ‘historic’ features within the landscape.

65

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Summary There seems to be no distinctive pattern in the locations where these ‘flat-ring’ terret types were entering the archaeological record. They are not exclusively near to rivers or on hill-tops and there is no pattern as to where the complete examples are occurring compared to the broken examples. Two of the terrets are potentially related to settlement activity, however, it is interesting to note that the site at Wymondham, which appears to be predominantly Roman, is located in an area where relatively little Iron Age material has been recovered, suggesting that this was not a densely occupied or utlised area in the later Iron Age. By way of contrast, although not directly associated with other material, both the Hockwold and Burlingham terrets are located in landscapes where there is a fairly dense distribution of Iron Age material known.

Evidence for later Iron Age activity at the location Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

97

Ashill

98

Fincham

99

BuxtonwithLammas Wainford Mill Longham Caistor St Edmund

Y LIA/RB Y Close to large IA RB scatter N

100 101 102

Terrets with three ‘lipped’ decorative mouldings Catalogue Number 97

Catalogue Number

103

Banham

104 105

Bawsey Little Barningha m Field Dalling North Creake

Site Name

Complete

Ashill

Y

98

Fincham

N

99

Buxton-with-Lammas

Y

106

100

Wainford Mill

N

107

101

Longham

Y

102

Caistor St Edmund

N

103

Banham

N

104

Bawsey

N

105

Little Barningham

N

106

Field Dalling

N

107

North Creake

Y

108

Thurlton

N

108

Thurlton

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 18% : 23 out of 129 15% : 36 out of 237 6% : 14 out of 223

Y LIA material N Y RB – little LIA Y Little LIA and RB N N

18% : 11 out of 60 9% : 8 out of 93 10% : 26 out of 269

N

14% : 13 out of 96 5% : 4 out of 82

Y LIA material in the immediate vicinity N

11% : 6 out of 57 7% : 7 out of 102 10% : 7 out of 71

5% : 3 out of 62

Of the twelve terrets, only six of them appear to have entered the archaeological record in places where there is evidence for other later Iron Age material. The site at Banham (103) has produced later Iron Age and Roman material, and at North Creake (107) there is also evidence of later Iron Age and Roman material. Indeed, this terret is located within close proximity to the hoard of silver coins known from North Creake (107). One of the terrets (97) was recovered in the parish of Ashill within relatively close proximity to the rectilinear enclosure with the three wood-lined wells or shafts (Gregory 1977). One example was recovered near the Roman town of Venta Icenorum in east Norfolk, a location that has also produced evidence of later Iron Age activity. Both the examples from Fincham (98) and Wainford Mill near Ditchingham (100) are located in close proximity to scatters of Iceni coins.

In total there are twelve examples of terrets with three ‘lipped’ decorative mouldings around the ring (97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108). Of these twelve, only four examples are complete (97, 99, 101, 107). County Wide Distribution As with the miscellaneous ‘flat-ring’ terret types, there appears to be no distinctive clustering of terrets with three ‘lipped’ decorative mouldings across the county. Despite the relatively small sample, they seem to be fairly evenly distributed (map 18).

The other six terrets with three ‘lipped’ decorative mouldings were not recovered in direct association with other later Iron Age material. This does not mean, though, that they are in isolated locations. The example from Field Dalling (105) is located in an area where there have been a substantial number of Iron Age finds, fourteen percent of findspots within a two kilometres square area around the terret find have produced Iron Age material.

66

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION runs at right angles to the route of the Roman road. Two other of the three ‘lipped’ terrets were found in locations that are close to modern parish boundaries or routeways.

Nature of ‘landscape’ location Catalogue Number 97

Site Name and landscape region Ashill Claylands

98

Fincham W.Escarpment

99

Buxton-withLammas N-E Norfolk

100

101 102 103

Wainford Mill Claylands

Longham Claylands Caistor St Edmund Claylands Banham Breckland

104

Bawsey Salt Fen

105

Little Barningham N-E Norfolk

106

107 108

Field Dalling Good Sands North Creake Good Sands Thurlton Broadland

Landscape Location 78m OD Highspot On high plateau 31m OD Highspot Hill top 16m OD Close to water Flat landscape – off the floodplain of the Bure 4m OD Close to water Flood plain of Chainbridge Beck a tributary to the Waveney. 55m OD Highspot Plateau 30m OD gently undulating landscape 45m OD Highspot Plateau area 5m OD Close to water Fenland island 50m OD Highspot Off the top of the slope in an area of rolling country side. 45m OD Highspot West facing slope on a ridge 25m OD Close to water 40m from the river Burn 8m OD Close to water Just off river Waveney floodplain

Proximity to Historic Features Catalogue Number 97

Site Name Ashill

Proximity to Historic Features N

98

Fincham

N

99

Buxton-with-Lammas

N

100

Wainford Mill

N

101

Longham

N

102

Caistor St Edmund

N

103

Banham

N

104

Bawsey

N

105

Little Barningham

N

106

Field Dalling

N

107

North Creake

N

108

Thurlton

N

Proximity to Boundaries or Routeway Catalogue Number 97

Ashill

Proximity to Boundaries or Routeways Y

98

Fincham

N

99

Buxton-withLammas Wainford Mill

N - within 100 m of parish boundary N

101

Longham

N

102

Caistor St Edmund

N

103

Banham

N

104

Bawsey

N

105

Little Barningham

N

106

Field Dalling

N

107

North Creake

N

108

Thurlton

N - on parish boundary and ‘long-road’

100

Once again, it can be seen that these terrets have entered the archaeological record in a variety of location types. There are five examples that have been found in situations that are close to water (108, 107, 99, 100, 104). The example from Ashill (97) is located at 78m above present day level in an area where there is a concentration of later Iron Age material at such a height. The other examples appear to be either on plateau’s (103, 101) or just off the top of hills or slopes (106, 98, 105).

Site Name

Summary Terrets with three ‘lipped’ mouldings show a degree of variation as to the location into which they entered the archaeological record. At least one was recovered from the route of a Roman road, and it is possible that others entered the archaeological record along routeways that have not been recognised as ‘old’. There seems to be no distinctive difference between where complete terrets and incomplete examples were entering the archaeological record. It is likely that some examples derive from areas of later Iron Age activity, whereas others are occurring in places where there has been no other later Iron Age material recovered. The places and processes by which these terrets are becoming part of the archaeological landscape are varied.

None of the terrets with three ‘lipped’ decorative mouldings have been found in association with ‘historic’ features within the landscape. Only the example from Ashill (97) is situated on the route of a known Roman road. This particular example is also located within a kilometre of the Panworth ditch, which

67

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Phase 2/3: linch-pins Catalogue Number 44

Site Name Thornham

Y

45

Quidenham

N

46

Beachamwell

Y

Two of the linchpins (45, 46) were recovered on hill tops or just off the top of a hill, the other was found at approximately nine metres above present day sea level just off marshy ground at the ‘sea-edge’. Interestingly, the two complete examples were found in very different types of place, one (46) being off the top of a hill, the other (44) being the examples found on the edge of a marshy environment.

Complete

Of the thirteen linch-pins known from the county, three have been attributed to phase-three/two (44, 45, 46). Of these three, two examples are complete.

Proximity to ‘historic’ features

Countywide Distribution As with the terrets, there does not seem to be a distinctive clustering of linch-pins in any one part of the county. There is an overall absence of examples from the northeast of the county and the extreme west. To some degree, this can be explained by the fact that these two areas may well have been quite wet and marshy in the later Iron Age, indeed, they lack a general concentration of finds through the Iron Age.

Catalogue Number 44

Thornham

Proximity Features N

45

Quidenham

N

46

Beachamwell

Y Within 200m of Hangour Hill Tumuli

Catalogue Number

Site Name

44

Thornham

N

45

Quidenham

N

46

Beachamwe ll

N

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 6% : 4 out of 71 12% : 23 out of 197 23% : 11 out of 48

45

Quidenham Breckland

46

Beachamwell Good Sands

the

Catalogue Number 44

Site Name Thornham

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways N

45

Quidenham

N

46

Beachamwell

Y 200m from roman road

The linch-pin from Beachamwell (46) was recovered within 200 metres of a known Roman road. The other two examples do not seem to be related to known routeways. Summary As seen with the terrets from phase-one/two, linch-pins are not entering the archaeological record in specific places. Neither is there any distinctive patterning in the location of the complete examples in comparison to the linch-pin fragment. It is possible that one of the three phase-two/three linch-pins is associated with a known routeway. None of these examples appear to have been associated with areas of later Iron Age activity, although within a two kilometre square around the example from Beachamwell (46), twenty three percent of findspots have produced Iron Age material, suggesting that this example was not deposited within a remote place in the landscape.

Nature of ‘landscape’ location Site Name and landscape region Thornham Good Sands

Historic

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways

None of the phase-two/three linch-pins have been recovered from locations that have produced other aspects of later Iron Age material culture. The examples from Quidenham and Beachamwell are both in areas where there is a relatively high percentage of findspots that have produced Iron Age material, suggesting that they were not located in remote parts of the landscape.

Catalogue Number 44

to

One of the linch-pins (46) was recovered within 200 metres of a Bronze Age barrow, but none of the others were located close to earlier ’historic’ features

Evidence from other Later Iron Age Material at the location Other Later Iron Age Material

Site Name

Landscape Location 9m OD Close to water Near the bottom of the slope just off the marshlands at the ‘seaedge’ 40m OD High Spot Off hill top over looking valley of the river Wittle 30m OD Highspot Hill top

68

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION

Map 19: Distribution of phase 2/3 mounts.

Phase 2/3: mounts Catalogue Number 57 58 59 60

Evidence for other Later Iron Age Material at the location

Site Name

Complete

Alby-with-Thwaite Little Barningham Brampton Gaytonthorpe

N Y Y N

Of the sixteen later Iron Age mounts known from the county, four have been placed in phase-two/three (57, 58, 59, 60). Of these four, two examples are complete (58, 59) and two broken (57, 60).

Catalogue Number

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

57

N

59

Alby-withThwaite Little Barningham Brampton

60

Gaytonthorpe

58

Countywide Distribution There appear to be discernible patterns in the distribution of mounts, being as they are, distributed across the county (map 19).

N Y RB + LIA component N

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 5% : 6 out of 123 19% : 23 out of 123 6% : 14 out of 217 7% : 8 out of 119

Only one of the mounts comes from a location with other later Iron Age material. This is the example from Brampton. Brampton is the site of a Roman town, however, it does have significant first century AD components including a kiln site. Interestingly, despite being found in close proximity to the Roman town at Brampton, only six percent of archaeological findspots

69

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK known from this location. The other two mounts are not near known routeways or boundaries, although they are located within 100 metres of a modern trackway (57) and a parish boundary (58).

have produced Iron Age material within a two kilometre square area around the location from which the mount was recovered. By way of contrast, the mount recovered from Little Barningham (58) is in an area where a much higher percentage of findspots are producing Iron Age material. This suggests that although this mount was not found in association with other later Iron Age material culture, it was deposited in a full landscape.

Summary As has been noted with the phase-two/three terrets and linch-pins, there does not seem to be any discernible patterns regarding where mounts entering the archaeological record. Neither is there, on current evidence, any patterns in the places that complete mounts were deposited compared to incomplete examples. It is possible that these mounts are associated with routeways and at least one example comes from a settlement. Overall, they seem to derive from various types of location.

Nature of ‘landscape’ location Catalogue Number 57

Site Name and landscape region Alby-with-Thwaite N-E Norfolk

58

Little Barningham Norfolk

59

Brampton N-E Norfolk

60

Gaytonthorpe W.Escarpment

Landscape Location 30m OD Highspot Off hill top in a rolling landscape 48m OD Highspot side of slope in a rolling area. 15m OD Close to Water Within 300m of Bure 20m OD plateau area

Phase 2/3: strap-unions

The mount from Brampton was located at fifteen metres above present day sea level within 300 metres of the river Bure. The other three phase-two/three mounts were recovered either off the top of hill sides within gently rolling landscapes (57, 58), or on a plateau area (60).

Site Name Alby-with-Thwaite Little Barningham Brampton Gaytonthorpe

Proximity to Historic Features N N N N

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways Site Name

57

Alby-with-Thwaite

58

Little Barningham

59 60

Brampton Gaytonthorpe

Complete

Gaytonthorpe

N

38

Fring

N

Countywide distribution Unlike terrets, linch-pins and mounts, strap-unions seem to have a far less cross county distribution. There are two main concentrations: the majority are located in the west of the county with two located in the east. Of the two in the east, one has been attributed a phase-one date, the other is undated. In the west of the county, the examples are either phase-one, one/two, two/three or unphased. The only phase-three strap-union is the example from the Ovington hoard in Saham Tony, which is more central within the county (map 20).

None of the phase-two/three mounts were recovered in close proximity to ‘historic’ landscape features.

Catalogue Number

Site Name

Of the eight strap-unions known from this county only two have been attributed to phase two/three (37, 38). Both these examples are incomplete. The example from Gaytonthorpe (37) was found in the same location as the mount (60). These two items form a coherent stylistic pair and it is likely that they were in use together; they may potentially be part of a dispersed hoard (see discussion below).

Proximity to ‘historic’ features’ Catalogue Number 57 58 59 60

Catalogue Number 37

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways N - Within 100m of trackway N Near Parish boundary Y ?Y - close to a modern road and a very straight parish boundary which runs by Gaytonthorpe Roman villa

Evidence for other Later Iron Age Material in the area

The mount found at Brampton (59) was located on the known routeway into the Roman town. It is possible that the example from Gaytonthorpe (60) was also on or near routeway, which was later utilised by the Roman villa site

70

Catalogue Number

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

37

Gaytonthorpe

38

Fring

Y Near RomanoCeltic temple N

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 31% : 8 out of 119 7% : 20 out of 63

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION

Map 20: Distribution of phase 2/3 strap-unions

Neither of the phase-one/two strap-unions is situated within close proximity to an earlier monument.

Of the two phase-two/three strap-unions only one (38) was where there is later Iron Age and Roman activity. This example from Fring (38) is located in an area where there is a concentration of later Iron Age material, indeed thirty-one percent of the findspots in a two kilometre square around the strap-union find have produced Iron Age artefacts. The example from Gaytonthorpe was not found in direct association with later Iron Age material, however there is later Iron Age activity known in the surrounding area (e.g. 119).

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways

Nature of ‘landscape’ location Catalogue Number 37 38

Site Name and landscape region Gaytonthorpe W.Escarpment Fring Good Sands

35m OD Near base of valley 20m OD Plateau area

The strap-union from Gaytonthorpe is located at approximately twenty metres above present day sea level on a plateau area. The example from Fring is in a shallow valley base near to the Heacham River at a height of thirty-five metres above present day sea level.

Gaytonthorpe

Proximity to Historic Monuments N

38

Fring

N

Gaytonthorpe

38

Fring

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways ?Y close to a modern road and a very straight parish boundary which runs by Gaytonthorpe Roman villa N

Summary It is possible that both of these strap-unions may be associated with routeways, but this is the only similarity in terms of their locations. One is associated with other Iron Age activity (38) whereas the other appears to be in quite an isolated place. There is, again, a great deal of variation in terms of the nature of deposition of these strap-unions.

Proximity to ‘historic’ features Site Name

Site Name

Although neither of these items is located to known routeways, it is possible that they are situated on past ‘roads’. In particular, the example from Gaytonthorpe is, as discussed above, located on a potential routeway that may have been later utilised by the Roman villa site known from the area.

Landscape Location

Catalogue Number 37

Catalogue Number 37

Phase-two/three: Bridle-bits There are no phase two/three bridle-bits. 71

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK ‘Parallel-winged’ terrets

Catalogue Number

109

Site Name

Brampton

Complete

Settlement

Y

Y RB + LIA

% of sites that have produced Historic IA material Locatio within a 2km n square area (average = 10%)

Route way

Natural Feature

6% : 14 out of 217 N

Y 100m from Roman road

15m OD Close to water Within 300m Bure

of

Map 21: Distribution of transverse-winged terrets

mount from this site (109) and a number of other terrets. (since completing data-collection in January 2002, one other parallel winged terret has been recovered from Norfolk, in the vicinity of the Roman town of Long Stratton (Gurney 1995).

Phase-Three (first century AD) Terrets There are twenty-five terrets that have been attributed to phase-three. As with the phase-two/three examples, these terrets will be organised and discussed by type.

‘Transverse-winged’ terrets ‘There is only one example of a ‘parallel winged’ single

terret find. This example, which is complete, was recovered in the vicinity of Brampton Roman town (109). It is not located within close proximity to an historic feature, it may, though, be associated with the routeway leading into the Roman town. In terms of landscape, this site is situated within 300 metres of the river Bure at a height of approximately 15 metres above present day sea level. This terret is not the only item of later Iron Age horse equipment recovered from Brampton, there is a

72

Catalogue Number 110

Site Name

Complete

Snettisham

Y

111

East Dereham

Y

112

Banham

Y

113

Saham Tony

N

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION There are four transverse wing terrets known from the county (110, 111, 112, 113), three of which are complete (110, 111, 112).

Proximity to historic features

Countywide distribution: Other than the ‘transverse wing’ terret from Snettisham (110), this type of terret seems to be concentrated in the central area of the county with one example from Saham Tony (113), one from Dereham (111) and one from Banham (112) (map 21).

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

110

Snettisham

N

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 9% : 19 out of 199

111

East Dereham Banham

N

3% : 3 out of 95

N

10% : 4 out of 39

Y LIA/RB material

17% : 21 out of 121

112 113

Saham Tony

Landscape Location

Snettisham W.Escarpment

43m OD shallow valley area

East Dereham Clayland

45m OD Gently undulating landscape

112

Banham Clayland

50m OD plateau area.

113

Saham Tony Clayland

55m OD Highspot located off the top of a ridgeway

111

111

East Dereham

N

112

Banham

N

113

Saham Tony

N

Catalogue Number 110 111

to

Historic

Site Name Snettisham

112

East Dereham Banham

113

Saham Tony

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways N Within 100m of parish boundary N N N On a parish boundary

None of the transverse wing terrets were found on known historic routeways, but the examples from Snettisham (110) and Saham Tony (113) are located in close proximity to modern parish boundaries. Summary Other than the Saham Tony example, it would appear on current evidence that the transverse wing terrets from the county all entered the ground in relatively isolated places that were not the focus of settlement. There does not seem to be any distinctive pattern in the location of the complete examples in comparison to the incomplete examples.

Nature of ‘landscape’ location Site Name

Snettisham

Proximity Features N

Proximity to boundaries and routeways

Other than the example from Saham Tony (113), which is in a landscape rich in later Iron Age material, none of the ‘transverse wing’ terrets were found in association with other later Iron Age material. It is noteworthy that the Saham Tony terret is the only incomplete example.

Catalogue Number 110

Site Name

None of these four terrets is in close proximity to ‘historic features’ within the landscape.

Evidence of other Later Iron Age Material at the location Catalogue Number

Catalogue Number 110

‘Platform decorated’ terrets

All of the ‘transverse wing’ terrets are in relatively high locations. They do not appear to be associated with water, nor do they appear to be located on valley sides, all being within gently rolling areas of the Norfolk landscape.

Catalogue Number 119

Site Name

Complete

Gayton

N

120

Brampton

Y

121

Brampton

Y

122

Long Stratton

N

123

Tuttington

N

In total there are five single finds of ‘platform decorated’ terrets (119, 120, 121, 122, 123). Of these five, only two examples are complete.

73

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Map 22: Distribution of platform-decorated terrets

Roman sites appear to have a small component of later Iron Age early - mid first century AD material. The example from Tuttington (123), which lies just to the north of Brampton also derives from a small Roman settlement. The example from Gayton was found in a location from which other later Iron Age material had been recovered, although this site is not as yet documented as a late Iron Age/early Roman settlement.

County wide distribution Unlike the ‘transverse wing’ terrets, which appear to cluster towards the centre of the county, ‘platform decorated’ terrets are found across Norfolk (map 22). Evidence of later Iron Age activity at the location

Catalogue Number

Site Name

119

Gayton

120

Brampton

121 122 123

Brampton Long Stratton Tuttington

LIA

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 9% : 10 out of 116 6% : 14 out of 217

LIA

6%: 14 out of 217

LIA

3%: 3 out of 100

Other Later Iron Age Material

Y LIA/ RB Y RB + component Y RB + component Y RB site – component Y Small settlement

Nature of ‘landscape’ location Catalogue Number 119 120

5% :

Landscape Location

Gayton W.Escarpment Brampton N-E Norfolk

20m OD Near base of gentle valley 15m OD Close to water Within 300m of river Bure 15m OD Close to water Within 300m of river Bure 59m OD On a high plateau 15m OD Close to water gently undulating landscape, within approx. 300m of a series of ‘becks’

121

Brampton N-E Norfolk

122

Long Stratton Clayland Tuttington N-E Norfolk

123

RB

Site Name

As with the majority of the horse equipment categories, the ‘platform decorated’ types occur in a variety of locations. The example from Long Stratton is situated on a high plateau whereas the example from Gayton is located near the base of a shallow valley.

All five of the platform decorated terrets have been found together with other later Iron Age material. Two examples have been recovered in close proximity to the Roman town at Brampton (120, 121); one was found near to the Roman site at Long Stratton (122). Both of these 74

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION ‘Flat-ring’ terrets

Proximity to ‘historic’ features Catalogue Number 119

Site Name Gayton

Proximity Features N

120

Brampton

121

to

Historic

Catalogue Number 129

Site Name

Complete

East Winch

Y

N

130

Field Dalling

N

Brampton

N

131

Ashill (Holme Hale)

Y

122

Long Stratton

N

132

East Walton

N

123

Tuttington

N

133

Banham

N

134

Briston

N

135

Brinton

N

136

Swanton Morley

Y

137

Swanton Morley

N

138

Swanton Morley

N

139

Hockwold-cum-Wilton

Y

None of these terrets were found in close proximity to historic features within the landscape. Proximity to boundaries and routeways Catalogue Number 119

Site Name Gayton

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways Y – located on Roman road

120

Brampton

Y – located on Roman road

121

Brampton

Y – located on Roman road

122

Long Stratton

Y – located on Roman road

123

Tuttington

N

There are, in total, eleven examples of flat-ring terrets (129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139) Of these, three derive from the same location (136, 137, 138) at Swanton Morley in mid Norfolk. Of the eleven examples, only four are complete (131,129, 136, 139). Countywide distribution As was seen with the ‘transverse wing’ terrets, the ‘flatring’ examples appear to cluster towards the centre of the county. There are no examples in the east of the county, or the far-west along the fen edge (Map 23).

Other than Tuttington (123), all the other ‘platform decorated’ terrets appear to be associated with known Roman roads. The examples from Brampton (120, 121) were found near to the known Roman road going into the town, as was the example from Long Stratton (122). The Gayton terret (119) appears to be associated with a known Roman routeway, which as discussed above, may have been utilised later by the Roman Villa site that was established at Gaytonthorpe. Although the example from Tuttington does not appear to be associated with a known routeway, it is possible that was a connecting road between this site and Brampton given that it is only two and a half kilometres to the north.

Evidence for other Later Iron Age Material at the location

Summary What is striking about the examples of platform decorated terrets is their association with later Iron Age/Roman sites and routeways. These terrets are clearly not entering the archaeological record in isolated places. In terms of dating, it has been suggested in chapter two that these particular terret types may continue on into the later first century AD; their association with known Roman sites and roads would support a later date for these terrets. This also reflects the late date postulated for the Ovington hoard, which contains ‘platform decorated’ terrets and is located within an enclosure from which early Roman material has been recovered.

75

Catalogue Number

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

129

East Winch

N

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 2% : 1 out of 51

130

Field Dalling

Y Little LIA

12% : 14 out of 118

131

Ashill (Holme Hale)

17% : 21 out of 123

132

East Walton

133

Banham

Y Lots of LIA/RB Y Little RB and LIA Y Little LIA/RB

134

Briston

Y LIA

3% : 1 out of 35

135

Brinton

N

6% : 6 out of 101

136

Swanton Morley

4% : 4 out of 99

137

Swanton Morley

138

Swanton Morley

139

Hockwoldcum-Wilton

Y RB fort + little LIA Y RB fort + little LIA Y RB fort + little LIA Y RB + little LIA

24% : 31 out of 130 11% : 6 out of 57

4% : 4 out of 99 4% : 4 out of 99 15% : 12 out of 80

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Map 23: Distribution of flat-ring terrets

Of the nine locations from which ‘flat-ring’ terrets have been recovered, seven have produced other items of later Iron Age material culture. The site at Swanton Morley appears to be a focus of first century AD activity with a potential early Romano-British fort located in the immediate vicinity. The example recovered from Hockwold-cum-Wilton (139) appears to derive from a Roman settlement site. Those from Briston (134), Brinton (135), Banham (133), East Walton (132) and Field Dalling (130) all appear to be sites from which a little later Iron Age material is known, although these sites are not currently documented in the literature on Norfolk as Iron Age settlements. The other flat-ring terret to be found in association with later Iron Age material derives from Ashill/Holme Hale/Saham Tony, an area that as already discussed, has a great deal of later Iron Age/early Roman activity.

Nature of ‘landscape’ location

As with the previous categories of horse equipment, there is a degree of variation in the locations where these terret types entered the archaeological record. Four of the locations appear to be within close proximity to water. The site at Swanton Morley is situated within 200 metres of the Wensum on the valley side. The example from Brinton (135) was located at approximately forty-five metres above present day sea level within 100 metres of a tributary to the river Glaven. The site at East Walton (132) is located in the Nar valley and the site at Hockwold-cum-Wilton is located within 300 metres of the Little Ouse River. Three of the ‘flat-ring’ terrets were recovered just off the top of hills; the example from Ashill (131) was located at seventy-five metres above present day sea level, the one from Field Dalling (130) was situated at fifty metres and the example from Briston (134) was located at fifty-five metres overlooking the river Bure. The final two ‘flatring’ terrets are located on either a plateau (133) or in a gently undulating landscape (129).

76

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION Catalogue Number 129 130 131 132 133 134

135

136

137

Site Name

Landscape Location

East Winch W.Escarpment

12m OD gently undulating landscape 50m OD Highspot Just off the top of a hill 75m OD Highspot High plateau 15m OD Close to water In Nar valley 45m OD Plateau area 55m OD Highspot Off top of hill overlooking river Bure 45m OD Close to water Within 100m of small tributary to the river Glaven 30m OD Close to water Valley side, 200m from the river Wensum 30m OD Close to water Valley side, 200m from the river Wensum 30m OD Close to water Valley side, 200m from the river Wensum 3m OD Close to water 300m of river Little Ouse, near fen edge

Field Dalling Good Sands Ashill (Holme Hale) Claylands East Walton Good Sands Banham Claylands Briston Claylands Brinton Claylands Swanton Morley Claylands Swanton Morley Claylands

138

Swanton Morley Claylands

139

Hockwold-cumWilton Breckland

Proximity to boundaries and routeways

Site Name East Winch

Proximity to Historic Features N

130

Field Dalling

N

131

Ashill (Holme Hale)

N

132

East Walton

N

133

Banham

N

134

Briston

N

135

Brinton

N

136

Swanton Morley

N

137

Swanton Morley

N

138

Swanton Morley

N

139

Hockwold-cum-Wilton

N

Site Name

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways N

East Winch

130

Field Dalling

131

Ashill (Holme Hale)

132

East Walton

133

Banham

N Within 100m of modern pathway Y Within 200m of Roman road and Panworth ditch N Within 200m of modern parish boundary N

134

Briston

N

135

Brinton

N On ‘Hollow way’

136

Swanton Morley 2 routeways conjoin over Roman bridge in the immediate vicinity

137

Swanton Morley 2 routeways conjoin over Roman bridge in the immediate vicinity

138

139

Swanton Morley

Hockwold-cumWilton

2 routeways conjoin over Roman bridge in the immediate vicinity N

Only the example from Ashill (131) is within close proximity to both a known Roman routeway and a land boundary. It is possible that the Swanton Morley examples (136, 137, 138) are related to a routeway as there are two roads that conjoin over a Roman bridge in the immediate vicinity. It would seem, however, that none of the other examples are related to known routeways, although the East Walton terret (132) was found within 200 metres of a modern parish boundary and the example from Field Dalling (130) is related to the route of a modern pathway.

Proximity to ‘historic’ features Catalogue Number 129

Catalogue Number 129

Summary Like the ‘platform decorated’ terret types, ‘flat-ring’ terrets do not seem to have been deposited in isolated places within the landscape. All but two of the locations from which they have been found have produced other items of later Iron Age and Roman material culture. Fewer of these terrets seem to be related directly to known routeways, although it maybe that some are associated with routeways that have not been recognised as historic. As with all the other classes of horse equipment discussed so far, there does not seem to be any pattern regarding the deposition of complete examples of ‘flat-ring’ terrets compared to incomplete examples. They are not being deposited in the landscape in specific places. Neither does there appear to be any distinctive patterning in the location of different decorative types of ‘flat-ring’ terrets. For example, the three examples from Swanton Morley comprise two La Tène style decorated

None of the ‘flat-ring’ terrets have been recovered from locations that are closely associated with earlier historic features.

77

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK types (136, 138) and one decorated with a series of triangular cells around the ring (137).

recovered from locations in the west and far-east of the county (map 24).

Terrets: ‘knobbed’ types

Evidence for other Later Iron Age Material at the location

Catalogue Number 140

Site Name Frettenham

N

141

Hingham

N

142

Gunthorpe

N

Catalogue Number

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

140

Frettenham

N

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 3% : 4 out of 117

141

Hingham

N

2% : 2 out of 83

142

Gunthorpe

N RB site

9% : 14 out of 152

Complete

There are three knobbed terrets from the county that appear to be later Iron Age in style rather than Roman (140, 141, 142). None of these terrets are complete.

Only one of the ‘knobbed’ terrets was recovered from a potential occupation sites; the example from Gunthorpe (142) was found on what appears to be a Romano-British site. Neither the example from Hingham (141) or Frettenham (140) were recovered in association with other later Iron Age material.

Countywide Distribution Although there are only three terrets that fall into the later Iron Age ‘knobbed’ category, they seem to follow the distributive pattern seen in the ‘flat-ring’ terrets and ‘ transverse wing’ types. They appear to cluster towards the central area of the county and have not yet been

Map 24: Distribution of knobbed terrets

78

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION None of these terrets were found in locations that were in close proximity to earlier monuments in the landscape.

Nature of ’landscape’ location Catalogue Number 140

141 142

Site Name

Landscape Location

Frettenham N-E Norfolk

10m OD Close to water Situated at the base of a slope, just off the floodplain of a tributary to the river Bure. 56m OD high plateau, 55m OD gently undulating landscape

Hingham Claylands Gunthorpe Good Sands

Proximity to boundaries and routeways Catalogue Number

Both the Hingham (141) and Gunthorpe (142) terrets are located at fifty-five metres above present day sea level within rolling landscapes. By way of contrast, the example from Frettenham is located at ten metres above present day sea level, at the base of the slope just off the floodplain of a tributary to the river Bure.

Site Name Frettenham

Proximity Features N

141

Hingham

N

142

Gunthorpe

N

to

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways N

141

Hingham

N

142

Gunthorpe

N

None of these terrets appears in close proximity to known historic boundaries and routeways. Summary As with other terret types, the later Iron Age knobbed terrets appear to be fairly localised in terms of their distribution. They do show the same variety in terms of depositional location. Only one was recovered from a known site and in terms of landscape location, they vary from hill side places to a valley bottom. There seems to be no specific recurring place type into which these items were deposited.

Proximity to Historic Features Catalogue Number 140

140

Site Name and landscape region Frettenham

Historic

Terret: massive

Catalogue Number

143

Site Name and landscape region

Bramerton Clayland

Complete

N

% of IA Other LIA locations Activity within 2000m

N

4%

Proximity to Historic Features

N

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways

Landscape Location

N

High point in a fairly ‘up and down’ landscape – 33m.

Only one terret has been attributed to the ‘massive’ category (143), and although in poor condition, it is complete. It was located in central east Norfolk at Bramerton and was not found in association with other later Iron Age material culture. Neither was it found near any historic feature or known historic routeway. It was located at approximately thirty-three metres above present-day sea level in a relatively high point in a ‘hilly’ landscape. The location of this terret appears to be fairly isolated, not only was no other later Iron Age material culture recovered from the findspot, but only four percent of archaeological findspots within a two kilometre square area around the terret have produced Iron Age material.

79

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Map 25: Distribution of phase 3 bridle-bits Bridle-bits Catalogue Number 27

Site Name

Complete

Swanton Morley

Y

28

Stratton Strawless

N

29

West Acre

N

None of the three phase-three single finds of bridle-bits was found in association with other later Iron Age material. Indeed, the example from Stratton Strawless (28) was recovered in an area from which little Iron Age material has been recovered at all. Only one percent of findspots within a two kilometres square area around the Stratton Strawless findspot have produced Iron Age material. This contrasts significantly with the example from West Acre (29) where twenty-three percent of findspots within a two kilometres area have produced Iron Age material.

Six of the eleven later Iron Age bridle-bits known from the county of Norfolk derive from hoards. Of the remaining five single, non-hoard finds, three have been attributed to phase-three (27, 28, 29). Of these three only one is complete (27).

Nature of ‘landscape’ location

Countywide distribution Although there are only three single bridle-bit finds, they do, like the phase three terrets, appear to cluster towards the centre of the county. At present there are no examples known from the far-east or west of the county (map 25). Evidence for other Later Iron Age Material at the location Catalogue Number

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

27

Swanton Morley

N

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 9% : 5 out of 54

28

Stratton Strawless West Acre

N

1% : 1 out of 62

N

23% : 31 out of 134

29

Catalogue Number 27

Site Name and landscape region Swanton Morley Claylands

28

Stratton Strawless N-E Norfolk

29

West Acre Good Sands

Landscape Location 58m OD Highspot Off the top of the hill 20m OD Close to water Valley side, near to tributary to the Bure. 35m OD. Close to Water In Nar valley

The two incomplete bridle-bits (28, 29) were recovered on valley sides within close proximity to water. The complete bridle-bit from Swanton Morley (27) was found off the top of a hill at a height of fifty-eight metres above present day sea level.

80

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION Seven decorative mounts have been attributed to phasethree (61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67). Of the seven mounts, only four are complete (62, 64, 66, 67)

Proximity to ‘historic’ features Catalogue Number 27

Site Name Swanton Morley

Proximity to features N

28

Stratton Strawless

N

29

West Acre

N

Historic

Countywide distribution The phase-three single finds of decorative mounts have an even cross county distribution. There is a slight bias towards the centre of the county, however, there are examples that have been recovered both in the east and west of the county (map 26).

None of the bridle-bits were found in close proximity to earlier monuments within the landscape.

Evidence for other Later Iron Age Material at the location

Proximity to boundaries and routeways Catalogue Number 27 28 29

Site Name Swanton Morley Stratton Strawless West Acre

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways N

Catalogue Number

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

61

Ashill

62

Tharston

Y LIA/RB N

63

Shelton (NI)

64

Swanton Morley Snettisham

N ?N – within 100m of parish and Nar Valley way.

The bridle-bit fragment recovered from West Acre (29) was located within 100 metres of a modern parish boundary, however, it is not known if this boundary follows the line of an older routeway. The other two examples (27, 28) are not located within proximity of known routeways of boundaries.

65

Summary The most striking aspect of the depositional pattern of single bridle-bit finds is that the complete example (27) is in a distinctively different location to the other two incomplete ones (28, 29). Rather than being located on a valley side, it was recovered off the top of the hill. It is also situated in an area where there seems to be a cluster of later Iron Age material, and is approximately two kilometres south of Swanton Morley, where an early Roman fort is known. It is possible that this bit was originally from a hoard (see discussion below).

Site Name

Complete

Ashill

N

62

Tharston

Y

63

Shelton (NI)

N

64

Swanton Morley

Y

65

Snettisham

N

66

Wymondham

Y

67

Reffley Wood

Y

Wymondha m

67

Reffley Wood

Y Small amount of LIA/RB N

1% : 1 out of 93

N

23% : 28 out of 124 2% : 4 out of 171

Y RB, little LIA N

11% : 6 out of 56

7% : 8 out of 115

Only three of the sites from which decorative mounts have been recovered (61, 63, 66) have produced other later Iron Age material. The example from Wymondham (66) which was recovered along with a miscellaneous flat-ring terret, was situated in an area from which Romano-British material and a small amount of later Iron Age material has been found. The example from Shelton (63) was also found in an area from which other later Iron Age and early Roman material has been recovered. The final example to have been found in a location where there is other later Iron Age material comes from Ashill. As discussed above, there is a concentration of later Iron Age material in the area around Ashill/Saham Tony and Holme Hale. One of the other decorative mounts was recovered in the parish of Swanton Morley. Although the findspot from which this mount was recovered did not produce any later Iron Age material it is also located in an area where there is a cluster of later Iron Age artefacts.

Mounts Catalogue Number 61

66

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 18% : 23 out of 129 7% : 6 out of 82

81

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

Map 26: Distribution of phase 3 decorative mounts

Nature of ‘landscape’ location Catalogue Number 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

Site Name and landscape region Ashill Claylands Tharston Claylands Shelton (NI) Claylands Swanton Morley Claylands Snettisham Good Sands Wymondham Claylands Reffley Wood Salt Fen

Proximity to ‘historic’ features

Landscape Location 78m OD Highspot 37m OD Highspot Undulating landscape 50m OD Highspot 42m OD Highspot overlooking fairly steep valley. 62mOD Highspot just off the top of the hill. 45m OD gently undulating landscape 20m OD Close to water low lying landscape – within 300m of the Gaywood river

Catalogue Number 61

Site Name Ashill

Proximity Features N

to

Historic

62

Tharston

N

63

Shelton (NI)

N

64

Swanton Morley

65

Snettisham

Y Within 80m of a Bronze Age barrow N

66

Wymondham

N

67

Reffley Wood

N

One of the decorative mounts (64) was recovered within eighty metres of a Bronze Age barrow. None of the other examples were within close proximity to earlier monuments in the landscape.

Five of the decorative mounts were recovered from relatively high points within the landscape (61, 62, 53, 54, 65). Only the example from Reffley Wood (67) was situated within close proximity to water, being approximately 300 metres from the Gaywood river.

82

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION incomplete examples were entering the archaeological record. The mounts appear to be evenly distributed across the county, and are occurring in a range of locations. Some are isolated in terms of their depositional locations, whereas at least three of the mounts were deposited in places where other later Iron Age material entered the archaeological record.

Proximity to boundaries and routeways Catalogue Number 61

Ashill

62

Tharston

63

Shelton (NI)

N

64

Swanton Morley

N

65

Snettisham

N

66

Wymondham

N Within 200m of boundary N Within 200m of boundary.

67

Site Name

Reffley Wood

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways Y Within 200m of known Roman road N

Linch-pins Catalogue Number 47

parish parish

The decorative mount from Ashill (61) was found close to a known Roman routeway. Both the examples from Wymondham (66) and Reffley Wood (67) were recovered within 200 metres of modern parish boundaries. However, other than the Ashill mount, none of the decorative mounts were found in association with known historic routeways or boundaries.

Site Name

Complete

Broome

N

48 49 50

Attleborough

N

Ditchingham

N

51

Weeting-with-Broomhill

Y

Five linch-pins have been attributed to phase-three (47, 48, 49, 50, 51). Of these five linch-pins only one example was complete (51). Countywide distribution The four locations from which the five phase-three linchpins have been recovered are all situated in the southern part of the county (map 27).

Summary As with other categories of metalwork, there does not seem to be any distinctive pattern regarding the locations into which complete examples of decorative mounts and

Map 27: Distribution of phase 3 linch-pins

83

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK The linch-pin recovered from Ditchingham (50) was found within fifty metres of the Chainbridge ‘beck’ or stream; a tributary to the river Waveney. The other three linch-pin sites were situated in rolling landscapes that were not on high points or low points.

Evidence for other Later Iron Age Material at the location Catalogue Number

Site Name

Other Later Iron Age Material

47

Broome

N

48 49 50

Attleborough

N

Ditchingham

N

WeetingwithBroomhill

Y Little LIA

51

% of sites that have produced IA material within a 2km square area (average = 10%) 7% : 7 out of 103

Proximity to ‘historic’ features Catalogue Number 47

8% : 10 out of 133 21% : 12 out of 58 11% : 8 out of 72

Site Name

48 49 50 51

Only one of the single finds of phase-three linch-pins was found together with other later Iron Age material. This is the example from Weeting-with-Broomhill (51). Not only is linch-pin 51 the only one, on current evidence, that comes from a possible occupation site, it is also the only complete example. The example from Ditchingham, although not recovered in direct association with other contemporary material, is located close to a late Iron Age coin scatter and an area where other Iron Age metalwork has been recovered. Like the sites of Ashill/Saham Tony and Swanton Morley, it would seem that there is a concentration of later Iron Age material in the area around Ditchingham.

Site Name and landscape region Broome Clayland

48 49 50

Attleborough Clayland Ditchingham Clayland

51

Weeting-withBroomhill Breckland

Attleborough

N

Ditchingham

N

Weeting-withBroomhill

N

None of the phase-three single finds of linch-pins were found close to earlier monuments within the landscape. Proximity to boundaries and routeways Catalogue Number

Site Name

47

Broome

48 49 50

Attleborough

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways N on parish boundary N

Ditchingham

N

Weeting-withBroomhill

N

51

Nature of ‘landscape’ location Catalogue Number 47

Broome

Proximity to Historic Features N

Landscape Location

None of the linch-pins dated to phase three have been found in association with known historic boundaries or routeways. Only the example from Broome (47) is located on a modern parish boundary.

21m OD Gently undulating landscape 37m OD flat landscape 5m OD Close to water Within 50m of the chainbridge beck a tributary to the Waveney. 15m OD Breckland, rolling landscape

Summary: All the single phase-three linch-pins are situated towards the south of the county. There do not seem to be any distinctive patterns in the nature of the locations into which they entered the archaeological record, they are varied. It is possible though, that the two examples from Attleborough may derive from a hoard (see discussion below).

Hook

Catalogue Number

162

Site Name and Complete landscape region

Runton N-E Norfolk

N

Other Activity

N

LIA

% of IA Proximity to locations Historic within 2000m Features

Proximity to Boundaries and Routeways

Natural Feature

6%

N

57m OD Highspot Hilltop seaview

84

N

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION Only two single artefacts of horse equipment have been attributed to phase-one. Each of these items is complete; there is a bridle-bit from Swanton Morley (26) and a strap-union from Burgh Castle (36). In addition to being complete, none of these items was recovered in association with other later Iron Age material, in fact, within a two kilometre square area of each location, only four and five percent of findspots respectively have produced Iron Age material. On current evidence, therefore, the phase-one items of horse equipment are all located in apparently remote places. In terms of landscape location, there is variation in the types of places into which these items entered the archaeological record. It already been demonstrated with the hoards of torcs and coins that there is a great deal of variation as to the places into which material was interred. The three single items of phase-one horse equipment are, therefore, similar to the hoard from Ringstead on two counts. Firstly, they are complete, and secondly they are in remote places. It is possible, although certainly not conclusive, that these single finds may derive from hoards that have not been fully recovered or reported. The case is particularly compelling in terms of the Swanton Morley bridle-bit (26) as over fifty percent (six out of ten) of the bits known from Norfolk actually are from hoards rather than single finds.

The ‘hook’ from Norfolk (162), is located at a height of fifty-seven metres above present day sea level overlooking the sea. It was not recovered close to any earlier monuments in the landscape, nor does it appear to be on a routeway. The location from which the ‘hook’ was unearthed has not yet produced other later Iron Age material. It appears to be a relatively isolated location in so far as only six percent of archaeological findspots within a two kilometre square area of the ‘hook’ find have produced Iron Age material. Later Iron Age horse equipment: patterns in distribution and deposition Having examined patterns in the distribution and deposition of all phased items of horse equipment, the over-riding picture is extremely complex. However, a number of threads can be drawn together from examining this data-set as a whole. First and foremost, this discussion will focus on the types of deposits that items of horse equipment represent. This will be followed by a discussion of the changes in the deposition of horse equipment through time. At the beginning of chapter five it was suggested that all torc finds from Norfolk may derive from hoards. This was argued on the basis that there was a direct relationship between the number of artefacts found in any given location and the nature and quantity of investigation undertaken. Unlike the torc finds, the majority of items of horse equipment have been recovered by metal-detector 110 out of 137 (80%). By way of contrast, it is the hoards of horse equipment rather than the single finds that have been found by chance. In order to understand patterns in the deposition of material, it is necessary to establish the different types of deposit. For example, the deposition of material culture into the ground in a hoard is a purposeful act, whether it is undertaken as part of a ritual or in response to a threat. A single find may enter the archaeological record through a series of very different processes or activities compared to a hoard of material. Therefore, in order to understand patterns in the deposition and distribution or later Iron Age horse equipment, it is necessary to assess how single finds entered the archaeological record. Are, for example, some of the single finds components of hoards, are some individual purposeful deposits, or are some simply items that were lost?

Of the 112 single items of horse equipment, sixty five items (58%) date from phase two/three – three. This emphasis on the end of the period is not just reflected by single finds, but also hoards. Other than Ringstead, all the hoards of horse equipment from Norfolk can be dated to phase three, i.e. first century AD. As with the Ringstead phase-one hoard, the majority of the material from the phase-three hoards is complete. The only incomplete items comprise two bridle-bits, one from the Santon hoard and one from the Ovington hoard. By way of contrast to the Ringstead hoard, the phasethree hoards are all in areas that have produced other examples of later Iron Age material. The cluster in the parish of Saham Tony are all associated with later Iron Age and Roman sites. None of the phase-three hoards, however, on current knowledge appears to be associated with routeways, and none were recovered in close proximity to Bronze Age barrows. The striking features of the phase-three hoards are, then: 1.

To address whether single finds actually derive from hoards, it is necessary to characterise what a hoard of horse equipment may comprise. From the study in the first part of this chapter, we know that one of the horse equipment hoards dates to phase-one (Ringstead). The striking features of this hoard are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

2. 3. 4.

The items of horse equipment are complete It is situated near a routeway It is in an isolated place It is on a relatively high point in the landscape

The majority of the items are complete at time of burial They are located within sites (although as discussed in the previous section, these may not be occupation or settlement sites) They are not located on routeways They are not located within close proximity to earlier monuments.

Given these criteria, is it possible to spot potential hoards from the phase-two/three and three single items? There are at least three groups of single finds that may represent 85

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK but the rest are entering the archaeological record as the result of different practices.

hoards. There is strap-union and mount recovered from Gaytonthorpe which are clearly a pair of objects (37, 60). Two matching linch-pins recovered from a field in Attleborough at different times were probably deposited together (48, 49). As noted in the previous section, it is possible that the phase-three bridle-bit from Swanton Morley (27) was originally interred as part of a hoard. Establishing whether a single find of horse equipment derives from a hoard for the rest of the material studied is not easy.

Hoards of horse equipment are known from a range of places across Britain including, Yorkshire (Stanwick hoard), Somerset (Polden Hill hoard) and Suffolk (Westhall hoard). Later Iron Age horse equipment has also been recovered from a number of sites. There are a range of later Iron Age terrets known from Colchester (Hawkes and Hull 1947) and there is a ‘flat-ring’ terret known from Richborough (Bushe-Fox 1949). A number of northern British early Roman sites have also produced items of later Iron Age horse equipment, therefore, it would appear that these items are also occurring as single finds within settlement sites as well as hoards. It is likely that a number of the items of horse equipment from Norfolk are potentially deposited in settlements. For example, of the forty phase-three artefacts, twenty-one have been recovered from areas where there is evidence of other later Iron Age and often, Roman material. Therefore, just over fifty percent of single items, complete and incomplete, of the latest phase of horse equipment were entering the archaeological evidence in areas of occupation or activity. Of the phase-two/three items of horse equipment forty percent (10 out of 25) have been recovered from areas where there is evidence of later Iron Age/Roman material. It would seem, then, that from the first century BC and through into the first century AD, a greater percentage of single items of horse equipment are entering the archaeological record in places that have discernible evidence of later Iron Age/Roman material.

One of the points highlighted several times in the first section of this chapter was that within each category there did not appear to be any distinct pattern in the places complete artefacts were recovered in comparison to incomplete artefacts. This is highlighted, for example, by patterns in the deposition of ‘flat-ring’ terrets. There are 11 ‘flat-ring’ terrets known at present from the county. Of these, only four are complete (129, 131, 136, 139). Of the complete examples, three came from areas from which there have been other later Iron Age artefacts recovered (131, 136, 139). One example appears to be isolated (129). Two of the complete ‘flat-ring’ terrets are located within 200 metres of a known historic routeway (136, 131) two of them are not (139, 129). None of them were recovered in relation to earlier monuments. On this basis, it might be possible to suggest that at least three of the four complete flat-ring terrets may have derived from hoards. Examples 131, 136 and 139 are all complete and located in potential occupation areas; a pattern mirrored in the location of the phase-three hoards. However, when patterns in the deposition and distribution of incomplete ‘flat-ring’ terrets are examined, a similar pattern emerges. Five of the six locations are also associated with other later Iron Age material and none were found in close proximity to earlier monuments. Essentially, there are some similarities in the places that complete and incomplete ‘flat-ring’ terrets are occurring; i.e. the majority have been found in places where other aspects of later Iron Age material culture have been recovered and none are located near to earlier monuments. In contrast to these similarities, there is an overall diversity in the nature of the ‘landscape’ locations into which they were deposited. Some are on high spots and others are in lowlying places.

There are a number of single finds of horse equipment that have been found in close proximity to Roman roads (map 28), this is particularly true of the phase three terret types where thirty-two percent of examples have been found within 200m of a potential route of a Roman road. Conclusions The majority of later Iron Age horse equipment dates from phase-two/three or three. Of the sixty-nine phased single items of horse equipment fifty-seven percent date to phase-three. Four of the five hoards containing horse equipment date to phase-three. Only four percent of single finds have been attributed to phase-one. This shows an increase in the amount of horse equipment manufactured and in circulation through the period under study, with a peak in the first century AD.

There are no distinctive patterns in the locations into which complete items of later Iron Age horse equipment are deposited in comparison with incomplete items (except in the case of the phase-three bridle-bits). Given the lack of distinctive patterns, it is not possible to discern how many, if any, of the single finds of later Iron Age horse equipment derive from hoards.

It is possible that all the phase-one items of horse equipment may be from hoards. Although this does not appear to be the case for phase two/three and three artefacts. In these phases, hoards of horse equipment make only twenty-four percent (21 out of 86), of the total number of items of horse equipment known from the county. A relatively smaller amount of phase two/three and three material is, therefore, being taken out of circulation through hoarding.

It has been established that single finds of horse equipment are not easily identifiable as hoards. However, it may be that the majority of the examples are entering the archaeological record in different ways. It may be that like coins, some items of horse equipment are taken out of circulation through the process of hoarding, 86

HORSE EQUIPMENT: DISTRIBUTION AND DEPOSITION

Map 28: Terrets with prehistoric and Roman routeways

Map 29: Distribution of phase 2/3 and 3 single items and hoards of horse equipment

87

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

As a whole group, horse equipment is distributed across the county of Norfolk. Within this broad-brush distribution, there are distinctive patterns. Most striking is the concentration of phase-three hoards in the parish of Saham Tony. In addition to the hoards, there are a number of single finds that cluster in the Ashill/Saham Tony parish. Saham Tony is not a location from which horse equipment alone clusters, there is a dense distribution of coins from Woodcock Hall, approximately two kilometres to the south of Quidney Farm. It has also been suggested that there is an early Roman camp here, and certainly by the latter part of the first century AD, three roads converge in the Saham Tony area. In addition to Saham Tony, there appears to be a clustering of horse equipment in area around Swanton Morley, which also has a possible early Roman fort. Both Saham Tony and Swanton Morley are located relatively centrally in the county of Norfolk (map 29). Overall, then, from this study of the distribution and deposition of horse equipment across Norfolk a number of patterns have become apparent. First and foremost, horse equipment is being deposited in a diverse range of ‘landscape’ locations. There are no specific recurring types of natural places into which specific categories of horse equipment are deposited. There is no direct relationship between earlier monuments in the landscape and the locations from which horse equipment is recovered. It would seem that a number of items of phase-three horse equipment are potentially being lost along routeways, presumably falling off vehicles. From the first century BC through into the first century AD a greater degree of the material is entering the archaeological record in potential settlement locations. Finally, there would appear to be a peak in the production and circulation of horse equipment in the first century AD with only a relatively small percentage of this material being taken out of circulation through the process of hoarding. In the next chapter, patterns observed in the distribution and deposition of later Iron Age horse equipment will be considered alongside patterns in torc and coin distribution and deposition, and interpreted within a broader social and historic framework.

88

Chapter 9 Later Iron Age Norfolk: a View from the Metalwork deposited in areas where there is no apparent evidence of other later Iron Age material in the immediate vicinity. The same is true of phase-one items of horse equipment. This apparent preference for remote places for depositing material in phase-one is reflected in the location of four of the six Gallo-Belgic hoards (Fring 9, Buxton-withLammas 10, Wormegay 11 and Weybourne 12). The two other hoards of the Gallo-Belgic coins, one from Sedgeford (13) and the other from Ingoldisthorpe (8) were found in close proximity to possible settlement sites. However, whether these two hoards can be categorised as the same types of deposit as the other Gallo-Belgic hoards has been questioned (chapter 7). By way of contrast, at the end of the period under study (phases two and three), fifty percent of Iceni silver coin hoards are located in areas where other later Iron Age material has been recovered. This is also the case for all phase-three hoards of horse equipment. By the first century AD, then, it would seem that there is a move away from depositing hoards in remote places, and instead, there is a growing emphasis on placing hoards in areas that are within close proximity to other Iron Age ‘activity’. Does this trend reflect different and changing practices in the deposition of metalwork and coins in hoards through this period?

Introduction The last three chapters have focused on examining in detail, patterns in the distribution and deposition of torcs, coins and items of horse equipment across the ‘social’ landscape of Norfolk. The aim of this chapter is to pull together the investigations of the preceding chapters and discover what this research can tell us about later Iron Age Norfolk. Although this study has sought to move away from a historically lead research agenda, the historical record will be re-introduced in this chapter. Rather than attempting to tie aspects of the archaeological record directly to historic events, the historic record will be used to provide an understanding of the broader political changes that were occurring across Britain at this time. Focusing initially on hoards, the first part of this chapter will discuss patterns in their deposition across and within the landscape through time, from the second century BC though to the first century AD. As part of this discussion, the practice of hoarding in later Iron Age Norfolk will be considered. In particular, attention will focus on assessing whether hoards of torcs, coins and horse equipment represent a related, ongoing practice of deliberate metal deposition through time. Building on this initial discussion, the relationship between the landscape and hoarding will also be explored. This will be followed by an investigation of the changing quantities of metalwork taken out of circulation through the practice of hoarding from the second century BC through to the first century AD.

When the first hoards of torcs were recovered from Snettisham in the 1950s it was suggested that they represented the store of a metal smith: ‘the dismemberment of most of the torcs, the hammering out of obsolete gold coins, the lumps of metal ‘cake’ and the drip of solder on the large buffer terminal torc all go to prove that a metal-smith had been engaged in working this material before its concealment, presumably to convert some of his stock-in-trade of out-moded ornaments and useless coins into some form more in accord with the current local taste of the chieftains or religious hierarchy among the Iceni’ (Clarke 1954, 70).

Drawing on the patterns discussed in the first section of this chapter, the next section focuses on outlining broad social changes in Norfolk during the later Iron Age. In particular, the evidence for sub-regional ‘polities’ will be investigated. This is followed by a consideration of the final Iron Age, and the relationship between this region and the wider ‘Roman’ political world. In particular, this section seeks to establish if Norfolk was indeed a cultural backwater in the final Iron Age as is often implied. To conclude, a ‘view’ of later Iron Age Norfolk constructed from this study will be presented.

A similar interpretation was proffered by R.Rainbird Clarke in his discussions of the phase-one hoard of horse equipment from Ringstead:

Metalwork in the landscape: continuity and change ‘The nature of the hoard cannot be in doubt. The lack of wear on the bridle-bits and on the rivets for the bronze plates, and the presence of the ‘cake’ or ingot show conclusively that this is a founders hoard….the proximity of the Icknield Way suggests the hurried act of a wayfaring metal-smith beset by some sudden danger’ (Clarke 1951a, 224).

When examining patterns in the distribution and deposition of all torcs, coins and items of horse equipment together, a number of trends become apparent in the data. In particular, it would seem that there is a general move away from depositing hoards of metalwork and coins in remote places in the landscape from the second century BC through to the first century AD. For example, torc hoards (phase-one) all seem to have been

Following the British Museum excavations in the ‘gold 89

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Boudican rebellion and the deposition of silver coin hoards. However, he too is willing to associate them with historic events, the implication being that they may have been hoarded in a time of stress:

field’ at Snettisham in 1991, where a further six hoards of torcs were recovered, Ian Stead suggested that the material represented a tribal treasury: ‘Although the suggestion that the Snettisham hoards belonged to a treasury leaves some question unanswered, it is more satisfactory than the votive explanation. Great wealth was buried in pits, not displayed, and alongside fine objects there was scrap from the metalsmith’s workshop. The deposition of hoard L suggests that some of the precious items were given greater protection, with a less valuable ‘decoy’ hoard nearer the surface. The hoards were surely hidden, and the presumption must be that whoever hid them intended to retrieve them’ (Stead 1991, 463).

‘The hoards probably represent a series concealed at a range of dates from the conquest or sometime thereafter to the revolt. If one wishes they could be ascribed variably to the historical events of AD43, 47 and 60/1, though this does not particularly matter’ (Creighton 1994, 329). It is not only silver coin hoards that are attributed an AD 60/61 date for deposition. Such a date has also been implied for the deposition of the hoards of horse equipment recovered from Ovington, Saham Tony and the Santon hoard (Spratling 1966; Hawkes and Hull 1947). Essentially, current explanations for the deposition of metalwork and coins from the second century BC through to the first century AD imply that the hoards in this region represent different and unrelated phenomena. Hoards of torcs may be accepted as votive in nature, but whether the same is true of coin hoards and hoards of horse equipment is a point over which scholars are split.

It has also been suggested that the Snettisham torcs, and more particularly, collections of phase-one Gallo-Belgic coins, represent ‘flight hoards’, i.e. collections of material that were buried in haste in the wake of Caesar’s invasions in 55 and 54 BC (Rodwell, 1976, 198-203; Cunliffe 1991b, 120). In essence, a number of ‘functional’ explanations have been put forward regarding the deposition of second/early first century BC metalwork hoards recovered from the county of Norfolk. ‘Functional’ and ‘logical’ explanations have also extended to explain the burial of silver coin hoards. In particular, as previously discussed, there has been a tacit assumption since R. Rainbird Clarke published the Honingham hoard, that silver coin hoards were buried in response to the Boudican rebellion.

So far it has been shown that from the second century BC through to the first century AD there appears to be a shift away from remote places in the landscape for depositing metalwork and coin hoards. It is possible that the patterns noted in the archaeological record is reflecting various practices, ranging from votive deposition in the earlier period, through to non-votive in the later. Is this really the case, are torc hoards, coin hoards and hoards of horse equipment unrelated phenomena?

Under the auspices of the ‘new’ Iron Age with its focus on contextual analyses and emphasis on the role of ritual/religion in the reproduction of social relations, the ‘functional’ interpretation of some hoards has been contested. In particular, subsequent to Stead’s interpretation of the Snettisham torcs as tribal treasuries, it has been suggested that these hoards represent ‘one, regional, facet of structured deposition in the later Iron Age of Europe’ (Fitzpatrick 1992a, 397). In this article Fitzpatrick implies that they are potentially votive deposits, the result of ritual rather than secular activity, if indeed the two can be divided as separate spheres of activity in the Iron Age (Fitzpatrick 1991, 127). However, a ritual or votive interpretation is not usually presented or accepted regarding the phase two and three hoards of silver coins and horse equipment. That the relationship between silver coins hoards and the Boudican rebellion has become an archaeological ‘fact’ is demonstrated in John Davies’ recent synthetic study on Iron Age Norfolk where he refers to ‘Boudican period’ hoards (Davies 1996, 84). In Amanda Chadburn’s recent discussion on the Field Baulk hoard of Iceni coins from Cambridge she concludes, on the basis of pottery associations, that it would ‘fit in with a burial date of c. AD60’ (Chadburn 1992, 80). As noted, John Creighton has gone some way to contest the relationship between the date of the

Hoarding metalwork and coins: unrelated phenomena or ongoing practice? Across the county of Norfolk, there are a number of areas from which there are high densities of later Iron Age metalwork. One such area is the parish of Fring in northwest Norfolk. Within a square kilometre around the modern village of Fring there are two later Iron Age hoards. These comprise a hoard of Gallo-Belgic E coins (phase-one, 9) located approximately 800 metres to the west of the village, and a hoard of silver Iceni coins (phase-two, 18) located on the outskirts of the village. In addition, situated approximately 1,500 metres to the south-west of Fring is the Snettisham coin hoard (phasetwo, 16) and finally, approximately two kilometres to the west is the place from which the Sedgeford torc (phaseone, 3) was recovered. One other hoard of silver Iceni coins is also recorded as having been recovered approximately 500 metres to the south-east of the village, although, this hoard was not seen by local archaeologists and has not been examined in detail in this research. It appears that in and around the village of Fring, there are a number of later Iron Age hoards that date from phase-one 90

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK: A VIEW FROM THE METALWORK

Map 30: Cluster of Hoards in the area of Fring

A similar pattern, although with less known material, is also visible in the parish of North Creake around the hamlet of Shammer. Approximately 500 metres to the west of Shammer House, the North Creake torc (phaseone, 2) was recovered, two and a half kilometres to the east of the torc deposit, a hoard of silver Iceni coins was recovered (phase-two, 19). Between these two hoards there is a Romano-Celtic temple site (SMR 1913) identified by metal-detectors. Again, it is possible that the Romano-Celtic temple is situated at a potential focal point in a region where there was a ‘tradition’, or recurring practice of deliberately depositing hoards of metalwork and coins in the landscape from the second century BC through into the first century AD. The temple site at Shammer is located at approximately sixty metres above present day sea level, a high point in its landscape. It is possible, therefore, that what potentially became a centralised ritual location was situated in a focal point within the landscape.

through into phase-two (map 30). Just to the south of the silver coin hoard (18), there is also (known from aerial photographs and material recovered by metal-detectors) a Romano-Celtic temple site. Around the modern village of Fring there is continuous deposition of metalwork and coin hoards within the landscape from the second century BC through into the first century AD. Finally, centrally placed within the ‘Fring landscape’ is a Romano-Celtic temple site. Without excavation, it is not known if this temple is built on top of an earlier Iron Age structure, a practice seen on a number of sites in other areas of southern Britain such as Hayling Island (Downey, King & Soffey 1979; 1991), or Frilford in Oxfordshire (Bradford & Goodchild 1939). Even if this temple is not placed on a pre-existing structure, it can be suggested that it was placed within a landscape where the deliberate deposition of metal finds was a known and repeated practice. Indeed, the temple site is located in a position that would have been overlooked by the locations into which the hoards of British gold and silver coins were deposited.

In and around the modern villages of Fring and North Creake there are clusters of deliberate deposits of later Iron Age metalwork and coins. These deposits are not related on current evidence, to specific structures, but rather are located in various types of ‘natural’ place (i.e. hilltop, valley bottom). Within the landscape into which these hoards were deposited, there is evidence for later Romano-Celtic temple sites. If hoards are considered as votive, it can be suggested that there is a shift from a range of ‘ritual foci’ in the landscape, towards a focus of

It could be surmised that the hoards from Fring, at least, are potentially referring to an ongoing practice of deliberately depositing metalwork and coins in the landscape, rather than reflecting the burial of ‘wealth’ in response to Caesar’s expeditions or the Boudican rebellion. It is possible, therefore, that they might be votive deposits; the result of ritual rather than ‘practical’ processes, if the two can indeed be separated. 91

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK ritual activity within enclosed structures. From the second century BC through into late first century AD and beyond, it would seem that the ritual or votive activity that was taking place across the landscape became centralised and physically ‘bounded’.

the Roman settlement (Rogerson 1977; SMR 1008). It could be that the Iron Age deposits at these sites pre-date the Roman structures, potentially implying that the temples were constructed within already auspicious places in the landscape.

This ‘harnessing’ or bounding of the landscape, creating what could be defined as ritual ‘places’ in the first century AD, is also demonstrated at the Snettisham ‘gold field’. On this particular site, there are, as discussed, potentially eleven hoards of torcs. From the second century BC through to the early first century BC, at the time the torcs were deposited, it would seem that this site was relatively isolated in terms of other later Iron Age activity, there is no evidence for contemporary occupation at the site (Clarke 1954, 36; Stead 1991, 450). However, following the deposition of the torc hoards, a number of gold Norfolk Wolf staters have been recovered from the site, suggesting that there was ‘activity on the site up to a generation after the deposition of the main hoards’ (Stead 1991, 455). What activity the deposition of single finds of gold coinage represents is unclear. If, as Haselgrove has suggested, we consider single finds of gold coins to be deliberate deposits rather than accidental losses (1993, 50), it could be proposed that purposeful deposition continued at the site following the burial of the torcs. A hoard of silver coins comprising a mix of Iceni and Corieltauvi types was also ‘nighthawked’ from the Snettisham gold field; a hoard that post-dates the Norfolk Wolf staters (Stead 1998, 147-8). There is, then, a sequence of metalwork and coins that has been deposited at the Snettisham gold field that dates from at least the second century BC through to the first century AD. In the areas of Fring and North Creake, it was suggested that ‘ritual foci’ within the landscape were centralised and bounded through the construction of a temple, probably in the later first or second century AD. At Snettisham, a ditch apparently of later first century AD date, was dug round the base of the hill where the hoards are located (Stead 1998, 146). In essence then, at this site, it can be seen that the isolated landscape location into which the Snettisham torcs were interred was re-used and re-visited over time. Eventually, with the enclosing act of the ditch, the focus of activity was ‘harnessed’ or bounded in a similar way to the Fring and North Creake landscapes.

These sites tell us a number of things about the deposition of metalwork and coins in the Norfolk landscape. It could be suggested that silver coin hoards, which are often associated with the Boudican rebellion, may be votive deposits. The examples cited above are located in areas where there are concentrations of other potentially votive metalwork deposits. This would suggest that the practice of burying metalwork and coins in the ground in this region is a continuous tradition; the material changes, but the practice remains the same. Not only is there a change in the materials hoarded through time, but there is also a shift away from depositing metalwork and coins in remote places in the landscape. This trend has been shown through examining patterns in the types of location into which each material group was deposited. At the sites of Snettisham, North Creake and Fring, it can be seen that what were apparently remote locations, devoid of evidence of other later Iron Age material in the second and first centuries BC, became ‘bounded’ places in the later first century AD and beyond. The deposition of metalwork and coin hoards appears to be a tradition that was continuous, yet changeable. It was a practice, arguably ritual in nature, that continued through the later Iron Age from the second century BC through to the first century AD. It could be that changes in the types of favoured location for hoard deposition, i.e. the shift from remote locations to the eventual ‘bounding’ of ritual locations, may be reflecting transformations in the way the landscape was perceived and organised from the second century BC through to the first century AD. Within the continuous practice of hoard deposition, then, alterations regarding the perception of the ‘social’ landscape are glimpsed. Hoarding in the landscape: continuous but complex These broad patterns in the data mask other more complex patterns. For example, in the British Iron Age, it has been recognised that water seems to be a focal point for metalwork deposition (e.g. Fitzpatrick 1984; Bradley 1987; 1990; 2000). However, across the landscape of Norfolk there is great variability in the range of ‘natural places’ that are utilised. There is no one type of location that is suitable for any particular type of deposit. As discussed in chapter 5, four of the torcs deposit were interred on high points in the landscape (Snettisham 1/112, North Creake 2, Sedgeford 3, Bawsey 4/1-4). By way of contrast, the example from Narford was located in the valley of the river Nar. In addition, gold coin hoards, although often situated close to water (a pattern noticed in other parts of Britain (e.g. Haselgrove 1993, 50), also display variation in the types of location into which they were deposited. For example, the Gallo-Belgic hoard from Fring (9) was recovered from a high spot in the

The three examples cited above are situated in the northwest of the county, they may not represent county or regional wide practices. However, the occurrence of later Iron Age material on other Romano-Celtic temple sites is not unknown from other areas of Norfolk. Silver coins have been recovered in the location of the Great Walsingham temple in north Norfolk (Bagnell-Smith 1999). Silver coins have also been recovered in the vicinity of the temple postulated at Wicklewood, Crownthorpe in mid Norfolk, and within the area of the extra-mural temple to the east of Caistor St. Edmund in east Norfolk (Gregory & Gurney 1986, 58). Even the coin hoard from Scole in the central south of the county is located in close proximity to the temple site known from 92

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK: A VIEW FROM THE METALWORK They do not seem to be referring to earlier ‘man-made’ features in the landscape in the later Iron Age, unless to the extent that such features were being actively avoided.

landscape, whereas the example from Sedgeford was found near a valley bottom. Furthermore, silver coin hoards are located in a similar range of location types from lowlying places (e.g. Norton-sub- Course 24, Needham 25 & Scole 17), to high places (e.g. Honingham 22, Weston Longville 23 and the Dereham hoard 20). Within these variations there are some sub-regional patterns. In the north-west corner of Norfolk, it would seem that there is a general pattern of depositing hoards dating to phase-one on relatively high spots. Not only are the majority of torcs located at high points in this area, but the phase-one Ringstead hoard of horse equipment is also high-up, as is the hoard of Gallo-Belgic E (9) coins from the Fring area, and the Snettisham coin hoard. In addition, in this particular area of north-west Norfolk, it would seem that ‘domestic’ remains and human remains are situated on lower points in the landscape (Hutcheson forthcoming; Appendix II). Other sub-regional patterns are also visible. There is a cluster of silver coin hoards that all appear to be situated in remote locations in the centre of the county (Honingham 22, Weston Longville 23 & Dereham 20).

To summarise, it has been noted that there are a number of broad changes in the nature of the types of locations where hoards of metalwork and coins were deposited over time in Norfolk. In particular, there is a shift away from the deposition of hoards in remote parts of the landscape from the second century BC through to the first century AD. It has also been suggested that the changing relationship between the landscape and hoarding practice might reflect broad differences in the way the landscape was perceived and organised through time. Within these broad changes, it would seem that although certain kinds of location may have been ‘right’ or chosen for particular artefacts (e.g. torcs on high spots), overall, a range of natural places were utilised for the deposition of torcs, coins and items of horse equipment. This suggests that the relationship between hoarding and the landscape was not only changing through time, but was also complex. It may be that the landscape was structured and imbued with many meanings. In addition, it has been proposed that rather than being the result of ‘logical’ and ‘functional’ practices, e.g. metalsmiths’ hoards, flight hoards, or Boudican rebellion hoards, the deposition of torcs, coins and items of horse equipment may be part of an ongoing, deliberate, potentially votive practice through time. In essence, it has been proposed that the practice of burying metalwork and coins in the ground in this region is a continuous, if mutable tradition; the material changes, the perception of the landscape changes, but the essential practice remains the same. As well as the points noted above, there is also a change in the circulation of metalwork and coins throughout this period. In particular, the percentage of material taken out of circulation through the process of hoarding alters significantly from the phase-one to phase-three. There are also distinct regional patterns in the distribution of certain material types. These points will be discussed in the next section

What we have then, is a range of natural places that were suitable for the deliberate deposition of metalwork and coins through time. No one type of spot was more important than others; many types of natural place were important within the landscape, not just water. Such a complex pattern in terms of the types of natural place into which metalwork and coins were deposited is not a phenomenon restricted to Norfolk. In his survey of hoarding practices in the later Iron Age in northern Britain and Scotland, Fraser Hunter comments on the range of places into which material was hoarded: ‘A striking feature of the hoards is the variety of contexts in which they are found, not simply the ‘classic’ votive locations of bogs, lochs and rivers, but also on beaches, hills and settlement sites’ (Hunter 1997, 113). There is, in the later Iron Age of Norfolk, a complex relationship between hoarding and the landscape. Many of the places into which hoards were deposited might initially appear to be ‘undefined localities’ (e.g. Stead 1991, 462). However, rather than undefined, it would seem that the choosing of locations for depositing hoards of metalwork was probably open to many variables, these may have included, perhaps, local vegetation or amount of sunlight or even the view. Indeed, it could be suggested that the variety of locations within the landscape where these deposits were interred reflects the complexity of structured deposition of the earlier, middle Iron Age when material is purposefully deposited within and across settlement sites (e.g. Hingley 1990; Hill 1995; Parker-Pearson 1996). However, despite the complexity of the range of ‘natural places’ used for hoarding, it is noticeable that deposition does not seem to favour locations where there are earlier Bronze Age monuments.

Hoarding and circulation: expressions of change The material attributed to phase-one comprises, in the main, torcs and gold coins, although one hoard of horse equipment and one single item of horse equipment (26 Swanton Morley bridle bit) are also dated to phase-one. As noted in chapter 5, it is possible that all the torc deposits from this county may actually represent hoards. It has also been suggested that the phase-one bridle bit from Swanton Morley (26) may originally have been deposited as part of a hoard (chapter 8). Therefore, all items dated to phase-one (second century BC/early first century BC) were potentially deposited in hoards; they were taken out of circulation in a very specific way. This emphasis on hoarding is echoed in the deposition of gold coins. For example, second century BC GalloBelgic A coins, the earliest gold coins from the county, 93

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK hoarding found in the west of the county is reflecting a particular social and political group that was able to acquire substantial quantities of metal, particularly gold, in the second and early first centuries BC. It is possible that the ability to acquire and concentrate gold in this region reflects the control of trading networks. The Wash, for example, might have served as a gateway into this area of Britain, a conduit for North Sea trade.

are only known from the Snettisham torc hoards. However, first century BC Gallo-Belgic E coins (phaseone) and Norfolk Wolf staters (phase-two) are known both from hoards and as single finds. Given that GalloBelgic E coins and early British gold coins are likely to post-date the deposition of torc hoards, it can be suggested that from the beginning to the end of phase-one and into the beginning of phase-two, there is a subtle change in metalwork deposition. As noted in chapter 7, of the 442 examples of Gallo-Belgic E coins surveyed, only twenty (four percent) entered the archaeological record as single finds. Of the eighty-three Norfolk Wolf staters surveyed, thirty (thirty-six percent) entered the ground apparently as single items. Not all material that was clearly considered suitable for hoarding was entering the archaeological record through this process by the middle of the first century BC in Norfolk. This trend continues through phase-two where, as noted in chapter 7, thirty-three percent of silver coins entered the ground as single finds rather than as part of hoards. In addition, of the sixty-one items of phase-three horse equipment, only nineteen items derive from hoards, the rest (sixtynine percent) entered the archaeological record as single finds. Therefore, on present evidence, the percentage of metalwork and coins entering the archaeological record in hoards changed significantly during the later Iron Age in this region.

From around the middle of the first century BC, metalwork (i.e. items of horse equipment) and coins seem to be much more evenly spread across the county and there is a reduction in the amount of gold in being deposited. This transformation is coupled with other behavioural changes. In particular, there is a reduction in the percentage of material that is taken out of circulation through the practice of hoarding, and a gradual move away from depositing hoards in apparently remote places in the landscape. It has been proposed that changes in the landscape location of hoards may reflect alterations in the way the landscape was perceived and ‘socialised’. It may also be that changes in the distribution of materials, and the reduction in the percentage of metal items taken out of circulation through hoarding, points to a break down in ‘sub-polities’ apparent in phase-one. These changes could be reflecting differences in the control over the acquisition, production and circulation of metalwork, and therefore, social organisation from the middle of the first century BC onwards. If this is the case, how does East Anglia fit in with the broader pattern of social change across southern England during the later Iron Age?

There are distinct patterns through time in the countywide distribution of hoards and metalwork, which may be reflecting sub-regional differences in depositional practice, or ability to acquire material. This is particularly apparent in phase-one (second century – mid first century BC), where the majority of hoards (gold torcs and Gallo-Belgic coins) are located in the west of the county (maps 10 & 11). That this concentration of hoarding potentially reflects an ability to acquire large quantities of gold in this area, rather than representing a specific sub-regional depositional practice, is evidenced by the distribution of Gallo-Belgic E coins. Of the five hoards of gold Gallo-Belgic E coins discussed in this research, three are located in the west of Norfolk, the area where phase-one hoards are concentrated. However, there is also a collection of these coins located on the north Norfolk coast, and another in the east of the county. The practice of deliberately depositing Gallo-Belgic E coins in hoards, although concentrated in the ‘gold rich’ area of the west Norfolk, was not confined to this region. Single coins of this type are also known from across the county. If, as noted above, single finds of gold coins represent ‘deliberate deposits rather than accidental losses’ (Haselgrove 1993, 50), it is possible that single coins were taken out of circulation according to the same practice as the hoards. It could be surmised, then, that all examples of Gallo-Belgic E coins entered the ground as a result of a deliberate, potentially votive practice of deposition. However, the quantities of such artefacts deposited across the county are varied. As such, it could be inferred that there were differences in the ability to acquire such coins. It could be that the pattern of

Continuity and change: the social and historic context Across England, the archaeological record points to changes in the way that later Iron Age society was organised in the first century BC. There is an upsurge across most of southern and eastern England in the number of items of metalwork entering the archaeological record. In particular there is a marked increase, in the late first century BC/first century AD, in the number of coins and brooches deposited (Haselgrove 1987; 1993; 1997; Hill 1997). This suggests that more people had access to such materials. In addition, it suggests that visual display with regard to dress changed in the first century BC. The manner in which people presented themselves was changing in the first century BC (e.g. Hill 1997). The settlement record in specific regions also points to a reorganisation of society in the first century BC. For example, by the end of the second century BC, the end of the middle Iron Age, it is thought that the basis of social and political organisation across southern England (or Wessex) comprised small corporate groups. These groups may have been based in individual households, each with an elite and each retaining an emphasis on communal resources within a larger territorial area (e.g. Haslegrove 1989, 16; Hill 1996). As part of this, it has been proposed that certain types of site were fundamental in the reproduction of society up until this time. For example, it is generally thought that 94

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK: A VIEW FROM THE METALWORK Norfolk can be understood in relation to wider political developments that were occurring across temperate Europe in the wake of the spread of the Roman Empire. In particular, this section will focus on the latest phase of the Iron Age (first century AD), which has traditionally been interpreted within a historically determined framework.

hillforts in central southern England, through the practice of constant restructuring and maintenance of ‘defences’, were communal centres, central to the stability of the social status quo (Cunliffe 1995; Sharples 1995). Hillforts, and presumably their role as communal centres, went out of use by the first century BC. Along with the disuse of hillforts, there appears to be a greater increase of internal enclosure within settlements, possibly reflecting a change in social structure from a communal basis to a greater degree of power held by the individual (Cunliffe 1995; Sharples 1995). Regional trends imply that social or cultural changes were not confined to East Anglia in the first century BC. Furthermore, distributions of later Iron Age silver coins seem to point to the existence of specific confederacies or tribes in southern England in the first century BC (see maps in Cunliffe 1981). A number of these larger tribal units were subsequently labelled and documented by Roman authors such as Caesar and Tacitus.

The final Iron Age in Norfolk: horses and Romans In the discussion so far, patterns in the distribution of torcs, coins and items of horse equipment have been examined together with changes in the quantities of such material taken out of circulation through the process of hoarding, which have also been commented on. It has been concluded that the deposition of hoards in the landscape in this region may represent an ongoing, potentially votive practice. Such a proposal has particular ramifications for those hoards that are thought to have been deposited in the ground in response to specific historic events such as Caesar’s expeditions, or the Boudican rebellion. Indeed, this suggestion begins to break down direct links between historical events and the archaeological record. There are, however, other assumptions about later Iron Age society in Norfolk made through a historically determined reading of the archaeological record. In particular, as discussed in the Introduction, it is implied that this region was a ‘cultural’ backwater, disengaged from wider political changes taking place with the advent of Roman influences and eventual domination. In addition, it is thought that postBoudica, the population was annihilated and the region laid to waste (e.g. Sealey 1997, 6; Martin 1999, 85-6; Frere 2001).

There is across southern England, then, evidence for a change in the organisation of society around the first century BC. In central southern England, differences are evidenced in the settlement archaeology of the region. In East Anglia, patterns in the distribution and deposition of metal artefacts point to social change. It would seem that northern East Anglia fits a broader picture of upheaval in the organisation of society from the first century BC onwards across southern England. There is a tendency within historical studies to view such alterations in past societies as sudden, and to explain them through a single event. This is essentially the basis of the ‘invasion hypotheses’ that related changes in the later Iron Age material record to the invasion and movement of peoples and cultures from the continent into Britain (e.g. Hawkes 1959). The linking of changes in the archaeological record with specific events has a long history. For example, in the nineteenth century, the discovery of the cemetery site at Aylesford with its distinctive pottery was linked to the arrival of Belgic settlers, as commented on by Caesar (Evans 1886). Indeed, Caesar’s expeditions to Britain in 55 and 54 BC and the evidence for increased contact with the Mediterranean, are often viewed as the catalyst for apparent changes in the organisation of later Iron Age society in the first century BC (e.g. Cunliffe 1991b). More recently there has been an emphasis on examining and interpreting the re-organisation of later Iron Age society from a retrospective view. Rather than focusing on events in the historical record, there has been a focus on examining routes of change and continuity from the middle Iron Age (e.g. Hill 1995; Haselgrove 1989; Bradley 1990; Sharples 1990). It has been commented upon in this study that the complex relationship between deliberate deposits of metalwork and the landscape in later Iron Age Norfolk may derive, to some degree, from the complex and ‘life giving’ ritual practices rooted in the middle Iron Age (Hill 1995). However, the final section of this chapter will examine how far later Iron Age

Norfolk’s apparent lack of engagement with the Roman world is inferred on the basis of its ‘native’ material culture traditions, and lack of romanised goods. Stylistically the coinage of the region is conservative (Haslegrove 1993, 61), drawing more on ‘native’ rather than Roman influenced imagery. Conservatism in form, fabric and decoration is also a characteristic of Iron Age pottery in this region (Percival 1999). Wheel thrown ‘Gallo-Belgic’ type wares and the cremation rite that seem to go hand in hand as a package in the later Iron Age of the south-east corner of Britain do not seem to make an impact in this area (e.g. Birchall 1965; Fitzpatrick 1997). Romanised artefacts such as early amphorae are not known in any quantity from this region in comparison with areas directly to the south (Martin 1999, 85-6). As noted, these patterns in the material record have been interpreted as a reluctance to have any dealings with the Roman world, which then in turn ‘increased the culture shock to the Iceni after AD43 and contributed to the uneasy relationship between the tribe and Rome after the invasion’ (Sealey 1997, 6): but is this really the case? In the final Iron Age (first century AD), the metalwork record in Norfolk is characterised by silver coins and an 95

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK wealth was not materially Roman; rather the display of wealth and power is of a ‘native’ style. Given the emphasis on ‘native’ rather than Roman display, it has been easy, but potentially misleading to characterise this region as ‘anti’ Roman. However, it is still quite possible that northern East Anglia may have been every bit as involved in new political alliances with Rome, as suggested for central southern Britain in the period after Caesar but before the conquest (e.g. Creighton 2000). These alliances may have resulted in the ability to acquire new ‘wealth’, even if relations where expressed through ‘native’ artefacts and vehicles of display in the form of horses and their trappings, rather than Roman commodities.

increase in horse equipment. Both these artefact types are, either through imagery or function, directly related to horses (coins have the image of a horse on the reverse). In his recent book, Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain, John Creighton has investigated in some detail the importance of the horse in Iron Age society (Creighton 2000, 22-26). In particular, he suggests that horses were central to the reproduction and validation of power or authority. Drawing on a range of sources, he demonstrates that horses are treated differently from other domesticated animals in the archaeological record. In particular he highlights that the horse bones from Gussage All Saints, for example, do not have the same quantity of butchery marks seen on other domesticates (Creighton 2000, 24). He also points to horse bones being less fractured in comparison to other animal bones from the site of Danebury, where it would seem that they were more often recovered in ‘special’ deposits and may have been interred with their flesh still attached (Grant in Creighton 2000, 25). That horses were placed in the ground in special ways is demonstrated at the site of Rooksdown in Hampshire, where three horse skulls were found placed in the base of a pit in the pattern of a three pointed star (Andrew Hutcheson pers. com.). However, the special treatment of horses is not only echoed in the archaeological record. There are a number of references in the Irish vernacular literature, again examined by Creighton, that horses were often incorporated in ceremonies associated with the accession of a ‘king’ or ‘chief’ or ‘tribal leader’.

On the eve of the Claudian annexation of Britain, it is implied in Tacitus Annals that the tribal area of the Iceni, of which Norfolk is the heartland, is a friendly kingdom (Tacitus Annals 12.31). Friendly kingdoms were essential to the Roman empire: ‘Rome was only able to build and keep her empire because she was able to build and keep – for some time at least – ‘friendship’ with the monarchies of her world. Should Rome fail to maintain these friendships, her empire could not survive unchanged, for she could not withstand the size and strength of her enemies’ (Braund 1984, 5). Other than references to the uprising in AD47 and AD 60/61 (Tacitus Annals 12.31; 14.30-14.39; Dio Cassius 62.1-13), very little is known about the friendly kingdom of the Iceni. It is noted in the version of the uprising in Tacitus’ Annals Prasutagus, ‘King of the Iceni’ was of ‘renowned prosperity’ (Tacitus Annals 14.30). In relation to the uprising in AD47, Tacitus refers the Iceni as ‘this powerful tribe’ (Tacitus Annals 12.31). Furthermore it may be that the density of horse equipment dating to the later Iron Age may also be signalling a region that was wealthy. Indeed, the ability to raise a rebellion as successful as the Boudican uprising suggests that this region, if it was the centre of the uprising, although devoid of the obvious signs of ‘romanisation’, was potentially very powerful. How this region was able to gain ‘wealth’ and ‘power’ is less archaeologically visible. It is today the most agriculturally productive area of Britain and has been for much of the last two millennia. In the medieval period, East Anglia was one of the richest regions in the country on the basis of its agricultural wealth in sheep and grain, a factor that seems to have been true also of the Roman period (Williamson 1993). It could be argued, therefore, that the land of the Iceni attracted wealth through its ability to produce large quantities of food.

Creighton’s discussion of the horse in later Iron Age society is related to the use of their image on coins (first century BC/AD). In particular he concludes that: ‘the man/horse image on prestige lumps of metal [coins] was a deliberately conceived symbol, enshrining the concept the right to rule, or more plainly the concept of sacral kingship’ (Creighton 2000, 26). With its overall lack of detailed site excavation, evidence regarding the ‘special’ deposition of horses in the archaeological record in Norfolk is not available. There is though, an increase in the cross county distribution of later first century BC/first century AD coins and items of horse equipment. It could be inferred, then, that there is an increase in the circulation of these artefacts towards the end of the Iron Age. They were not geographically restricted in the way torcs appear to have been, therefore, it could be that more people saw and had access to these items. If this is indeed the case, then the image of the horse as a visual expression of power, wealth and ritual importance, and horses themselves as an embodiment of wealth and power would have been in greater circulation in the final Iron Age.

The Boudican rebellion and the date of AD60/61 has traditionally been recognised as the end of the Iron Age in this region (e.g. Davies 1996, 63) and it is generally accepted that this region was devastated after AD60/61

If horses can be associated with wealth, it could be inferred that by the first century AD, this region was able to produce or acquire a great deal of ‘wealth’. This 96

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK: A VIEW FROM THE METALWORK Within the interior of Norfolk, there would have been large areas of woodland interspersed with cleared regions. Across the county, routeways were etched into the landscape, and clusters of round-houses in open settlements would have been the most common visible structures. It was a landscape that witnessed seasonal exploitation of resources and one, therefore, that was well traversed. Areas of this landscape were physically organised. There is evidence of field systems and linear features and, in the west of the county, there is an apparent emphasis on enclosure; all the hillforts are located in this area, as are a range of rectilinear enclosures that seem to date to the final Iron Age.

(e.g. Sealey 1997). Shepherd Frere proposed that the landscape across Norfolk was taken over by the Roman authorities and centuriated, that is organised on a grid pattern in order to facilitate control of agriculture and taxation (Frere 2001). The effects of the rebellion are thought to be visible in a number of sites from the region. In his excavations at Fison Way, Tony Gregory suggests that the enclosure was dismantled by Roman soldiers in the aftermath of rebellion (1991, 190). However, there are other excavations from this region that do not record any hiatus in settlement activity, for example, at the Iron Age site discovered at Spong in central Norfolk, Robert Rickett notes that ‘occupation continued, without a break, into the Roman period’ (Rickett 1995, 150). It has also been put forward that the Roman civitas capital of Caistor St. Edmund is located in an area of later Iron Age activity, rather than the twon having been a ‘new’ implantation (Davies 1996, 80; 1999, 35). Furthermore, the relevance of the Boudican rebellion in the interpretation of first century AD hoards of silver coins has been questioned in this research. It has also been suggested that a range of items of horse equipment date from the later first century AD and potentially beyond. For example, ‘platform-decorated’ terrets can be dated later on not only a stylistic basis, but also, as noted in chapter 8, all examples of these terrets from Norfolk derive from Roman sites. The assumption that this region was devastated in the aftermath of the rebellion is not sustained by a close reading of the archaeological record. ‘Iron Age’ cultural attributes do not disappear. It may also be suggested that the practice of hoarding metal artefacts in the ground continues after the Boudican rebellion: there are afterall, a number of later first and second century AD hoards from the region including the Crownthorpe hoard (Henig 2001), the Thetford Treasure (Johns and Potter 1983) and the Snettisham Jewellers hoard (Johns 1997). All these collections of material have been assessed in isolation, and as such, have been interpreted as ‘logical’ and ‘functional’ acts of deposition. With a re-reading of the archaeological record in this region, ‘functional’ explanations may no longer be sustainable for such deposits.

The spread of Iron Age material across this landscape, recovered through field-walking, metal-detecting and excavations, suggests that this was a region of England that was densely occupied. Yet in Norfolk there is a lack of settlement archaeology, coupled with a historically lead research agenda which has ensured that our knowledge of the later Iron Age has remained ‘bitty’. This research has filled some of the gaps in our knowledge and created a narrative within which continuity and change in later Iron Age society can be explored. It is now possible to envisage the physical landscape of later Iron Age Norfolk as a ‘social’ or ‘cultural’ place. This was a landscape not only viewed and organised physically in terms of settlement and routeways, boundaries and field systems, but one which was perceived and understood differently from our own: a landscape imbued with meanings, a place where there seems to have been a range of ritual foci. How the landscape was utilised and understood was not static, but rather developing. This is evidenced in changing patterns in the types of locations into which hoards were deposited from the second century BC through to the first century AD. As noted, there was, in the second century BC, an emphasis on placing metalwork hoards on high-points, in what appear to be remote places in the landscape. By the first century AD the emphasis is on locating hoards in places where there is other ‘activity’. The location, or ‘right’ place for hoard deposition changes. Not only are we glimpsing a landscape that is meaningfully constituted, but these meanings, or perhaps their relative importance, alters from the second century BC through the first century AD.

Re-visualising later Iron Age Norfolk The emphasis of this research has been to examine patterns in the distribution of torcs, coin and items of horse equipment across and within Norfolk. In this final section, the ‘mental-image’ of the later Iron Age landscape of this region will be returned to, and a view of later Iron Age society in this region will be presented.

Providing insight into a landscape different from our own, this project has uncovered a society that was dynamic and developing. A shift has been charted from an emphasis on gold artefacts to silver from the second century BC through into the first century BC. This change is coupled with a broader distribution of material across the county and a smaller percentage of metal artefacts being taken out of circulation through the action of hoarding. This trend continues into the first century AD. Such changes in the material record point to developments in the control of the acquisition, production, circulation and deposition of metal artefacts. They point to alterations in the organisation of society in

The physical geography of Norfolk can be broadly characterised by gently rolling ‘downland’, sandwiched between wetlands and fenlands to the east and west. The few glimpses we have of the environment in the later Iron Age suggests that it was wetter than today, with rivers that were deeper and wider. The Fens, rather than flat, open expanses of blackened arable land, would have been areas of rich pasture, reed beds and a haven for wildfowl. 97

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK the region with, as noted, a probable breakdown of subregional ‘polities’ in the first century BC. These changes also point to the introduction of different ‘visual languages’ through time, perhaps languages associated with social power. The artefacts, and accompanying ‘visual languages’ associated with silver coins and items of horse equipment were accessible in a wider range of social arenas in comparison to torcs. They were more wide-spread and potentially, therefore, more available, if not to own, at least to see. As such, these artefacts must have been active in the construction of new kinds of social relationships. New political relationships were being formed at the end of the Iron Age, relationships that perhaps facilitated the extensive use of a new material language. Indeed, rather than a cultural backwater, it has been suggested that the concentration of horse equipment here reflects an ability to acquire wealth at the end of the Iron Age, potentially through economic and political relations with the everencroaching Roman world. In addition, it has been postulated that the flourishing, wealthy later Iron Age society of Norfolk is not, as popular opinion suggests, wiped-out after the Boudican rebellion. The material record suggests that there is a continuing industry producing ‘Iron Age’ style items particularly items of horse equipment. There is, then, a continuation of the production of ‘native’ artefacts potentially bound up with the imagery of power and wealth accessible in a range of social arenas in the early Roman period. In addition, it is possible that the ‘tradition’ of hoarding material in the landscape, a practice that occurs throughout the period, also continues into the second century AD and beyond. This study has begun to provide insight into a dynamic and changing society from the second century BC through to the first century AD. A society that saw social changes, with a move away from an ‘old’ material language centred on torcs and gold, to a new language expressed through the production of ‘native’ coinage and items of horse equipment. It is an era where the landscape that was lived or ‘dwelt’ in was part of the fabric of society, imbued with meanings. It is a period where social changes were tempered with the continuity of deep-seated traditions.

98

Chapter 10 Conclusions, Limitations and Further Work level of material recorded with eight figure grid references. As such, the data from each county would not be comparable, making sub-regional patterns in the distribution and deposition of metal finds potentially meaningless. It was not the aim of this research to pursue a historically lead agenda and establish where the boundary of the Iceni lay. Instead, the emphasis has been to experiment with an unstratified data-set and discover what could be learnt about a region through analysing patterns in its deposition, rather than looking specifically at the ‘land of the Iceni’.

The ‘highlights’ of Norfolk’s Iron Age archaeology: Snettisham, the Iceni and Boudica in context. ‘In stature she was tall, in appearance most terrifying, in the glance of her eye most fierce, and her voice was harsh; a great mass of the tawniest hair fell to her hips, around her neck was a large golden necklace’ (Dio Cassius LXII.2.4)

The research is also hampered to a certain extent by the range of data types investigated. Each set of material culture has its own research agenda and set of literature attached. There are research areas that have not been discussed in this thesis that would perhaps have benefited the overall conclusions if they had. In particular, the project has not focused on technology, function and organisation of production of any of the material categories considered.

As stated in the Introduction, this description of Dio’s inadvertently sums up two of the strongest images of Iron Age Britain, and particularly Iron Age Norfolk. Indeed, work on Norfolk has had a tendency to concentrate either on the torc finds from Snettisham, or the story of Boudica and the tribe of the Iceni. Through my research, it is now possible to begin to place these ‘highlights’ within their broader historical context. We can conclude, for example, that it is unlikely ‘Queen Boudica’ was wearing a torc as she went into battle with Roman invaders in AD60/61. The torcs of Norfolk were part of a different, earlier society; an expression of power from a group of people that no longer existed by the first century AD. Indeed, a gold torc would probably have been an unfamiliar object to Boudica, although perhaps one that she knew of through folklore. Folklore and tradition are the most likely mechanisms ensuring that the hoarding of metalwork in the landscape continued throughout the later Iron Age, and potentially on into the Roman period. It would seem that the communities in this region, that had become wealthy on the back of Roman domination, did not relinquish traditional practices.

In addition to these limitations, there are a number of areas that would benefit from further research. Of particular interest are the changing styles of decoration that are employed on the material under study through time. By the late first century BC and into the first century AD the asymmetrical ‘Snettisham style’ characteristic of the torcs finds from the county and some of the horse equipment, such as the Ringstead bits, disappears. Instead, there is an emphasis on symmetrical designs as evidenced on ‘flat ring’ terrets. Geometric designs decorated in various colours of enamel also emerge on some of the latest items of horse equipment. There is then, not only a change in practices and quantities of circulating metalwork, but also a shift in visual representation from the late second century BC through to the first century AD. As noted in chapter 9, it could be inferred that there is a change in visual languages of power. The changing relationship between visual display and social behaviour across this region during the period of Roman expansion, and indeed, across Britain, is an area that would benefit from further research. Given that certain ‘Iron Age’ artefacts are potentially post-Boudican in date, it would be interesting to investigate the process of ‘romanisation’ through native material culture in this region. Following some of the conclusions reached in this research, a re-assessment of the archaeological record in the period immediately post AD60/61 is required.

In essence, this research has demonstrated that the Snettisham torc hoards and subsequent material attributed to the Iceni and the Boudican rebellion are not isolated events in time. They are contingent upon one another. In order to understand each singular aspect, it is necessary to view them within a broader time frame. Limitations of study and further work A particular limitation of this study has been of working within a single county. The areas of north-east Cambridgeshire and north Suffolk, which are usually recognised as being part of the Iceni tribal region, were not included in this research. These areas were omitted for a number of reasons. By concentrating on Norfolk, it has been possible to utilise a set of material that has all been gathered and recorded in a standardised way. Neither Suffolk nor Cambridgeshire have seen the quantity of metal-detected material recorded, or the high

To conclude, this research has re-assessed the later Iron Age chronology for this region and established that northern East Anglia can be characterised through its metal artefacts. It has begun to build up a narrative that allows the Snettisham torcs, tribe of the Iceni and 99

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Boudican rebellion to be placed within their broader historic context. Finally, and most importantly, it has been demonstrated that metal-detected material need not be the bane of the archaeologist’s life. Instead, drawing on the themes of contextual archaeology and investigating patterns in the distribution and deposition of metal-artefacts across a ‘social’ landscape, it has been shown that such material can provide very fruitful data sets with which to explore the past.

100

Catalogue Torcs

Catalogue Number: 1/3 Site Name: Snettisham ‘gold field’ Description: HOARD D Twisted bar torc with double loop terminals with a ring through one of the terminals. This torc was found in isolation by the plough in 1950. Hoard: yes Date: 1st/2nd century BC Phase: 1 NGR: 6820,3490 Height OD: 34m Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds) Reference: SMR; Stead 1991, 449; Current Archaeology 1991, vol 126, 261. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue number: 1/1 Site Name: Snettisham ‘gold field’ Description: HOARD A recovered in 1948. This hoard comprises four gold tubular torcs. Three are almost complete, the fourth is fragmentary. In addition a used gritstone was found in this hoard. It would seem that the torcs were incomplete and dismembered before being buried. All four are of the same type comprising two curved tubes of gold sheet filled with wax or sand around a central iron core. At the terminal of each of the torcs is a large ‘buffer’. At the back of the ring is a moulding, the width of which varies from torc to torc (see Clarke 1954 for a detailed discussion of each torc). Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF6820, 3490 Height OD: 34m Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds). Reference: SMR; Clarke 1954, 27-86. Illustration:Yes

Catalogue Number: 1/4 Site Name: Snettisham ‘gold field’ Description: HOARD E This torc, like the one from ‘hoard’ D was recovered in 1950. Again, an isolated find, it comprises the famous ‘Great Torc’. This torc is made up of eight separate twisted wire strands, each made up of eight twisted wires. The terminals are ring types and are decorated in the ‘Snettisham Styles’ that comprises an asymmetrical arrangement of elliptical, circular and pellet motifs with areas of basket weave decoration. Threaded through the ring of the Great torc was a twisted bar torc with a large buffer terminal and a bracelet constructed from two hollow tubes of gold with a vine like repetitive pattern running around its outside. In addition, a Gallo-Belgic D stater was lodged in one of the terminals of the torc. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF6820,3490 Height OD: 34m Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds) Reference: SMR; Clarke 1954, 63-8. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 1/2 Site Name: Snettisham ‘gold field’ Description:HOARDS B & C recovered in 1948. These two hoards unfortunately became mixed together. They comprise a variety of material including four examples of complete torcs, and many fragments gold, electrum and copper alloy torcs with single, double and triple ring terminals. There are also examples of fragmentary twisted wire torcs with buffer terminals. As well as the numerous fragments of torc and twisted wire, there were a number of bracelets, ‘ingot rings’ and cakes of metal found as part of this hoard. Hoards B and C are one of the few to have had coins interred in the ground alongside the torcs. The coins comprise Gallo-Belgic A,C, and D types, with a number of potin types. As discussed in chapter 4, the dating of coins is open to debate, but current thinking suggests that the earliest coins from Snettisham date from the second century BC, with later ones through to the early first century BC. At what point in this period these hoards were buried is not clear, however, it would seem that they were placed in to the ground certainly before the middle of the first century BC. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF6820,3490 Height OD: 34m Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds) Reference: SMR; Clarke 1954, 27-86; Haselgrove 1999, 125-7, 165. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 1/5 Site Name: Snettisham ‘gold’ field Description: In 1964 a fragment of a loop terminal was found, as was a complete twisted bar torc. The bars of this torc are approx. 7mm each in diameter with slightly thicker terminals. On the outer edge of each terminal is a protruding tang of metal, which may be casting jets left after the casting of the terminals onto the bars. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF6820, 3490 Height OD: 34m Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds) References: SMR; Burns 1971, p 228-9, fig. 2. Illustration: yes

101

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK total there were four silver torcs, on gold and six copper alloy. From the illustration in Stead’s ‘Antiquity’ report, it can be seen that at least some of the torcs were constructed from strands of twisted wire with loop and buffer terminals. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century Phase: 1 NGR: TF 6820,3490 Height OD: 34m Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds) Reference: SMR; Stead 1991, 451 & pl. V. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 1/6 Site name: Snettisham ‘gold field’. Description: 1968 find of a complete twisted bar torc with single loop terminals. Each bar is 5mm in diameter. The loop terminals have been constructed from slightly thicker bars and have been cast-on. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF6820,3490 Height OD: 34m Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds). Reference: SMR; Burns 1971, 228, Pl XX. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 1/10 Site name: Snettisham ‘gold field’ Description: HOARD J This hoard comprises nine complete or near complete torcs: two silver, three copper alloy and four gold. Hoard J contained a range of loop terminal types, single, double and single, some decorated with punch dots. In addition, a variety of construction techniques are apparent including twisted bar and twisted wire types, and one that appears to have been ‘plaited’. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR:TF 6820,3490 Height OD: 34m Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds) Reference: SMR; Stead 199, 450-51, pl IV, figs 2,3,4 & 5. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 1/7 Site name: Snettisham ‘gold field’. Description: HOARD F Found in 1990 by CA Hodder and further investigated by the British Museum, this hoard is similar in composition to that of hoard B/C. It comprises fragments of torcs, including a flattened piece of a decorated tubular torc (which appears to be early in date, possible 3rd century BC), ingot rings and coins, and seems to have been buried in a bronze vessel. Again the coins, Gallo-Belgic A and C types, derive from the second through to the early first century BC. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC. Phase: 1 NGR: TF 6820,3490 Height OD: 34m Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds) Reference: Stead 1991, 447-65. Illustration: yes

Catalogue number: 1/11 Site name: Snettisham ‘gold field’ Description: HOARD K This hoard comprises 8 torcs; five of copper alloy, one silver and two gold. At least one of these torcs comprises a series of twisted, narrow bars and a triple loop terminal. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 6820, 3490 Height OD: 34m Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds). Reference: Stead 1991, 450-51, fig 6. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 1/8 Site name: Snettisham ‘gold field’ Description: HOARD G Found during the 1990 British Museum excavations. Nest of complete torcs comprising one gold, six silver and nine bronze examples. In addition, there were four ingot bracelets, two of gold or electrum, one silver and one copper alloy. At least one of the torcs (the only published illustration of this hoard) comprises four twisted bars and cast on loop terminals. The torcs in this hoard were buried in two layers. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century Phase: 1 NGR: TF 6820,3490 Height OD: 34m Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds) Reference: Stead 1991, 45, fig 7. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 1/12 Site Name: Snettisham ‘gold field’ Description: HOARD L Hoard L appears to be the largest of the complete or near complete nests of torcs. Like hoard H, it also includes two possible ingot bracelets. In terms of torcs, there are four silver, three electrum, ten gold and two copper alloy examples. In addition, there is a wide variety of torc types contained within this hoard including buffer, cage, reel, ring and loop terminal. A variety of construction techniques are also displayed be the examples in hoard L.

Catalogue Number: 1/9 Site Name: Snettisham ‘gold field’. Description: HOARD H This hoard, like hoard H was buried in two layers. In 102

CATALOGUE Hoard: ? Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR : TF 6613, 2073 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Gurney 1990, 41.1, 100. Eastern Daily Press, 23 May 1989. Illustration:yes

Much like hoards G and H, hoard L was buried in two layers. A number of items from this group have been decorated in the Snettisham style. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 6820, 3490 Height OD: 34 Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, (all sherds) Reference: Stead 1991 450-1, figs 16,17, 19. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 4/2 Site name: Bawsey Description: Complete twisted bar torc with single loop terminals. This type is similar to some of those recovered from Snettisham. Hoard: ? Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 6610, 2019 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: SMR; Wake, T. 1942, 28.1, 26-7. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 2 Site name: North Creake Description: Gold torc terminal of the ring variety. This terminal is decorated on one face with asymmetrical motifs in relief and some chased or engraved decoration. This style is similar seen on a number of the Snettisham torcs, known as the ‘Snettisham Style’. Within the hollow terminal are the remains of the ‘ring’ of the torcs. The ring was constructed from six gold wire strands, each comprising six interlaced wires. This is a similar construction seen in a number of torcs from Snettisham, including the ‘Great Torc’ of hoard E. Hoard: ? Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 8220, 3800 Height OD: 63m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: Roman Reference: SMR; Clarke 1951, 59-61; Clarke R. R. 1954, pl 17. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 4/3 Site name: Bawsey Description: Complete twisted bar torc with double loop terminals, similar to examples found at Snettisham in the ‘gold field’. Found 1944. Hoard: ? Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF6610, 2079 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: SMR; Clarke 1951(b). 61 Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 3 Site name: Sedgeford Description: Incomplete and distorted fragment of a twisted wire, ring terminal torc. The terminal on this torc is decorated with an asymmetrical relief design comprising elliptical, trumpet and circular motifs – the ‘Snettisham style’. Like the torc from Snettisham Hoard E (1//4) and the example from North Creake (2), this ring terminal is only decorated on the upper face. The ‘neckring’ of the torc is constructed from a series of strands created from twisted wire. Hoard: ? Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 7130,3520 Height OD: 58m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: SMR; Eastern Daily Press, 30 December 1966; Jope 2000 vol 2, pl 115. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 4/4 Site Name: Bawsey Description: In 1984, 125 fragments of single and double torc wire were found in the same field as the two torcs recovered in 1941 and 1944. Hoard: ? Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 6610,3079 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: MD, CF Other Material: None Reference: SMR. Illustration: Yes Catalogue Number: 5 Site name: Marham Description: ‘About 1966 a possible gold torc found on surface of ploughed filed and thrown away again, cf. best Snettisham torc about 3/4 surviving’ (information entered into SMR). Hoard: ? Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 7410,0855 Height OD: 22m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: SMR

Catalogue Number: 4/1 Site name: Bawsey Description: Two buffer terminals decorated in relief with an asymmetrical triskele in the ‘Snettisham Style’. This decoration is similar to that seen on the central plaque of the horn cap (no. 100), and other torcs recovered from Snettisham. 103

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK known G-B E hoards. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 5730,3470 Height OD: 40m Method of Recovery: MD, CF Other Material: Roman Reference: SMR 1661. Illustration: No

Illustration: No Catalogue Number: 6 Site name: Blackborough End Pits, East Winch Description: Complete ‘plaited’ bar/wire torc with triple loop terminals. This plaiting of the bars of wires seems to be similar to an example from Hoard J from the Snettisham ‘gold field’. Hoard: ? Date: 2nd/1st century Phase: 1 NGR: TF 6780,1500 Height OD: 35m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: Iron Age Reference: SMR; Stead 1991, 545 fig 4. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 10 Site name: Buxton- with Lammas Description: Fourteen Gallo-Belgic E staters found within an area approximately twenty-five by ten metres. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century B Phase: 1 NGR: TG 2473,2370 Height OD: 40m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Post Medieval. Reference: SMR Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 7 Site name: Narford Description: “Gold or electrum torc fragment consisting of most of a ring of braided wire with a buffer terminal, partly melted, with parts of loop terminal and twisted bar torcs fused to it. 6 to 8 other torc scraps found at same time. Sold to ..” + “At same spot and by same people; complete Iron Age torc with elongated loop-terminals; also sold to ….for £3500”. (night-hawkers find - information on SMR). Hoard: ? Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 7710,1420 Height OD: 20m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: SMR Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 11 Site name: Wormegay Description: Four Gallo-Belgic E coins found over two years within a 10 metre area. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 6610,1150 Height OD: 3m Other Material: None Reference: SMR Illustration: No Catalogue Number: 12 Site Name: Weybourne Description: Over 200 Gallo-Belgic E coins and at least four Gallo Belgic D quarter Staters. The majority of these were recovered on Weybourne beach in the mid 1950s after a storm revealed “two dark soil filled features in section at the back of the beach”. Although the coins were recovered in the 1950s (and around 25 subsequent to that), the finder only reported the hoard in March 2002! He had retained 1 stater and 1 quarter stater and sold the rest. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TG 1170,4370 Height OD: 18m Method of Recovery:CF Other Material: None Reference: SMR Illustration: No

Gallo-Belgic Coin Hoards Catalogue Number: 8 Site name: Ingoldisthorpe Description: Two Gallo-Belgic C coins recovered within one metre of each other. Hoard: ? Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 6816, 3275 Height OD: 8m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval. Reference: SMR 17626. Illustration: yes Catalogue Number: 9 Site name: Fring (Roman Villa) Description: 170 Gallo-Belgic E coins and three GalloBelgic D quarter Staters. All the coins were found within a relatively defined area of approximately thirty by sixty metres. They are likely to be part of a dispersed hoard. The Gallo-Belgic D staters appeared to be considerable more worn than the G-B E types (this would fit in with the suggested earlier date for GB-Ds compared to Es suggested by Haselgrove). The distribution of the subclasses of Es within the hoards corresponds with other

Catalogue Number: 13 Site name: Sedgeford Description: Three Gallo-Belgic E coins found within two metres of each other. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 7099,3630 Height OD: 15m Method of Recovery: Exc. Other Material: Saxon 104

CATALOGUE Reference: SMR 1607; Eastern Daily Press , 30 August 1997. Illustration: No

Silver Coin Hoards Catalogue Number:17 Site Name: Scole House, Long Meadow Description: A total of 289 coins comprising 202 Iceni silver types and 87 Roman coins were recovered from a building site at Scole House in Scole. The Iceni range from examples of Boar-Horse, Face-Horse and PatternHorse. The majority of the coins are Pattern-Horse, as is the norm with Iceni hoards. Of the 87 Roman coins, the latest dates to the Emperor Nero, so it would seem that this hoard has a ‘terminus post quem’ date of AD60/61. Hoard: yes Date: Mid 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TM 1480,7870 Height OD: 25m Method of Recovery: CF, MD Other Material: Roman Reference: SMR; Burnett & Bland 1986, 7-11. Illustration: No

British Gold Coin Hoards Catalogue Number: 14 Site Name: Runton Description: Two Late Freckenham ?quarter staters. Found out of the cliff on Runton beach. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR : TG 1948,4298 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: SMR 30894; Eastern daily Press, 24 August 1994. Illustration: No Catalogue Number: 15 Site name: Heacham Description: Nine Norfolk Wolf Staters and two Snettisham type staters. These coins were found over a period of three years in an area of approximately sixtyfive metres square across one field. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR : TF 6750,3800 Height OD: 5m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age , Roman, Saxon, Medieval. Reference: SMR 28850 Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 18 Site name: Fring Description: Between 150 and 170 silver Iceni coins. The types present include Boar-Horse B, Boar-Horse C, Early Face-Horse, Normal Face-Horse A and B/C, and a variety of Pattern- Horse bearing the whole gamut of inscriptions: ANTED, ECEN, ED(N), ECE, SAENV. Five percent of the coins in the hoard comprise BoarHorse types, twenty percent comprise Face-Horse and seventy percent Pattern-Horse. The percentages of types are slightly different to the average suggested by Derek Allen in his survey of Iceni coin Hoards in the early 1970s where he suggested they should occur at seven percent, thirty percent and sixty percent respectively. Unlike a number of other Iceni coins hoards, this example contains no Roman coins, therefore, it is difficult to provide a ‘terminus post quem’ date for this hoard. However, inscribed Pattern-Horse coins are understood to be the latest in the Iceni silver sequence, it seems reasonable to suggest then that this hoard was buried sometime in the 1st century AD, potentially pre-conquest. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 2 NGR: TF 7383,3462 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: SMR; Chadburn & Gurney 1991, 218-25. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 16 Site name: Snettisham Description: Ninety-one coins found over three years in an area of twenty by ten metres. The hoard comprises forty-four Norfolk Wolf Staters (British Jb), with left facing wolf. These are the most worn of the coins. There are forty-four ‘Whaddon Chase’ derivatives that fall into two types; seven resembling Mack 141, 23 resembling Mack 143 and a further fourteen quarter staters resembling Mack 76 (Gregory 1992, 50-1). These Whaddon Chase derivatives are now known as the Snettisham type stater. There are also, unusually within a hoard of gold coins, three silver Iceni coins of early Face/Horse type. Hoard: yes Date: 50 –1 BC Phase: 2 NGR: TF 7245,3335 Height OD: 60m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: SMR 23504; Gregory 1992, 47-67. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 19 Site name: North Creake Description: Over a period of five years twenty-six Iceni units have been recovered from this site. They comprise a mixture of Boar-Horse, Face-Horse and Pattern Horse varieties (ECE/EDN) and derive from a dispersed hoard. At present there are no examples of latest inscriptions attributed to the Iceni coin series (eg SAENV or ALE SCA etc) in this hoard. A date in the early part of the first century AD seems most likely for the burial of this hoard. 105

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 2 NGR: TF 8530,3753 Height OD: 25m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, Medieval. Reference: SMR. Illustration: No

Description: This hoard was recovered in the 19th century and comprises between 150 and 300 Iceni units and three Republican denarii. Like other Iceni coin hoards, this hoard comprises a mixture of Boar-Horse, Face-Horse and Pattern-Horse coins. Given that the Roman coins are potentially earlier than some of the Iceni coins within the hoard, they do not provide a terminus ‘post quem date’. However, the Pattern Horse coins are the latest phase of the Iceni series, therefore a date in the early to mid first century AD seems most likely for the burial of this hoard. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 2 NGR: TG 1056,1668 Height OD: 35m Other Material: None Reference SMR; Allen 1970, 21. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 20 Site name: Dereham Description: This hoard comprises eight coins “found in a small concentration”. Four are Iceni silver units, two Pattern-Horse ANTED and two Pattern-Horse ECE, the other four coins are Roman silver denarii. Three of the Roman coins are Republican issues and the latest dates to the reign of the Emperor Tiberius (AD14-37), thus providing a ‘terminus post quem’ in the early first century AD. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 2 NGR : TG 0135,1513 Height OD: 55m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman Reference: SMR Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 24 Site name: Norton Sub Course Description: At least 116 Roman silver denarii found in a field that has been regularly ploughed in an area approximately thirty by seventy metres. The coins range in date from 150 BC through to AD41-2. In addition to the Roman coins, there are at least three Iceni coins. Given the date of the latest coin, this hoard must have been interred in the ground after AD42. Hoard: yes Date: mid-first century AD Phase: 2 NGR: TG 4011,0010 Height OD: 5m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: SMR 15015 Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 21 Site name: Forncett Description: This hoard of twelve coins comprises two denarii of Tiberius, two Republican denarii and eight Iceni silver units. Unfortunately the types of Iceni coin were not recorded, however the Tiberian denarii provide an early-mid first century AD ‘terminus post quem’ date for this hoard (AD14-37). Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 2 NGR: TG 1590,9365 Height OD: 42m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Bronze Age, Roman, Saxon Medieval. Reference: SMR Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 25 Site name: Needham Description: A group of eight silver Roman denarii found just to the north of the River Waveney in an area forty by twenty metres. The coins range in date from 109 BC through to AD 60/61. All but one Neronian coin were struck before AD43. However, on the basis of this coin, it must be that the hoard was not concealed before AD60/61. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TM 2348,8226 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: SMR 29621. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 22 Site name: Honingham hoard Description: Honingham hoard. This hoard comprises at least 344 Iceni silver units and no Roman coins. The coins were interred in the ground in a pot similar in style to Gallo-Belgic and local copies known in the Camulodunum area. The pot dates to the early-mid first century AD, a date that fits with the later Pattern-Horse inscribed coins found in this hoard. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 2 NGR: TG 1010,1120 Height OD: 44m Other Material: None Reference: SMR; Allen 1970, 21; Clarke 1956, 1-9 Illustration: No

Bridle Bits Catalogue Number: 26 Site Name: Swanton Morley. Description: Complete three-link type bit. The side links and central links are cast in copper alloy; the end rings have an iron core. This bit is undecorated.

Catalogue Number: 23 Site name: Weston Longville 106

CATALOGUE Hoard: yes Date: 1st/2nd century BC Phase: 1. NGR: TG 0300,0610 Height OD: 33m. Method of Recovery: Exc. Reference: Green 1967, 385-6, pl. 52 Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 30 Site name: Ringstead Description: Complete bit of three-link type. The end loops or rein rings rotate freely in the terminal sockets of the side links. The central link is decorated in the middle with a central moulding. Both the stop studs on the end loops and the side links are decorated in the ‘Snettisham Style’. This decorative technique is seen on a number of other items of horse equipment including the Ulceby bit from Lincolnshire and the terrets from Bury Hill, Hampshire. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 7148,4202 Height OD: 41m Other Material: None Method of Recovery: CF, Exc. Reference: Jope 2000, vol.2 pl 274; Cunliffe 1996, 35; Palk 1984, 37; Fox 1958, pl.24; Clarke 1951, 514-25; Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 27 Site Name: Swanton Morley. Description: Complete copper alloy bridle bit. This bit comprises six pieces; two rein rings with two short, cast on side links and two central inks. In terms of movement it is similar to a ‘three-link’ bit and could be categorized as a ‘three-link derivative. Both the end loops are decorated, one with a ‘fleur de lys’ design, the other with a central enameled disc flanked on either side with two smaller discs. A number of bits are known with decorated end loops such as the one from Middlebie in Scotland and the example from Rise in east Yorkshire. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 0154,1653 Height OD: 58m. Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Gurney 2001, 7; MacGregor 1976, vol 2, 5 & 10.

Catalogue Number: 31 Site name: Ringstead Description: Complete bit of three-link type. The end loops or rein rings rotate freely in the terminal sockets of the side links. The central link is decorated in the middle with a central moulding. Both the stop studs on the end loops and the side links are decorated in the ‘Snettisham Style’. This decorative technique is seen on a number of other items of horse equipment including the Ulceby bit from Lincolnshire and the terrets from Bury Hill, Hampshire. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 7148,4202 Height OD: 41m Method of Recovery: CF, Exc. Other Material: None Reference: Jope 2000, vol 2, pl 274; Cunliffe 1996, 35; Palk 1984, 37; Fox 1958, pl.24; Clarke 1951, 214-25; Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 28 Site name: Stratton Strawless Description: Central link of a two-link bit. The central loop, which is decorated with a collar at its base, is broken, presumably through wear. The shaft of the pieces has a central moulding and the end loop, through which the rein ring would have run is also decorated with heavy moulding. Polden Hill Type. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 1297,2103 Height OD: 20m Method of Recovery: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Brailsford 1975, pl 20. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 32 Site name: Ovington, Saham Tony Description: Fragment of a developed three-link type bit comprising an end-loop and side-link cast in one. The end loop has a cross bar within the ring decorated with interlocking triangular cells. Square settings for enamel are situated around the inside edge of the ring. This fragment is similar to one found in the Seven Sisters hoard recovered from Neath, Wales. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9257,0400 Height OD: 75m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Clarke 1940, 100-1; MacGregor 1976, vol 1, 26; Jope 2000, vol 2 pl 276; Fox 1958, fig 78, 1. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 29 Site name: West Acre Description: Fragment of a Polden Hill type two-link bit. One end comprises a cylindrical loop, which would have housed the end-loop or rein-ring. This is decorated with three central mouldings and a fine groove at either end. The shaft is also decorated with transverse mouldings. This bit fragment is not dissimilar to that found at Stratton Strawless (no. 28) Hoard: Yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 7680,1515 Height OD: 35m Method of Recovery: MD, FW Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 2000, 43.3, 518. Illustration: yes

107

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1994, 42.1, 106; Taylor and Brailsford 1985, 247. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 33 Site name: Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Description: Two-link bit. The central link shows signs of wear and one of the end loops is broken. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9135, 0645 Height OD: 80m No Method of Recovery: MD, Exc. Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Davies 2000, 230. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 37 Site name: Gaytonthorpe Roman Villa Description: Following the same design as 37 this strapunion comprises two conjoined oval loops separated with a central collared moulding. On the reverse, which is hollow, is a D-shaped attachment bar. This piece is very similar in style to the mount from Gaytonthorpe Roman Villa (60). It is possible, that these two objects form part of a hoard. Hoard: ?yes Date: 1st centuryBC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TF 7353,1805 Height OD: 20m Method of Recovery: MD, FW, Exc. Other Material: Roman Reference: de Bootman 1998, 136. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 34 Site name: Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Description: Two-link bit, the loops through which the two side rings run through are waisted and have central rib. The bars of the central link also have moulded decoration. This bit shows signs of wear. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9135,0645 Height OD: 80 Method of Recovery: MD, Exc Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Davies 2000, 230. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 38 Site name: Fring Description: Three way strap-union attached to a central hexagon bearing what appears to be a human face in relief. One the of the rings is missing, probably broken in antiquity. The whole piece is cast in one, with decoration only occurring on the side that bears the face. The rings and edge of the central hexagon are decorated with a series of ‘punched’ dots. The face is extremely worn. These strap-unions seem to be uncommon, however a three ringed example is known from Camerton, although it does not have a face. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TF 7410,3460 Height OD: 40m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished; Jackson 1990, pl. 6, 61. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 35 Site name: Santon Hoard Description: End loop and side link of a two-link ‘Polden Hills’ type bridle bit. It seems that the second side-link may have been replaced at some stage with an iron link. The centre of the side-link is octagonal in section. The link through which the end-loop runs has ‘ears’ characteristic of this type of bit, each ear is decorated with a circular cell which would have originally filled with red enamel. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Spratling 1966, 16 fig 10. Illustration: yes

Catalogue Number: 39 Site name: Bawsey Description: Type 1 strap-union comprising two conjoining circles flanked on either side by vertical bars attached at each end. The circles are decorated with two raised concentric circles, one defining the rim of central perforation, the other defining the outer rim. Within the two concentric circles are a row of 10 raised pellets. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TF 6625,2223 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Gurney 1996, 42.3, 390. Taylor and Brailsford 1975, 247. Illustration: yes

Strap-unions Catalogue Numbers : 36 Site name: Burgh Castle Description: Complete Type 1 strap-union. The two conjoining rings are decorated with a series of pellets within two incised concentric circles. The central cell of each ring would have originally contained a stud of either coral or enamel. The horizontal attachment bars are also decorated with pellets. On the side of each ring are three circular motifs, each filled with a rosette of pellets, linked with an elongated S-coil. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1/2 NGR: TG 4781,0453 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: MD 108

CATALOGUE Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 40 Site name: Shouldham Description: Type 1 strap-union with two conjoining circles flanked on either side by two vertical attachment bars. Hoard: no Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 1-3 NGR: TF 6975,0825 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age/Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1999, 43.2,362. Brailsford and Taylor 1985, 247. Illustration: yes

Linch-pins Catalogue Number: 44 Site name: Thornham Description: Cast copper alloy linch-pin with a curved, circular sectioned shank and square head. The head is perforated in the middle. This type of linch-pin is reminiscent of those found in Danes Grave in eastern Yorkshire, suggesting an early date, although the it cast in copper alloy rather than iron. This basic form of linch-pin is also seen in the Orsett Cock enclosure, although the crescent head on that example suggests a later date (1st century AD). In addition, a similar type of linch-pin was recovered in the most recent of the Wetwang burials. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TF 7310,4338 Height OD: 9m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Gregory 1986, 36; Stead 1979,45. Hill 2002, 410-12. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 41 Site name: Yarmouth Roman town. Description: Unusual strap-union comprising four central discs flanked above and below with elongated ‘comma’ motifs. On either side are two vertical attachment bars in the manner of a type one strap-union. Hoard: No Date: later Iron Age Phase: unphased NGR: TG 5169,1219 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: MD, CF, Exc. Other Material: None Reference: Palk 1988, no. 433. Taylor and Brailsford 1985, 268 fig 13. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 45 Site name: Quidenham Description: Foot of a composite linch-pin. The foot, which is shaped like the hoof of a horse, has a square socket at the top into which the shank would have been attached. The base of the hoof is decorated with three overlapping circles, three areas of which are shaded with stippling. Within the shaded areas there is a ring and dot design. The ring and dot design may indicative of late date, although this style of linch-pin is long lived with examples known from the Yorkshire ‘chariot’ burials and the Stanwick Hoard. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TM 0170,8850 Height OD: 40m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval, Reference: Stead 1979, 45; MacGregor 1962, 48. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 42 Site name: Ringstead Description: Type 1 strap-union comprising two conjoined circles with vertical strap bars on either side. Although type 1 strap-unions are not closely datable, this example was found as part of the Ringstead hoard and therefore is most likely to be of an early date. Hoard: yes Date: 2nd/1st century BC Phase: 1 NGR: TF 7148,4202 Height OD: 41m Method of Recovery: CF, Exc. Other Material: None Reference: Clarke 1951, 222-3; Taylor and Brailsford 1985, 253. Illustration: Yes Catalogue Number: 43 Site name: Ovington, Saham Tony Description: Cruciform shaped strap-union. The central portion is square. It is flanked by petals to the left and right and Mitre shapes to the top and bottom. A number of enamels appear to have been used on this piece including a light blue colour. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9257,0400 Height OD: 75m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Clarke 1940; 100-1; MacGregor 1976, vol 1, p 26; Palk 1988, no 470.

Catalogue Number: 46 Site name: Beachamwell Description: Complete composite linch-pin with perforated vase head and ‘hoof’ shaped foot. The top of the head has a circular recess which is decorated with decorated with an ‘ S’ scroll with disc terminals. The base of the ‘hoof’ is contains two circular mouldings. In type, it is very similar to those found in the ‘Arras’ burials. These types of linch-pins are notoriously difficult to date and seem to have been long lived in terms of design. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TF 7520,0910 109

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK sectioned iron shank and copper alloy head with domed enamel decorated ‘hat’ on top. Three colours of enamel have been used: blue, yellow and red. The range of enamel colours used suggests a later rather than earlier date. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TL 7938,8900 Height OD: 15m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Gregory 1980, 338-4. Illustration: Yes

Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Gregory1980, 338-41; Stead 1979, 45. Illustration:Yes Catalogue Number: 47 Site name: Broome Description: Enameled, barrel headed linch-pin with fragment of an iron shank. The decoration on the top of the pin with its double lobe design in relief and red enamel background is reminiscent of the designs apparent on the harness mounts from the Santon hoard (66) and a range of flat ring terret (e.g. 129) Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TM 3536, 9352 Height OD: 21m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Spratling 1966, 14, fig 8; Brailsford 1975, Pl . 23,a. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 52 Site name: Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Description: Composite linch-pin with a perforated copper alloy globular head. The hoof-shaped foot is decorated with five circular recesses one of which still contains red enamel. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9135,0645 Height OD: 80m Method of Recovery: MD, Exc Other Material: Later Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Davies 2000, 226. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 48 Site name: Attleborough Description: Copper alloy vase headed linch-pin. The decoration on the top surface of the head comprises three raised ring and dot motifs. The shank of the linch pin, which is fragmentary, is made of iron. Ring and dot decoration are seen on a number of 1st century AD pieces such as the material from Stanwick and the harness mount from Chepstow, Monmouthshire. It is possible that this item could then be later Iron Age in date, potentially 1st century AD. Hoard: ? Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TM 0642,9719 Height OD: 37m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Macgregor 1962; Jope 2000 Vol. 2, Pl 276,e Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 53 Site name: Tacolneston Description: Vase Headed Linch-pin Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: unphased NGR: TM 1522,9478 Height OD: 56m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No Catalogue Number: 54 Site name: Hillington Description: Linch-pin with ‘sugar-loaf’ shaped knob (?foot) with fragment of a rectangular shaped shank. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TF 7340,2535 Height OD: 45m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 49 Site name: Attleborough Description: Vase headed linch-pin, decoration on top surface comprises three raised ring and dot. Part of an iron shank remains. This linch-pin is part of one of a pair (48). Hoard: ? Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TM 0642,9719 Height OD: 37m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Reference: Macgregor 1962; Jope 2000 Vol. 2, Pl 276,e. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 55 Site name: Tatterset Description: Fragment of a hoof-shaped linch-pin foot. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR:TF 8520,2959 Height OD: 53 Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, Reference: Unpublished

Catalogue Number: 51 Site name: Weeting-with-Broomhill Description: Near complete linch-pin with a square 110

CATALOGUE oval with a downward pointing hook on the reverse. The artefact, which is probably some kind of mount or srtap end loop, is concave with a hollow back. At the front, in the middle of the piece are a series of transverse grooves. This piece was found in close proximity to 37. Given their similarity in design and close proximity, it has been suggested that are part of a potentially larger hoard. Hoard: ?yes Date: 1st century BC Phase: 2/3 NGR:TF 7353,1805 Height OD: 20m Method of Recovery: MD, FW, Exc. Other Material: Roman. Reference: de Bootman 1998, 136. Illustration:Yes

Illustration: Yes Catalogue Number: 56 Site name: Cawston Description: Fragment of a Linch-pin ?foot/head. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TG 1380,2368 Height OD: 36m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Bronze Age, Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval, Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Mounts

Catalogue Number: 61 Site name: Ashill Description: Incomplete ?mount. Decoration comprises a transverse rib with ten/eleven red enamel cells flanked by two circular cells, also with red enamel. There is a broken attachment loop on the reverse running from behind circular walls. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9029,0555 Height OD: 78m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 57 Site name: Alby with Thwaite Description: Openwork triskele attachment. The loop on the reverse is broken. The triskele design is suggested by alternate sub-triangular and circular perforations. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TG 1924,3319 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 62 Site name: Tharston Mount Description: Sub-rectangular decorative mount with Dshaped attachment loop on the reverse. The obverse of the mount is decorated with an ‘eye’ shaped boss with blue enamel in the centre and red at the corners. The use of multi-coloured enamel suggests a late date. Hoard: no Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TM 1760,9670 Height OD: 37m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Saxon, Medieval. Reference: Gurney, 1996, 42.3, 390. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 58 Site name: Little Barningham Description: Circular mount with D-shaped attachment bars on the reverse. The front is decorated with three ciruclar cells and three curved triangles creating the a trefoil design. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TG 1535,3320 Height OD: 48m Method of Recovery: MD, FW Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval, Reference: Unpublished Illustration:Yes Catalogue Number: 59 Site name: Brampton Roman Town Description: Open work disc with a ‘spinning’ triskele motif. On the reverse is a ‘waisted’ shank with a worn attachment loop on the end. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TG 2240,2370 Method of Recovery: MD, FW Height OD: 15m Other Material: Roman, Iron Age. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 63 Site name: Shelton Description: “Fragment of a mount or harness plaque of the Santon/Polden Hills type. This fragment at first glance looks like part of a flat-ring terret. The decoration that remains has a inset channel, presumably originally filled with enamel. Within the decorated area is one circular disc in relief. The decoration appears only on one side”. (SMR) Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TM 2195,9150 Height OD: 50m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Bronze Age, Saxon, Medieval, Roman Reference: Unpublished

Catalogue Number: 60 Site name: Gaytonthorpe Roman Description: Enigmatic artefact comprising an openwork 111

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Illustration: No

Height OD: 20m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Neolithic. Reference: Spratling 1966; Harrod Brailsford 1975, pl. 23. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 64 Site name: Swanton Morley Description: Square mount with circle inside containing a three lobed design with a central disc . The central disc is decorated with yellow enamel and the circular cells within the lobes have traces of blue enamel. The overall background is decorated with red enamel. The reverse has two shallow D-shaped attachment bars. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 0215,1710 Height OD: 42m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Gurney 1998, 43.1, 186. Illustration: Yes

1855, 454-6;

Catalogue Number: 68 Site name: Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Description: Circular mount. The face of this mount has a central circular zone that has been divided into three petal shapes, each filled with red enamel. The outer part of the circle is decorated with a series of interlocking triangles, each alternate one (forming the outer edge) filled with red enamel. There is a D-shaped attachment bar on the reverse. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9135,0645 Height OD: 80m Method of Recovery: MD, Exc. Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Davies 2000, 226. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 65 Site name: Snettisham Description: Fragment of an enamel decorated harness mount of a similar type to those known from the Polden Hill Hoard, Somerset and the Santon hoard, Norfolk. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 7153,3411 Height OD: 62 Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Gurney 1994, 42.1, 108; Jope 2000, vol 2, pl 296-7. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 69 Site name: Santon Hoard Description: Harness mount decorated with red enamel and linear ornament. Each quadrant of this mount is identical in design to the others. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TL 8379,8736 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman. Reference: Spratling 1966, 14, fig 8. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 66 Site name: Wymondham Description: Oval shaped decorative mount. The central portion of the mount is decorated with a row of square cells flanked on either side with a row of triangular cells. These cells originally contained ?two colours of enamel. At either end of the oval is a disc with a central circular boss. On the reverse is a D-shaped attachment bar. This design is similar to that seen on the enameled Saham Tony terrets. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 1267,0445 Height OD: 45m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: MacGregor 1976, 26. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 70 Site name: Santon Hoard Description: Harness mount with double comma motif in with red enamel in each quadrant. On the reverse there are two D-shaped attachment loops. The plaque as a whole is curved horizontally. Hoard: Yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TL 8379,8736 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman. Reference: Spratling 1966, 16, fig 9. Illustration: Yes Catalogue Number: 71 Site name: Swanton Morley Description: Incomplete openwork triskele mount with central raised rivet. The ends of each leg of the triskele comprise concave terminals. On the reverse is a broken shank. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: unphased NGR: TG 0120,1920 Height OD: 30m

Catalogue Number: 67 Site name: Refley Wood Description: Decorated mount with incised and stippled designs along with circular cells filled with red enamel. This mount is of the same type as those known from the hoards from Santon in Norfolk, Westhall in Suffolk and Polden Hills in Somerset. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 6570,2150 112

CATALOGUE Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Bronze Age, Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 76 Site name: Gillingham Description: Incomplete terret fragment. Although fragmentary, it seems likely that this is probably a simple, undecorated example. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR:TM 4257, 9268 Height OD: 20m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 72 Site name: Holme Hale Description: Fragment of a possible mount. The linear decoration is similar to that seen on one of the mounts from the Polden Hills hoard. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased (?3) NGR: TF 9060,0480 Height OD: 78m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman Reference: Gurney 1995, 42.2, 223; Brailsford 1975, pl 22.b. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 77 Site name: Great Ellingham Description: Complete simple loop terret, inset rectangular section attachment bar with moulded collars at either end. Undecorated circular sectioned loop. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Late Iron Age NGR: TM 0140,9762 Height OD: 57m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Plain, Simple Terrets Catalogue number: 73 Site name: Postwick Terret Description: Terret Fragment - appears to undecorated and worn. Hoard: no Date: late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TG 2860,0880 Height OD: 15m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1997, 42.4, 54. Illustration: Yes

be

Catalogue Number: 78 Site name: South Walsham Description: Fragment of what appears to be a plain or simple terret. It has an inset rectangular attachment bar defined, presumably at both ends, by a pair of moulded collars. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TG 358o, 1320 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Viking Reference: Gurney 1996, 42.3, 390 Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 74 Site name: Long Stratton Description: Fragment of a simple, plain terret. Hoard: No Date: late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TM 1943,9080 Height OD: 59m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Mini Terrets Catalogue Number: 79 Site name: Fring Description: Mini Terret Hoard: ? Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TF 7367, 3465 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 75 Site name: Wella DMV Description: Fragment of a simple terret. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TF 7490,0450 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 80 Site name: Fring Description: Mini Terret. 21mm wide, 20mm high. The loop of this mini terret is nearly circular and flat backed with a rectangular sectioned groove forming the bar, which is 7mm long. 113

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Height OD: 15 Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1996, 42.3, 390. Illustration: Yes

Hoard: ? Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: 7367,3465 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 86 Site name: Methwold Description: Mini terret Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TF 6892,9355 Height OD: 1m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Bronze Age, Roman. Reference: Gurney 1996, 42.3, 390. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 81 Site name: Long Stratton Description: Mini terret Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TM 1955,9545 Height OD: 35m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 87 Site name: Burgh Castle Description: Mini Terret Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TG 4781,0453 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 82 Site name: Sporle with Palgrave Description: Mini terret. This example is unusual in so far as both the ring and attachment bar are circular in section rather than D-sectioned. Hoard:No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TF 8375,1145 Height OD: 70m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1998, 43.1, 186. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 88 Site name: Wainford Mill Description: Mini terret. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TM 3480,9020 Height OD: 4m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 83 Site name: Quidenham Description: Mini Terret. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR:TM 0282,8927 Height OD: 33m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, Reference: Gurney 1995, 42.2, 223. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 89 Site name: Shotesham Description: Mini Terret Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR:TM 2553,9812 Height OD: 30 Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 84 Site name: Brettenham Romano-British town. Description: Mini terret. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TL 9410,8400 Height OD: 18m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 90 Site name: Thetford Castle Description: Mini terret. Sub-circular attachment bar flanked on either end with a moulded collar, each with a median groove. The loop itself is D-section resulting in a flat back - a characteristic of mini terrets. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unpublished NGR: TM 8750,8280 Height OD: 14m

Catalogue Number: 85 Site name: Loddon Description: Mini Terret Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR:TF 3620,9688 114

CATALOGUE Method of Recovery: Exc Other Material: Iron Age Reference: Gregory 1991, 10-11. Illustration: Yes

Height OD: 45m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration:Yes

Catalogue Number: 91 Site name: Fring Description: Mini terret. 21mm x 20mm. Flat back, 7mm attachment bar. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TF 7367,3456 Height OD: 28m Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 2001, 43.4, 697. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 95 Site name: West Rudham Description: Terret fragment with a narrow attachment bar. The ring is flat and is decorated with a number of circular cells. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TF 8200,2740 Height OD: 55m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Miscellaneous Flat Ring Terrets Catalogue number: 92 Site name: Burlingham Description: ?Mini Terret. This small terret is unusual in so far as it has a flat ring that is approximately the same width all the way round. The attachment bar is flanked on either side with collared mouldings, there is a subtriangular area at the base of the ring filled with dotted decoration. Hoard: Hoard Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR:TG 3709,1046 Height OD: 24m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Palk 1988, no. 306. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 96 Site name: Hockwold-cum-Wilton Description: Complete, distorted terret. This terret has an inset, narrow, almost square section attachment bar. The ring is flat and tapers towards the apex of the ring rather than expanding. In terms of decoration, there are two engraved lines that run from the stops to the top without actually meeting. In addition, there is punch dot decoration on the lower part of the ring. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR:TL 7420,8731 Height OD: 3 Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Saxon. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 93 Site name: Woodrow Inn, Cawston Description: Unusual, incomplete flat ring terret. The ring is decorated with three circular cells filled with red enamel. In addition, there is an incised arc decoration, with those spaces between the arc and the external ring filled with dotted decoration. This is an unusual type and not closely datable. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TG 1530,2410 Height OD: 48m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Palk 1988, no. 308. Illustration: Yes

Three-lipped Terrets Catalogue Number: 97 Site name: Ashill Description: Complete terret. Flattened, inset attachment bar with mouldings on either end. Subcircular sectioned ring decorated with three groups transverse rib or wing type mouldings. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TF 9029,0555 Height OD: 78m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman Reference: Gurney 1991, 41.2, 231. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 94 Site name: Wymondham Description: Mini-Terret. This particular example is unusual as it emulates a flat-ring terret and has defined moulded collars at the end of the attachment bar and a flat ring. Given its form, a late date seems most likely. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TG 1267,0445

Catalogue Number 98 Site name: Fincham Description: Incomplete terret. Attachment bar flanked on either side by collared mouldings. The ring would have originally had three decorative mouldings of a small 115

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK transverse wing type. Hoard: No Phase: 2/3 Height OD: 31m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue number: 103 Site name: Banham Description: Fragment of a terret decorated with a transverse ‘rib’ like moulding. There would have originally been three of these mouldings around the ring. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR:TM 0862,8987 Height OD: 45m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1999, 43.2, 360. Illustration: Yes

Date: 1st century BC/AD NGR: TF 6913,0728

Catalogue Number: 99 Site name: Buxton with Lammas Description: Complete terret with inset, rectangular sectioned attachment bar. The ring is decorated with three groups of rib-like mouldings. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TG 2289,2343 Height OD: 16m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Taylor 1979, 218-9; Palk 1988, no. 307. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 104 Site name: Bawsey Description: Terret with saddle bar attachment, defined at either ends with collared mouldings. The ring is circular sectioned and there is one ‘lip’ moulding extant. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR:TF 6615,2085 Height OD: 5m Method of Recovery: MD, FW. Other Material: Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 100 Site name: Wainford Mill Description: Fragment of a terret exhibiting one decorative moulding. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TM 3480,9020 Height OD: 4m Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 105 Site name: Little Barningham Description: Fragment of a terret ring with three lip-like mouldings. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TG 1205,3320 Height OD: 50m Method of Recovery: No Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1999, 43.2, 362. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 101 Site name: Longham, Breckland Description: Terret showing signs of wear. The attachment bar is sub-rectangular in section and flanked by collared mouldings. The three decorative lip-like mouldings are situated around the ring. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TF 9414,1611 Height OD: 55m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Palk 1988, no.118. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 106 Site name: Field Dalling Description: Fragment of a terret with transverse lip-like decorative mouldings flanked on either side by a ring and dot decoration. Transverse rib or lip-like mouldings and ring and dot decoration appear to be associated with the later series of horse equipment. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR:TG 0239, 4018 Height OD: 45m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Saxon, Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1998, 43.1, 184. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 102 Site name: Caistor St. Edmund Description: Terret fragment. This fragment has a rib like projection. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR: TG 2350,0360 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 107 Site name: North Creake Description: Complete terret. Rectangular section attachment bar with moulded end collars. The loop of the terret is sub-circular in section with three, equally placed 116

CATALOGUE median groove. The ring is decorated with three mouldings comprising a central rib with pronounced ‘wings’ on either side. This terret fits into the transverse wing category. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 0162,1252 Height OD: 45m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Taylor 1979, 218-9; Palk 1988, no. 307. Illustration: Yes

projecting transverse mouldings. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR:TF 8530,3753 Height OD: 25m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1991, 41.2, 232. Illustration: Yes Catalogue Number: 108 Site name: Thurlton Description: Terret fragment. This fragment has one decorative moulding comprising a transverse rib with two incised lines. When complete, there would have been tree such mouldings, one on each side and one at the top. Hoard: No Date: 1st century BC/AD Phase: 2/3 NGR:TM 4260,9882 Height OD: 8m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 112 Site name: Banham Description: Ornate, transverse ring type terret with enamel decoration. Similar in type to the one from Snettisham (110). The decorative style on the rings is similar to that seen on the Polden Hill mounts and terrets, supporting a first century AD date for this item. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TM 0910,8930 Height OD: 50m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Green 1972, 347; Brailsford 1975, pl 18 b & d, pl 22 a. Illustration: Yes

Parallel Wing Terret Catalogue Number 109 Site name: Brampton Roman Town Description: Complete terret with parallel wings. This terret bears no other decoration but is of a similar form to those known from the Polden Hill hoard. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 2240,2370 Height OD: 15m Method of Recovery: MD, FW. Other Material: Iron Age, Roman. Reference: Green 1972, 346-7; Brailsford 1975, Pl. 18 & 19; Palk 1988, no. 144. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 113 Site name: Saham Tony Description: Fragment of a transverse wing terret. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9042,04115 Height OD: 55m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman Reference: Gurney 1996, 422.3, 390. Illustration: Yes Catalogue Number: 114 Site name: Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Description: Complete terret with three transverse rib or lip like mouldings. This terret is interesting as it also incorporates a ‘protective’ skirt over an attachment loop, rather like a Romano British terret type. However, the mouldings are of an Iron Age type. The base of the skirt is decorated with punched dots. Hoard: Yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9135,0645 Height OD: 80m Method of Recovery: ME, Exc. Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Davies 2000, 226. Illustration: Yes

Transverse Wing Terrets Catalogue Number: 110 Site name: Snettisham Description: Ornate transverse-wing terret with enamel decoration. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 6850,3540 Height OD: 43m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Green 1972, 346-7; Palk 1988, no. 125. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 115 Site name: Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Description: Complete terret with three transverse wing mouldings situated on either side and at the top of the ring. The central moulding of each group has milled

Catalogue Number: 111 Site name: Dereham Description: Terret with inset sub-rectangular attachment bar flanked in either side with defined collars, each with a

117

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK decoration. The attachment bar is rectangular in section and has collared mouldings on either side, again with milled decoration. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR:TF 9135,0645 Height OD: 80m Method of Recovery: ME. Exc. Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Davies 2000, 226. Illustration: Yes

Description: Incomplete, platform decorated terret. This terret has a narrow, inset rectangular sectioned bar flanked on either side with collared mouldings. The ring, which is sub-circular in section, is decorated with a number of recessed squares, which would have contained enamel. There would also have originally been three ‘platforms’ situated around the ring. Within each decorative platform are a number of criss-cross lines forming a three diamond shapes. Each recessed area on the platform was filled with red or blue enamel. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 7335,1782 Height OD: 20m Method of Recovery:

Catalogue Number: 116 Site name: Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Description: Complete terret with transverse wing mouldings. This is similar to 115, although the central part of each moulding has no milled decoration. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9135,0645 Height OD: 80m Method of Recovery: MD, Exc Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Davies 2000, 226. Illustration: Yes

Other Material: Neolithic, Late Bronze Age/Iron Age, Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes Catalogue Number: 120 Site name: Brampton Roman Town Description: Complete platform decorated terret. Inset, rectangular section bar with moulded collars on either end. Around the ring are three square shaped projecting platforms upon which there are centrally placed concave diamond shaped cells filled with blue enamel. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 2240,2370 Height OD: 15m Method of Recovery: MD, FW Other Material: Iron Age/Roman Reference: Taylor 1979, 218; Palk 1988, no. 200B. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 117 Site name: Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Description: Complete terret with three sets of transverse wing like mouldings situated around the ring. This one is similar in form to 115, but without the central milled rib in the centre of the projections Hoard: Yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9135, 0645 Height OD: 80m Method of Recovery: ME, Exc Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Davies 2000, 226. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 121 Site name: Brampton Roman Town Description: Complete, although slightly distorted platform decorated terret. This terret has a narrow inset, sub rectangular attachment bar flanked on either side with moulded collars. The decorative platforms are subcircular, flat-topped knobs, each with a central enamel filled diamond shape with a further strip of enamel parallel to each face. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 2240,2370 Height OD: 15m Method of Recovery: MD, FW Other Material: Iron Age, Roman Reference: Green 1972, 346-7. Palk 1988, no. 200A. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 118 Site name: Quidney Farm, Saham Tony Description: Unusual complete terret - looks like a cross between a parallel and transverse wing terret. It has a saddle bar attachment with angled moulded collars. The wings are positioned in three places equally around the ring and comprise one aligned to the ring with the others at right angles, one on either side. The edges of the decorative projections have milled outer edges. Hoard: Yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9135,0645 Height OD: 80m Method of Recovery: ME, Exc. Other Material: Late Iron Age/Early Roman Reference: Davies 2000, 226. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 122 Site name: Long Stratton Description: Fragment of a platform decorated terret, with rectangular sectioned attachment bar. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TM 1943,9080 Height OD: 59m Method of Recovery: MD

Platform Decorated Terrets Catalogue Number: 119 Site name: Gayton 118

CATALOGUE Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 126 Site name: Ovington, Saham Tony Description: Platform decorated terret. Inset rectangular attachment bar flanked on either side with vertical collared mouldings each with a median groove. The side of the ring on this example is undecorated, however, the upper surface has a row of square settings filled with red, blue and yellow enamel. The circular platforms follow the same design as 124 and 125, comprising a central disc flanked by four petals with ‘collapsed’ triangles in between. Hoard: Yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR:TF 9257,0400 Height OD: 75m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Clarke 1940; 100-1; MacGregor 1976, vol 1, p 26; Palk 1988, no 249. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 123 Site name: Tuttington Description: Fragment of a platform decorated terret. Only one ‘platform’ is remaining, it comprises a flattened square that has four triangular cells, each with the point facing in. The triangular recesses are filled with blue and red enamel (two of each). The attachment bar is missing. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 2336,2318 Height OD: 15m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval, Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 127 Site name: Ovington, Saham Tony Description: Platform decorated terret. Inset rectangular attachment bar flanked on either side with vertical collared mouldings. The platforms in this example are rectangular with in-turned ‘scrolls’ in relief at either end. They are decorated with a central red enamel petal shape framed above and below by two blue enamel triangular settings. Each corner of the setting is further defined by right-angle triangle cells filled with red enamel. Hoard: Yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9257,0400 Height OD: 75m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Clarke 1940, 100-1; MacGregor 1976, vol 1, p 26; Palk 1988, no 250. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue number: 124 Site name: Ovington, Saham Tony Description: Platform decorated terret with attachment bar flanked on either side by moulded collars. The three ‘oval platforms’ around the ring are decorated with enamel settings comprising a circle surrounded by four petals with ‘collapsed’ triangles in between. The upper surface of the rings is also decorated with enameled interlocking diamonds and triangles. In addition, on the side of the ring beneath each setting are further enameled triangles. Hoard: Yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9257,0400 Height OD: 73m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Clarke 1940, 100-1; MacGregor 1976, vol 1, p 26; Palk 1988, no 248. Illustration: Yes

Flat Ring Terrets

Catalogue Number: 125 Site name: Ovington, Saham Tony Description: Platform decorated terret. Inset rectangular sectioned attachment bar with projecting flange. As with example 124, the ring of the terret is ‘u’ shaped creating a flat upper surface suitable for decoration - in this case decorated with interlocking triangles and diamonds. The oval platforms, again like 124, have a central disc with four petals and ‘collapsed’ triangles in between. The side of the ring also contains a setting for further enamel. Hoard: Yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9257,0400 Height OD: 75m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Clarke 1940; 100-1; MacGregor 1976, vol 1, p 26; Palk 1988, no 247. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue number: 129 Site name: East Winch Description: Flat-ring terret with low relief swirly, lobed ornament against a field of presumably red enamel. The recessed circles in centre of each of the lobes are pierced by central holes with. In one of these red enamel is visible around the edge of the area. This type of terret is well known from East Anglia with the most famous being perhaps the Westhall Terrets from Suffolk. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 7037,1675 Height OD: 12b Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Harrod 1855, 454-6. Illustration: Yes

119

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Catalogue number: 134 Site name: Briston Description: Fragment of a flat-ring terret. The decoration comprises the swirls and lobed design seen on other flat-ring terrets from the county. The three recessed cells or ‘eyes and nose’ of the design are picked out in blue, with the background in red enamel. The decoration seen on this fragment is reminiscent of that seen on a number of enameled mounts such as those from Polden Hill or Norton in Suffolk. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR:TG 0702,3214 Height OD: 55m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1999, 43.2, 360-1; Jope 2000, Pl 297. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 130 Site name: Field Dalling Description: Flat-ring terret fragment with cast decoration in low relief on each side. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 0125,3880 Height OD: 50m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No Catalogue number: 131 Site name: Ashill Description: Flat-ring terret with rectangular sectioned inset attachment bar flanked on either side with moulded collars. The decoration on the ring which looks rather like a stylised moustache. In the centre of the ‘moustache’ and at each end are round cells that are filled blue glass. The background is filled with red enamel. The inside edge of the ring is decorated with a zig-zag design. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 9056,0576 Height OD: 75m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Unpublished Illustration:Yes

Catalogue Number: 135 Site name: Brinton Description: Fragment of a flat-ring terret decorated with a series of triangles filled with red enamel. Given that the loop of this terret is flat in the manner of a crescent flange terret, and the decoration employs a series a triangles - a motif that seems to recur on later pieces of horse equipment, a late date for this piece seems most likely. Hoard: yes Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 0354,3526 Height OD: 45m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1994, 42.1, 106. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 132 Site name: East Walton Description: Fragment of a flat-ring terret. The design on this fragment is very similar to that seen on 131, although it does not appear to have any traces of blue glass. The background is decorated with red enamel. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TF 7521,1467 Height OD: 15 Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman Reference: Gurney 1997, 42.4, 540. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 136 Site name: Swanton Morley Description: Fragment of a flat-ring type terret. This fragment displays a tendril design ending in a lobe with a circular eye. Unfortunately only one side of this terret has been illustrated, however, the cross section through the terret suggests that one side is either damaged or different to the other, potentially like 133. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR:TG 0120,1920 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Bronze Age, Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Palk 1988, no. 179 Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 133 Site name: Banham Description: Fragment of a flat-ring terret with traces of red enamel. This terret is unusual as far as the decoration on either side is different. One side appears to display the more common swirl and lobed design, the other however seems to have a fishtail design with a zig-zag pattern around the outside edge. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TM 0862,8987 Height OD: 45m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1998, 43.1, 184. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 137 Site name: Swanton Morley Description: Flat-ring type terret, decorated with a series of ten red enameled triangular cells around the ring. The cells themselves are framed within a crescent-shape area that is outlined by a series of punched dots. The

120

CATALOGUE attachment bar is rectangular in section, however, it would appear that it originally had a flange that is now missing. The rim of the loop has a shallow u-shaped impression all the way round. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 0120,1920 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Bronze Age, Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Palk 1988, 314. Illustration: Yes

Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No Catalogue Number: 141 Site name: Hingham Description: Fragment of ‘knobbed’ terret of late Iron Age/Romano British type. Inset rectangular sectioned bar flanked by two collared mouldings. The ring, which is thicker at base, was originally decorated with three ‘knob’ like projections. Hoard: No Date: 1st/2nd century AD Phase: 3 NGR:TG 0354,0201 Height OD: 56m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1990, 41.1, 100. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 138 Site name: Swanton Morley Description: Flat ring terret, described on the SMR as Westhall type Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 0120,1920 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Bronze Age, Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 142 Site name: Gunthorpe Description: Terret fragment. Inset sub-rectangular sectioned attachment bar, flanked at the remaining end by a thickened collar. This collar then melds into the main ring of the terret. This example appears to have been decorated with ‘extra’ attached knobs, possible like that of 140. None of the survive. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 0050,3723 Height OD: 55m Method of Recovery: MF, CF Other Material: Roman, Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 139 Site name: Hockwold-cum-Wilton Description: Complete terret. This particular example exhibits the same genre of decorative motif seen on flatring terrets, however, the ring on this example is subcircular with a u-shaped groove running round the outside of the ring, rather than flat. In addition, the pronounced tang seen on the attachment bar is an unusual feature of the terrets from this region. Given that it has a tang, a feature that is generally considered to be feature of later terrets, a 1st century AD date seems most likely. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TL 7540,8730 Height OD: 3m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Massive Terret Catalogue: 143 Site name: Bramerton Description: This terret appears to be in rather poor condition. It is unusual in form, with the attachment bar ‘hidden’ beneath a hollow dome in much the same way as a massive. Given its similarities to a massive terret or protected loop terret, a late date seems most likely. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: 1st century AD Height OD: 33m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1995, 42.2, 223; MacGregor 1976, 47-8. Illustration: Yes

Knobbed Terrets Catalogue Number: 140 Site name: Frettenham Description: Bronze hemispherical knob from an Iron Age terret. The upper surface is decorated with red enamel into which three radial lentoid cells containing white enamel remains are inlaid. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 2475,1650 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None

Unclassified Terrets Catalogue Number: 144 Site name: Congham Description: terret

121

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Illustration: No

Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TF 7157,2384 Height OD: 24m Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1999, 43.2, 361. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 150 Site name: Swanton Morley Description: Terret Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TG 0120,1920 Height OD: 30m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Bronze Age, Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 145 Site name: Shelton Description: Terret fragment Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase Unphased NGR: TM 2195,9150 Height OD: 50m Other Material: Bronze Age, Roman, Saxon, Medieval. Method of Recovery: MD Reference: Gurney 1998, 43.1, 186. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 151 Site name: Geldeston Description: Terret Fragment. Slightly curved, square sectioned copper alloy bar with transverse collared end mouldings. The ring, which continues beyond the attachment bar, is broken and incomplete. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TM 3980,9928 Height OD: 18m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 146 Site name: Great Massingham Description: Fragment of a terret Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TF 7960,2280 Height OD: 80m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 152 Site name: Ashill Description: Terret Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TG 9029,0555 Height OD: 78m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 147 Site name: Mundham Description: Terret fragment Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TG 3348,9790 Height OD: 30m Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1994, 42.2, 107. Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 153 Site name: Ditchingham Description: Terret Hoard: No Phase: Unphased Height OD: 7m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Catalogue Number: 148 Site name: Frettenham Description: Terret Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR:TG 2440,1978 Height OD: 15m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Date: Late Iron Age NGR: TM 3460,9025

Catalogue Number: 154 Site name: Hockwold-cum-Wilton Description: Terret Fragment. Curved section of a copper alloy bar, sub-circular in section and thickened at one end. This terret fragment has no decorative projections or mouldings. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TF 7540,8730 Height OD: 3m Method of Recovery: MD

Catalogue number: 149 Site name: Wereham Description: Terret Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TF 6888,0104 Height OD: 18m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Medieval. Reference: Unpublished 122

CATALOGUE Other Material: Roman, Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: No

Saxon,

Medieval,

Other Material: Neolithic, Roman, Medieval, Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Post

Catalogue number: 160 Site name: Brampton Roman Town Description: Fragment of a terret Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TG 2240,2370 Height OD: 15m Method of Recovery: MD, FW. Other Material: Iron Age, Roman. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 155 Site name: Loddon Description: Terret fragment, rectangular section attachment bar with bulbous moulding on either side rather than distinct collars. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TG 3700,9700 Height OD: 20m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1999, 43.2, 362. Illustration: Yes

Horn Cap

Catalogue Number: 156 Site name: Wreningham Description: Terret Fragment Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TM 1671,9905 Height OD: 43m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 161 Site name: Corpusty Horn Cap Description: Cast in one piece, this horn-cap has a circular opening on the base into which the shaft would have been inserted. On the upper surface there is an inset plaque that has a circular asymmetrical-triskele design. The boss and petal forms and the asymmetry of the piece are reminiscent of the designs seen on a number of gold torcs from the region and on the Ringstead bridle-bits 30,31.This would suggest an earlier rather than later date. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased (?1) NGR: TG 1290,3065 Height OD: 45m Method of Recovery: CF Other Material: None Reference: Palk 1988, no. 403. Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 157 Site name: Congham Description: Terret fragment. Sub-rectangular sectioned attachment bar. Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR:TF 7220,2300 Height OD: 27m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Gurney 1999, 43.2, 361. Illustration: Yes

Hook Catalogue Number 162 Site name: Runton Description: Curvilinear D- sectioned bar with flattened decorative finial. This artefact is rather enigmatic, however, it is possible that it is a strap-joiner or hook designed to take an easily removable strap. Three of these have been noted from Britain, the most similar to this one being the example from the Seven sisters hoard from Neath, Wales. Two are also known from the Polden Hills hoard, Somerset. Both of these hoards are dated to the 1st century AD. Hoard: No Date: 1st century AD Phase: 3 NGR: TG 2017,4185 Height OD: 57m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: None Reference: Jope 2000, pl 294, l; Brailsford 1975, pl 23, b. Davies and Spratling 1976, 127-9 Illustration: Yes

Catalogue Number: 158 Site name: Oxborough Description: Terret fragment Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR: TF 7465,0155 Height OD: 10m Method of Recovery: MD Other Material: Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval. Reference: Unpublished Illustration: Yes Catalogue Number: 159 Site name: Hockwold-cum-wilton Description: Terret fragment Hoard: No Date: Late Iron Age Phase: Unphased NGR:TL 6884,8856 Height OD: 8m Method of Recovery: MD 123

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

124

ILLUSTRATIONS

125

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

126

ILLUSTRATIONS

127

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

128

ILLUSTRATIONS

129

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

130

ILLUSTRATIONS

131

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

132

ILLUSTRATIONS

133

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

134

ILLUSTRATIONS

135

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

136

ILLUSTRATIONS

137

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK

138

Appendix 1 Table showing the total number of sites within a 2 km radius of each location investigated; the number of those sites that have produced Iron Age material; and the percentage of sites producing Iron Age material. Catalogue Number

Site Name

Total No. of sites within a 2km radius

Number of sites with Iron Age material within a 2km radius.

Percentage of sites producing Iron Age material within a 2km radius

1

Snettisham 'gold field'

200

19

10%

2

North Creake

46

7

15%

3

Sedgeford

149

26

17%

4

Bawsey

99

8

8%

5

Marham

61

15

25%

6

Balckborough End Pits.

102

6

6%

7

Narford

130

31

24%

8

Ingoldisthorpe

169

17

10%

9

Fring

95

31

33%

10

Buxton- with Lammas

186

10

5%

11

Wormegay

93

9

10%

12

Weybourne

115

13

11%

13

Sedgeford

118

8

7%

14

Runton

107

9

8%

15

Heacham

140

17

12%

16

Snettisham

100

29

29%

17

Scole

69

3

4%

18

Fring

67

23

33%

19

North Creake

82

4

5%

20

Dereham

73

6

8%

21

Forncett

123

13

11%

22

Honingham

73

3

4%

23

Weston Longville

71

1

1%

24

Norton-sub- Course

101

5

5%

25

Needham

64

3

5%

26

Swanton Morley

74

3

4%

139

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK 27

Swanton Morley

54

5

9%

28

Stratton Strawless

62

1

1%

29

West Acre

134

31

23%

30

Ringstead

125

7

6%

32

Ovington, Saham Tony

97

14

14%

34

Quidney Farm, Saham Tony

78

15

19%

35

Santon Hoard

63

8

13%

38

Fring

63

20

31%

39

Bawsey

89

9

10%

40

Shouldham

208

40

18%

41

Yarmouth RB town.

100

1

1%

44

Thornham

71

4

6%

45

Quidenham

197

23

12%

46

Beachamwell

48

11

23%

47

Broome

103

7

7%

48

Attleborough

133

10

8%

50

Ditchingham

58

12

20%

51

Weeting-withBroomhill

72

8

11%

53

Tacolneston

128

13

10%

54

Hillington

141

17

12%

55

Tatterset

62

5

8%

56

Cawston

146

3

2%

57

Alby with Thwaite

123

6

5%

58

Little Barningham

123

23

19%

140

APPENDIX 60

Gaytonthorpe Roman villa

119

8

7%

62

Tharston

82

6

7%

64

Swanton Morley

56

6

11%

65

Snettisham

124

28

23%

66

Wymondham

171

4

2%

67

Refley Wood

115

8

7%

72

Holme Hale

125

22

18%

73

Postwick

179

6

3%

75

Wella DMV

144

47

32%

76

Gillingham

53

1

2%

77

Great Ellingham

54

5

9%

78

South Walsham

79

2

3%

79

Fring

71

24

34%

81

Long Stratton

138

5

4%

82

Sporle with Palgrave

86

10

12%

83

Quidenham

195

32

16%

84

Brettenham

75

12

16%

85

Loddon

202

15

7%

86

Methwold

136

18

13%

87

Burgh Castle

119

5

4%

89

Shotesham

104

5

5%

90

Thetford Castle

279

15

5%

91

Fring

71

24

34%

92

Burlingham

30

5

17%

93

Cawston

111

3

3%

95

West Rudham

73

7

10%

96

Hockwold-cum-Wilton

93

17

18%

98

Fincham

237

36

15%

141

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK 99

Buxton with Lammas

223

14

6%

100

Wainford Mill

60

11

18%

101

Longham

93

8

9%

102

Caistor St. Edmund

269

26

10%

103

Banham

57

6

11%

104

Bawsey

102

7

7%

105

Little Barningham

71

7

10%

106

Field Dalling

96

13

14%

108

Thurlton

62

3

5%

110

Snettisham

199

19

9%

111

Dereham.

95

3

3%

112

Banham

39

4

10%

113

Saham Tony

121

21

17%

119

Gayton

116

10

9%

122

Long Stratton

100

3

3%

129

East Winch

51

1

2%

130

Field Dalling

118

14

12%

131

Ashill

123

21

17%

132

East Walton

130

31

24%

134

Briston

35

1

3%

135

Brinton

101

6

6%

140

Frettenham

117

4

3%

141

Hingham

83

2

2%

142

Gunthorpe

152

14

9%

143

Bramerton

110

4

4%

144

Congham

215

24

11%

145

Shelton

93

1

1%

146

Great Massingham

53

3

7%

147

Mundham

102

9

9%

148

Frettenham

97

2

2%

149

Wereham

127

15

12%

142

APPENDIX 150

Swanton Morley

99

4

151

Geldeston

115

10

9%

152

Ashill

129

23

18%

153

Ditchingham

63

11

17%

154

Hockwold-cum-Wilton

80

12

15%

155

Loddon

222

12

5%

156

Wreningham

126

6

5%

157

Congham

191

18

9%

158

Oxborough

128

22

17%

159

Hockwold-cum-wilton

263

1

0.30%

160

Brampton Roman Town

217

14

6%

161

Corpusty

110

5

5%

162

Runton

136

8

6%

Total

13795

1441

Mean

112

11

143

4%

10%

Bibliography Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31, 241367. Boismier, W. A. 1997. Modelling the Effects of Tillage Processes on Artefact Distribution in the Ploughzone: A Simulation of Tillage-Induced Pattern Formation. British Archaeological Reports British Series 259. Bowden, M and McOrmish, D. 1987. The Required Barrier. In Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 84-97. Bradford, J.S.P. and Goodchild, R.G. 1939. Excavations at Frilford, Berkshire 1937-8. In Oxoniensia 4, 1-70. Bradley, R. 1984. The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain. Harlow: Longman. Bradley, R. 1987. Stages in the Chronological Distribution of Hoards and Votive Deposits. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 351-62. Bradley, R. 1990. The Passage of Arms: An Archaeological Analysis of Prehistoric hoards and Votive Deposits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bradley, R. 1993. Where is East Anglia? Themes in Regional Prehistory. In J. Gardiner (ed), Flatlands and Wetlands: Current Themes in East Anglian Archaeology. East Anglian Archaeology 50, 5-13. Bradley, R. 1998. The Significance of Monuments. London: Routledge. Bradley, R. 2000. The Archaeology of Natural Places. London: Routledge Bradley, R. 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge. Brailsford, J. 1972. The Ipswich Torcs. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38, 219-34. Brailsford, J. W. 1975. The Polden Hill Hoard, Somerset. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41, 222-34. Braund, D. 1984. Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of Client Kingship. Beckenham: Croom Helm. Braund, D. 1996. Ruling Roman Britain: Kings, Queens, Governors and Emperors from Julius Caesar to Agricola. London: Routledge. Brown, R. A. 1986. The Iron Age and Romano-British Settlement at Woodcock Hall, Saham Tony, Norfolk. In Britannia 17, 1-58. Brunaux, J. 1988. Celtic Gauls: Gods, Rites and Sanctuaries. London: Seaby Burnett, A. M and Bland R. F. (eds). 1986. Coin Hoards from Roman Britain: Volume 6. London: British Museum. Burnett, A. 1996. 'Gallo-Begic' Coins and Britain. In B. Raftery, V. Megaw and V. Rigby (eds), Sites and Sights of the Iron Age: Essays on Fieldwork and Museum Research presented to Ian

Allen, D. 1960. The Origins of Coinage in Britain: A Reappraisal. In S. S. Frere (ed), Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain. London: Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology. Allen, D. 1970. The Coins of the Iceni. In Britannia 1, 1-33. Allen, D. 1976. Wealth, Money and Coinage in a Celtic Society. In V.Megaw (ed), To Illustrate the Monuments. London: Thames and Hudson. Ashwin, T. 1996a. Excavations of an Iron Age Site at Silfield, Wymondham, Norfolk, 1992-3. In Norfolk Archaeology 42. 3, 241-82. Ashwin, T. 1996b. Neolithic and Bronze Age Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 4162. Ashwin T. 1999. Iron Age Settlement in Norfolk. In T. Williamson and J. Davies (eds), Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: Centre of East Anglian Studies, 10024. Ashwin, T and Flitcroft, M. 1999. The Launditch and its Setting. In Norfolk Archaeology, 43.2, 217-56. Bagnall-Smith, J. 1999. Votive Objects and Objects of Votive of Significance from Great Walsingham. In Britannia 30, 21-56. Barnes, G.L. 1999. Buddhist Landscapes of East Asia. In W. Ashmore & A.B. Knapp (eds), Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, 101-123. Oxford: Blackwell. Barrett, J. 1999. Mythical Landscapes of the British Iron Age. In W. Ashmore and B. Knapp (eds), Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, 253-68. Oxford: Blackwell. Barrett, J. 2001. Agency, The Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological Record. In I.Hodder (ed) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity. Bates, C.S. 1871. A British Cemetery near Plymouth. In Archaeologia 40, 500. Bates, S. 2000. Excavations at Quidney Farm, Saham Toney, Norfolk 1995. In Britannia 31,201-37. Bender, B. 1993. Stonehenge – Contested Landscapes. In B. Bender (ed), Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Berg. Bersu, G. 1940. Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wiltshire. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 6, 30-111. Bevan, B. 1997. Bounding the Landscape: Place and Identity during the Yorkshire Wolds Iron Age. In A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71, 181-91. Birchall, A. 1963. The Belgic Problem: Aylesford Reconsidered. In British Museum Quarterly 28, 21-9. Birchall, A. 1965. The Aylesford-Swarling Culture: The Problem of the Belgae Reconsidered. In

144

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cosgrove, D, 1984. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. London: Croom Helm. Crawford, M.H. 1969. Roman Republican Coin Hoards. London: Royal Numismatic Society Special Publications 4. Creighton, J. 1992. The Decline and Fall of the Icenian Monetary System. In M.Mays (ed), Celtic Coinage: Britain and Beyond. British Archaeological Report 222, 1-32. Creighton, J. 1994. A Time of Change: The Iron Age to Roman Monetary Transition in East Anglia. In Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 13.3, 325-334. Creighton, J. 2000. Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Creighton, J. 2001. The Iron Age-Roman transition. In S. James and M. Cuming, H.S. 1859. On Celtic Antiquities exhumed in Lincolnshire and Dorsetshire. In Journal of the British Archaeological Association 15: 225-36 Cunliffe, B. 1981. (ed). Coinage and Society in Britain and Gaul: Some Current Problems. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 38. Cunliffe, B. 1984. Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52, 2 Vols. Cunliffe, B. 1991a. Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. London: Council for British Report 73, 2 vols. Cunliffe, B. 1991b. Iron Age Communities in Britain. London: Routledge, third edition. Cunliffe, B. 1995. Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort: A hillfort Community in Perspective. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 102, vol 6. Cunliffe, B. 1996. The Celtic Chariot: A Footnote. In B. Raftery (ed), Sites and Sights of the Iron Age: Essays on Fieldwork and Museum Research presented to Ian Mathieson Stead. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 56, 31-40. Cunliffe, B. 1997. The Ancient Celts. Oxford: University Press. Dallas, C. 1993. Excavations in Thetford by B.K. Davison between 1964 and 1970. East Anglian Archaeology 62. Davies, J. et al. 1992. The Iron Age Forts of Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology 54. Davies, J. 1995. ‘Coins Discovered at a Site in southwest Norfolk’. Unpublished SMR report. Davies, J. 1995. Iron Age and Roman Coins discovered at a Site in Central Norfolk. Unpublished SMR report 31450. Davies, J. 1996. Where Eagles Dare: The Iron Age of Norfolk. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 63-92. Davies, J. 1999. Patterns, Power and Political Progress in Iron Age Norfolk. In J.Davies and T. Williamson (eds), Land of the Iceni: The Iron

Mathieson Stead. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 56, 5-12. Burns, I. E. 1971. Additional Torcs from Snettisham. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37.1, 228-9. Bushe-Fox, J.P. 1914. Excavations at Hengistbury Head, Hampshire in 1911-12. London: Society of Antiquaries London Research Report 3. . Bushe-Fox, J.P. 1925. Excavation of a Late-Celtic UrnField at Swarling, Kent. Oxford: Society of Antiquaries Research Report 8. Bushe-Fox, J.P. 1949. Fourth Report on the Excavation of the Roman Fort at Richborough. London: Society of Antiquaries. Carter, G.A. 1998. Excavations at Orsett ‘Cock’ Enclosure, Essex 1976. East Anglian Archaeology 86. Chadburn, A. 1992. A Preliminary Analyses of the Hoard of Icenian Coins from Field Baulk, March, Cambridgeshire. In M. Mays (ed), Celtic Coinage: Britain and Beyond. British Archaeological Report 222, 73-82. Chadburn, A. and Gurney, D. 1991. The Fring Coin Hoard. In Norfolk Archaeology 41.2, 218-25. Christaller, W. 1966. Central Places in Southern Germany. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Clarke R. R. 1939. The Iron Age in Norfolk and Suffolk. In Archaeological Journal, XCVI, 1113. Clarke, R. R. 1951(a). A Hoard of Metalwork of the Early Iron Age from Ringstead, Norfolk. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 10, 21425. Clarke R.R. 1951(b). A Celtic Torc-Terminal from North Creake, Norfolk. In Archaeological Journal CVI, 59-61. Clarke, R.R. 1952. Notes on Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Norfolk (1943-8). In Norfolk Archaeology 30, 156-7. Clarke, R. R. 1954. The Early Iron Age Treasure from Snettisham, Norfolk. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 20, 27-86. Clarke, R. R. 1956. The Hoard of Silver Coins of the Iceni from Honingham, Norfolk. In The British Numismatic Journal 28, 3-9. Clarke, R.R. 1957. The Early Iron Age (about 450BC AD43). In Norfolk Archaeology 31, 398-400. Clarke, R.R. and Hawkes, C.F.C. 1955. An Iron Anthropoid Sword from Shouldham, Norfolk, with related Continental and British Weapons. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 21, 198-227. Collis, J. 1984. The European Iron Age. London: Batsford. Collis, J. 1997. Celtic Myths. In Antiquity 71, 195-201. Corbett, W. and Dent, D. The Soil Landscapes. In P. Wade-Martins (ed), An Historical Atlas of Norfolk. Norfolk: Norfolk Museums Service, 18-19.

145

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, 21627. Evans, C. and Serjeantson, D. 1988. The Backwater Economy of a Fen-Edge Community in the Iron Age: the Upper Delphs, Haddenham. In Antiquity 62, 360-70 Evans, J.G., Limbrey, S. & Cleere, H. 1975. (eds), The Effect of Man on the Landscape: The Highland Zone. London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report No. 11. Fasham, P. 1985. The Prehistoric Settlement at Winnall Down, Winchester. Winchester: Hampshire Field Club Monograph 2. Fasham, P. 1988. A Banjo Enclosure in Micheldever Wood, Hampshire. Winchester: Hampshire Field Club Monograph 5. Feacham, R.W. 1958. The 'Cairnmuir' Hoard from Peebleshire. In Proceedings of Society Antiquity of Scotland 91, 112-6. Fitts, R.L., Haslegrove, C., Lowther, P. and Willis, S. 1999. Melsonby Revisited: Survey and Excavation 1992-95 at the Site of Discovery of the "Stanwick". North Yorkshire. Hoard of 1843. In Durham Archaeological Journal 1415, 1-52. Fitzpatrick, A. 1984. The Deposition of La Tène Iron Age Metalwork in Watery Contexts in Southern Britain. In B.W. Cunliffe and D. Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 2, 178-90. Fitzpatrick, A. 1991. 'Celtic (Iron Age) Religion' Tradition and Timeless. In Scottish Archaeological Review 8, 123-9. Fitzpatrick, A. 1992a. The Snettisham, Norfolk, Hoards of Iron Age Torques: Sacred or Profane? In Antiquity 66, 395-8. Fitzpatrick A, 1992b. The Roles of Celtic Coinage in South East England. In M.Mays (ed), Celtic Coinage: Britain and Beyond. British Archaeological Report 222, 1-32. Fitzpatrick A. P. 1997. Archaeological Excavations on the Route of the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex 1992. Wessex Archaeology Report No. 12. Fitzpatrick, A. P. and Northover, J. P. 1997. Gold Foil Fragment. In A. P. Fitzpatrick, Archaeological Excavations on the Route of the A27 Westhampnett Bypass, West Sussex 1992. Wessex Archaeology Report No. 12, 97-9. Flitcroft, M. 2001. Excavation of a Romano-British Settlement on the A149 Snettisham Bypass, 1989. East Anglian Archaeology 93. Foster, J. 1980. The Iron Age Moulds from Gussage All Saints. British Museum Occasional Paper No. 12. Fox, C. 1946. A Find of the Early Iron Age from Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales.

Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: Centre for East Anglian Studies, 14-44. Davies, J. and Williamson, T. 1999. Introduction: Studying the Iron Age. In J.Davies and T. Williamson (eds), Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age of Northern East Anglia. Norwich: Centre for East Anglian Studies, 7-13. Davies, J. 2000. The Metal Finds. In S. Bates Excavations at Quidney Farm, Saham Toney, Norfolk 1995. In Britannia 31, 201-37. Davies, J. and Gregory, T. 1991. Coinage for a Civitas: A Survey of Roman Coins Found in Norfolk and their Contribution to the Archaeology of the Civitas Icenorum. In Britannia 22, 65-101. Davies, J. and Spratling, M. 1976. The Seven Sisters Hoard: A Centenary Study. In G.C. Boon and J.M. Lewis (eds), Welsh Antiquity: Essays Presented to H.N. Savory, 121-47. Davies, S. 1981. The Excavations at old Down Farm, Andover, Part 2, Prehistoric and Roman. In Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club 37, 81-163. Davison, A. 1990. The Evolution of Settlement in Three Parishes in South East Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology 49. de Bootman, M. 1998. Re-Evaluation of the RomanoBritish Villa at Gayton Thorpe, Norfolk. In Norfolk Archaeology 43.1,133-42. Dio Cassius, Roman History, translated by Earnest Cary (Loeb Classical Library 1925) Dolley, R.H.M. 1954. The Speculum Coins from Hoard C. In R.R. Clarke, The Early Iron Age Treasure from Snettisham Norfolk. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 20, 72-86. Downey, R. King, A. and Soffe, G. 1978. The Roman Temple on Hayling Island, Second Interim Report on Excavations 1977. London. Downey, R. King, A. and Soffe, G. 1979. The Hayling Island Temple, Third Interim Report on the Excavations of the Iron Age and Roman Temple, 1976-78. London. Dungworth, D. 1995. Iron Age and Roman Copper Alloys from Northern Britain. University of Durham: Unpublished PhD Thesis. Dungworth, D. 1996. The Production of Copper Alloys in Iron Age Britain. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 62, 399-422. Dungworth, D. 1997. Copper Metallurgy in Iron Age Britain: Some Recent Research. In A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, 46-50. Ellis H. 1849. Account of a Gold Torquois found in Needwood Forest in Staffordshire. Archaeologia 33, 323-5. Eluère, C. 1987. Celtic Gold Torcs. Gold Bulletin 20, 22-37. Evans, A.J. 1890. On a Late-Celtic urn-field at Aylesford, Kent. Archaeologia, 52, 315-88. Evans, C. 1997. Hydraulic Communities: Iron Age Enclosure in the East Anglia Fenlands. In A. 146

BIBLIOGRAPHY and Monetary History. British Archaeological Reports British Series 222, 47-67. Gregory, T. and Rogerson, A. 1984. Metal-Detecting in Archaeological Excavations. In Antiquity 58, 179-84 Gregory, T. and Gurney, D. 1986. Excavations at Thornham, Wareham, Wighton and Caistor, Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology 30. Gurney, D. 1990. Recent Archaeology. In Norfolk Archaeology 41.I, 100. Gurney, D. 1991. Recent Archaeology. In Norfolk Archaeology 41.2, 232. Gurney, D. 1991. Gold Coins found at Fring. Unpublished SMR report. Gurney, D. 1993. Excavations and Surveys in Norfolk 1992. In Norfolk Archaeology 41, 523-4. Gurney, D. 1994. Recent Archaeology. In Norfolk Archaeology 42.1, 106. Gurney, D. 1995a. Recent Archaeology. In Norfolk Archaeology 42.2, 223. Gurney, D. 1995b. Small Towns and Villages of Roman Norfolk. The Evidence of Surface and MetalDetector Finds. In A.E. Brown (ed), Roman Small Towns in Eastern England and Beyond. Oxford Monograph 52. Oxford: Oxbow. Gurney, D. 1996. Recent Archaeology. In Norfolk Archaeology 42.3, 390. Gurney, D. 1997a. Recent Archaeology. In Norfolk Archaeology 42.4, 541. Gurney, D. 1997b. A Note on the Distribution of MetalDetecting in Norfolk. In Norfolk Archaeology 45.4, 528-32. Gurney, D. 1998. Recent Archaeology. In Norfolk Archaeology 43.1, 186. Gurney, D.1999. Recent Archaeology. In Norfolk Archaeology 43.2, 361-2. Gurney, D. 2001. Recent Archaeology. In Norfolk Archaeology 43.4, 697. Harrod, H. 1855 On Horse Trappings found at Westhall. In Archaeologia 36, 545-6. Haslegrove, C. 1977. Supplementary Gazetteer of Findspots of Celtic Coins in Britain. In London, Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Paper 11a. Haselgrove, C. 1984. Warfare and its Aftermath as Reflected by the Precious Metal Coinage of Belgic Gaul. In Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3.1, 81-105. Haselgrove, C. C. 1985. Inference from Ploughsoil Artefact Samples. In C. Haselgrove, M. Millett and I. Smith (eds), Archaeology from the Ploughsoil: Studies in the Collection and interpretation of Field Survey Data. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications Ltd, 7 –30. Haselgrove, C. 1987. Iron Age Coinage in South East Britain: The Archaeological Context. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 174. Haselgrove, C. 1989. The Later Iron Age in Southern Britain and Beyond. In M.Todd (ed), Research on Roman Britain 1960-89. Britannia Monograph No.11.

Fox, C. 1958. Pattern and Purpose: A Survey of Early Celtic Art in Britain. Cardiff: National Museum of Wales. Frere, S. 1974. Britannia: A History of Roman Britain. Aylesbury: Hazell, Watson and Viney Ltd, second edition. Frere, S. 2001. A Limitatio of Icenian Territory? In Britannia 32, 350-5 Furger-Gunti, A. 1982. Der 'Goldfund von Saint Louis' bei Basel und ahnliche Keltische Schatzfunde. In Zeitschrift f. Archaologie und Kunstgeschichte 39, 1-47. Gale, R. 2000. Charcoal. In S.Bates, Excavations at Quidney Farm, Saham Tony, Norfolk 1995. Britannia 31, 231-3. Gosden, C. & Head, L. 1994. Landscape – A Usefully Ambiguous Concept. Archaeologia Oceania 29 . Gosden, C. 1997. Iron Age Landscapes and Cultural Biographies. In A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, 303-307. Grant, E. 1986. Hill-forts, Central Places and Territories. In Grant, E. (ed), Central Places, Archaeology and History. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications, 13-26. Green, B. 1967. ‘An Iron Age Pony Bit from Swanton Morley, Norfolk’. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 28, 385-6. Green, B. 1972. Three Iron Age Bronze Terrets from Norfolk. In Antiquaries Journal 52, 346. Green, M.J. 1992. The Iconography of Celtic Coins. In M. Mays (ed), Celtic Coinage: Britian and Beyond. British Archaeological Reports 222, 151-63. Gregory, T. 1977. The Enclosure at Ashill. In East Anglian Archaeology 5, 9-30. Gregory, T. 1980. Two Iron Age Linch-Pins from Norfolk. In Norfolk Archaeology 338-41. Gregory, T. 1984. A Report to the Coroner about the East Winch Torc Find. Unpublished SMR report 12559. Gregory, T. 1986. Thornham: An Iron Age Linch-Pin and a Romano-British Cremation from Thornham. In T.Gregory and D.Gurney (eds), Excavations at Thornham, Warham, Wighton and Caistor, Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology 36. Gregory, T. 1991. Excavations in Thetford, 1980-82, Fison Way. East Anglian Archaeology Report 53. Gregory, T. 1992a. Excavations at Thetford Castle, 1962. In J. Davies et al The Iron Age Forts of Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeology Report 54, 3-17. Gregory, T. 1992b. Snettisham and Bury: Some New Light on the Earliest Icenian Coinage. In M. Mays (ed), Celtic Coinage: Britain and Beyond, The Eleventh Oxford Symposium on Coinage

147

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Haselgrove, C. 1993. The Development of British IronAge Coinage. In Numismatic Chronicle 153, 31-63. Haselgrove, C. 1997. Iron Age Brooch Deposition and Chronology. In A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 71. Haselgrove, C. 1999. The Development of Iron Age Coinage in Belgic Gaul. Numismatic Chronicle 159, 111-68. Hattat, R. 1985. Iron Age and Roman Brooches: A Second Selection of Brooches from the Authors Collection. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Hawkes, C.F.C, & Hull, M.R. 1947. Camulodunum. Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 14. Henderson, A. 1949. Small Objects in Metal, Bone, Glass etc. In J. P. Bushe-Fox, Fourth Report on the Excavation of the Roman Fort at Richborough. London: Society of Antiquaries. Henig, M. 1995. The Art of Roman Britain. London: Batsford. Henig, M. 2001. Luxuria and Decorum: Changing Values in Public and Private Life. In L.Golden (ed), Raising the Eyebrow: John O'Nions and World Art Studies. An Album Amicorum in his honour, British Archaeological Reports International Series 996. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Hill, J.D. 1987. Rethinking the Iron Age. In Scottish Archaeological Review 6, 16-24. Hill, J.D. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex. British Archaeological Report 242. Hill, J.D. 1996. Hill-forts and the Iron Age of Wessex. In T.C. Champion and J.R. Collis (eds), The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications. Hill, J.D. 1997. ‘The end of one kind of body and the end of another kind of body’? Toilet Instruments and 'Romanisation'. In A.Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, 96-107. Hill, J.D. 1999. Settlement, Landscape and Regionality. In T. Williamson and J. Davies (eds), Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: Centre for East Anglian Studies, 185207. Hill, J.D. 2001. The Winchester Hoard. In PAST, the Newsletter of the Prehistoric Society, 38. Hill, J.D. 2002. Two Iron Age Chariot Burials. In Current Archaeology 178. Hingley, R. 1990. Iron Age ‘Currency British Archaeological Reports’: The Archaeological and Social Context. In Archaeological Journal 147: 91-117. Hingley, R. 1996. Ancestors and Identity in the Later Prehistory of Atlantic Scotland: The Reuse and Reinvention of Neolithic Monuments and Material Culture. In World Archaeology 28, 231-43.

Hingley, R. 1999. The Creation of Prehistoric Landscapes and the Context of Reuse of Neolithic and Earlier Bronze Age Monuments in Britain and Ireland. In B Bevan (ed), Northern Exposure: Interpretative Devolution and the Iron Ages in Britain. Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monograph no. 4, 233-252. Hobbs, R. 1996. British Iron Age Coins in the British Museum. London: British Museum Press. Hodder, I. 1977. How are we to study distributions of Iron Age material? In J. Collis (ed), The Iron Age in Britain: a Review. Sheffield: Department of Prehistory and Archaeology. Hodder, I. 1982(a). Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hodder, I. 1982(b). The Present Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hodder, I. 1999. The Archaeological Process. Oxford: Blackwell Hunter, F. 1997. Hoarding in Scotland and Northern England. In A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 108-33. Hutcheson, N. forthcoming. Iron Age Norfolk: Snettisham and the Landscape Context. In J. Humphrey (ed), Publication of three years of Iron Age Research Student Seminars. Leicester: Leicester Archaeology Monograph. Ingold, T. 1993. The Temporality of Landscape. In World Archaeology 25.2, 152-74. Jackson R. P. 1990. Camerton: The Late Iron Age and Early Roman Metalwork. London: British Museum Publications. Jacobsthal, P. 1944. Early Celtic Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press. James, S. 1999. The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention. London: British Museum Press. James, S. And Rigby, V. 1997. Britain and the Celtic Iron Age. London: British Museum Press. Johns, C. 1996. The Jewellery of Roman Britain: Celtic and Classical Traditions. London: University College London Press. Johnson. M. 1999. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Jope, M. 1984. Bronze Fittings Possible for Horse Harness. In B.Cunliffe Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 2 The excavations 1969-1978: the finds. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52, 345. Jope, M. 2000. Early Celtic Art in the British Isles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jundi, S. and Hill, J.D. 1998. Brooches and identities in first century AD Britain: More than meets the eye? In C. Forcy, J. Hawthorne and R. Witcher (eds), TRAC 97 Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 125-137. 148

BIBLIOGRAPHY Megaw, R. and Megaw, V. 2001. Celtic Art from its Beginnings to the Book of Kells. London: Thames and Hudson. Merriman, N. 1987. Value and Motivation in Prehistory: the evidence for 'Celtic Spirit'. In I. Hodder (ed), The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Cambridge: University Press. Miller, D. 1994. Artefacts and the Meaning of Things. In T. Ingold (ed), Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology, Humanity, Culture and Social Life, 396-419. London: Routledge Miller, D. 1998. Material Cultures: Why Some Things Matter. London: University College London Press. Millett, M. 1985. Field Survey Calibration: a Contribution. In C. Haselgrove, M. Millett and I. Smith (eds), Archaeology from the Ploughsoil: Studies in the Collection and interpretation of Field Survey Data. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications Ltd. Millett, M. 1990. The Romanisation of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Morris, I. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History. Oxford: Blackwell. Murphy, P. 1987. Summary Environmental Report. In J.J. Wymer Early Iron Age Pottery and a Triangular Loomweight from Redgate Hill, Hunstanton. Norfolk Archaeology 42, 270-2. Murphy, P. 1999. Plant Remains and the Environment. In T. Gregory Excavations in Thetford, 1980-82, Fison Way. East Anglian Archaeology 53, 17580. Nash, D. 1987. Coinage in the Celtic World. London: Methuen. Orton, C. 1997. Testing Significance or Testing Credulity? In Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16, 219-25. Owles, E. 1969. The Ipswich Gold Torcs. In Antiquity 43, 208-12. Owles, E. 1970. The Sixth Ipswich Torc. In Antiquity 45, 294-6. Painter, K. 1970. An Iron Age Gold-Alloy Torc from Glascote, Tamworth, Staffordshire. In Staffordshire Archaeological and Historical Society 11, 1-6. Palk, N. 1984. Iron Age Bridle Bits from Britain. Edinburgh: University Press. Occasional Paper no. 10. Palk, N. 1991a. Bronze Fittings Possible for Horse Harness. In B.Cunliffe Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 5 The excavations 1979-1988: the finds. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 73, 332 Palk, N. A. 1991b. Metal Horse Harness of the British and Irish Iron Ages. Oxford: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Parker Pearson, M. 1996. Food, Fertility and Front Doors in the First Millennium BC. In T.C. Champion and J.R. Collis (eds), The Iron Age in

Kent, J.P.C. 1978. The Origins and Development of Celtic Gold Coinage in Britain. Rouen: Actes de Colloque International d'Archeologie, 313-24. Kopytoff, I. 1986. The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process. In A. Appadurai (ed), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspectives. Cambridge: University Press. Laing, L. and Laing J. 1995. Celtic Britain and Ireland: Art and Society. The Herbert Press: London. Lane, T. 1988. Pre-Roman Origins for Settlement on the Fens of Lincolnshire. In Antiquity 65.235, 31421 Lane, T. and Morris, E. 2001. A Millennium of Saltmaking: Prehistoric and Romano-British Salt Production in the Fenland. Lincolnshire Archaeology and Heritage Reports Series 4. Leeds, E.T. 1933(a). Celtic Ornament in the British Isles down to AD 700. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Leeds, E.T. 1933(b). Torcs of Early Iron Age Britain. In The Antiquaries Journal 13, 466-68. Lewis, M.J.T. 1966. Temples in Roman Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Limbrey, S. & Evans, J. G. 1978. The Effect of Man on the Landscape:The Lowland Zone. London: Council for British Archaeology, Research Report No. 21. Lockyear, K. 1999. Hoard Structure and Coin Production in Antiquity - and Empirical Investigation. In Numismatic Chronicle 159, 215-43. MacDonald, P. 2000. A Reassessment of the Copper Alloy Artefacts from the Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey Assemblage. University of Cardiff: Unpublished PhD Thesis. MacGregor, M. 1962. The Early Iron Age Metalwork Hoard from Stanwick, N.R. Yorks. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 27, 17-57. MacGregor, M. 1976. Early Celtic Art in North Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Maitland, F.W. 1897. Domesday Book and Beyond. Camebridge: University Press. Martin, E. 1988. Burgh, Iron Age and Roman Enclosure. East Anglian Archaeology 40. Martin, E. 1999. Suffolk in the Iron Age. In J.Davies and T Williamson (eds), Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: Centre of East Anglian Studies, University of East Anglia, 45-99. McGlade, J. 1999. Archaeology and the Evolution of Cultural Landscapes: Towards an Interdisciplinary Research Agenda. In P.J. Ucko & R. Layton (eds), The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape. London: Routledge. Megaw, J.V.S. 1970. Art of the European Iron Age. New York: Harper and Row. Megaw, J.V.S. and Megaw, M.R. 1996. Ancient Celts and Modern Ethnicity. In Antiquity 70, 175-81.

149

LATER IRON AGE NORFOLK Rogerson, A. with Davison, A. 1997. An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Parish of Barton Bendish. East Anglian Archaeology 80. Roymans, N. 1988. Religion and Society in Late Iron Age Northern Gaul. In R.F. Jones et al (eds), First Millennium Papers. British Archaeological Reports International Series 401. Scheers, S. 1977. Traite de Numasmatique Celtique II: La Gaule Belgique. Sealey, P. 1979. The Later history of Icenian Electrum Torcs. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 165-78. Sealey, P. 1997. The Boudican Revolt Against Rome. Shire Publications Limited. Selkirk, A. and Selkirk, W. (eds). 1991. Snettisham: further Discoveries of Iron Age Treasure. In Current Archaeology 126, 260-62. Sharples, N. 1991. Maiden Castle. London: Batsford. Shelley, A. 1999. An Iron Age Building at Dunston, Stoke Holy Cross, Norfolk. In Norfolk Archaeology, 43. 2, 341-5. Sieveking, I. Longworth & K.E. Wilson (eds), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology. London: Duckworth. Smith R.A. 1925. Guide to the Early Iron Age Antiquities. London: British Museum. Smith, C. 1999. Ancestors, Place and People: Social Landscapes in Aboriginal Australia. In P.J. Ucko & R. Layton (eds), The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape. London: Routledge. Spratling, M. 1966. The Metalworkers Hoard of the First Century AD from Santon, Norfolk: A Preliminary Study. Cardiff: Unpublished BA Dissertation. Spratling, M.G. 1972. Southern British Decorated Bronzes of the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age. London Institute of Archaeology: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Stead, I. 1965. The Celtic Chariot. In Antiquity 39, 259265. Stead, I. 1976. The Earliest Burials of the Aylesford Culture. In G. de G. Stead, I. 1979. The Arras Culture. York: The Yorkshire Philisophical Society. Stead, I. 1985. Celtic Art in Britain before the Roman Conquest. London: British Museum Publications. Stead, I. 1991a. The Snettisham Treasure: Excavations in 1990. In Antiquity 65, 447-65 Stead, I. 1991. Iron Age Cemeteries in East Yorkshire: Excavations at Burton Flemming, Rudston, Garton-on-the-Wolds and Kirburn. London: English Heritage, British Museum Press. Stead, I. 1998. The Salisbury Hoard. Gloucestershire: Tempus Stewart, P.C.N. 1995. Inventing Britain: the Roman Creation and Adaptation of an Image. In Britannia 26, 1-10.

Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends. Sheffield: J.R. Collis Publications, 117- 132. Percival, S. 1999. Iron Age Pottery in Norfolk. In J.Davies and T Williamson (eds), Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: Centre of East Anglian Studies, University of East Anglia, 173-184. Perry, 1972. Excavations at Bramdean, 1965-66, and a Discussion of Similar Sites in southern England. In Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club 24, 41-77. Piggot, S. 1949. An Iron Age Yoke from Northern Ireland. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 15, 192-3. Portable Antiquities Annual Report 1998-1999. Department of Culture Media and Sport 2000. Portable Antiquities Annual Report 1999-2000. Department of Culture Media and Sport 2001. Potter, T. 1997. Roman Britain. London: British Museum. Preucel R.W. and Hodder, I. 1996. Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: a reader. Cambridge: Blackwell. Raftery, B. 1984. La Tène in Ireland; Problems of Origin and Chronology. In Veröffentlichlung des Vorgeschichtlichen Seminars, Marburg, Sonderbrand 2. Raftery, B. 1990. Celtic Art. Unesco: Flammarion. Richardson, J. 1985. Scouring the Surface: Approaches to the Ploughzone in the Stonehenge Environs. In Archaeological Review of Cambridge 4, 2742. Richmond, I.A. 1925. Huddersfield in Roman Times. Tolson Memorial Museum Publication 4. Rickett, R. 1995. Spong Hill: Part VII: The Iron Age, Roman and Early Saxon Settlement. East Anglian Archaeology 73. Roach-Smith, C. 1853. British Silver Coins recently found at Weston in Norfolk. In Numismatic Chronicle 15, 98-102. Robinson, B. and Gregory, T. 1987. Celtic Fire and Roman Rule. Norfolk: North Walsham. Robinson, B. and Rose, E. 1983. Roads and Tracks. Cromer: Poppyland Publishing. Rogerson, A. 1977. Excavations at Scole, 1973. In East Anglian Archaeology Report No.5. Gressenhall: Norfolk Archaeological Unit, 97-224. Rogerson, A. 1995. Fransham: An Archaeological and Historical Study of a Parish on the Norfolk Boulder Clay. University of East Anglia: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Rogerson, A. 1999. Arable and Pasture on Two Norfolk Parishes: Barton Bendish and Fransham in the Iron Age. In J. Davies and T. Williamson (eds), Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: University of East Anglia, 125-31.

150

BIBLIOGRAPHY Wainwright, G. 1979. Gussage All Saints: An Iron Age Settlement in Dorset. London: Department of the Environment Archaeological Report 10. Wait, G. 1985. Ritual and Religion in Iron Age Britain. British Archaeological Report, British Series 149. Wake, T. 1942. Some Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Norfolk. In Norfolk Archaeology, 28. I, 26-7. Ward-Perkins, J.B. 1940. Two Early Linch-Pins from Kings Langley, Herts. and Tiddington, Stratford-on-Avon’. In Antiquaries Journal 21, 356-67. Webster, G. 1993. The Roman Conquest of Britain: Boudica. London: Batsford, second edition. Wells, P. 2001. Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians: archaeology and identity and Iron Age Europe. London: Duckworth. Wheeler, R.E.M. 1943. Maiden Castle, Dorset. Oxford: Society of Antiquaries Research Report 12. Whimster, R. 1977. Iron Age Burial in Southern Britain. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43, 317-27. Whimster, R. 1978. Harlyn Bay Reconsidered: The Excavations of 1900 – 1905 in the light of Recent Work. In Cornish Archaeology 16 (1977), 61-88. Williamson, T. 1987. Early Co-Axial Field Systems in East Anglia. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 419-31. Williamson, T. 1993. The Origins of Norfolk. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Willis, S. 1997. Settlement, Materiality and Landscape in the Iron Age of the East Midlands: Evidence, Interpretation and Wider Resonance. In A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, 205215. Wilthew, P. Bayley, J. & Linton. 1992. Analysis of Metalworking Debris. In T. Gregory Excavations in Thetford, Fison Way. East Anglian Archaeology 53, 141-2. Wiltshire, P. 1997. Palynology. In T. Ashwin, Excavation of an Iron Age Site at Silfield, Wymondham, Norfolk, 1992-3. Norfolk Archaeology 42.3, 273. Wiltshire, P.J. & Murphy, P. 1999. Current Knowledge of the Iron Age Environment and Agrarian Economy of Norfolk and Adjacent Areas. In J. Davies & T. Williamson (eds), Land of the Iceni: The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia. Norwich: Centre for East Anglian Studies, 132161.

Stopford, J. 1987. Danebury: An Alternative View. In Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 70-5. Sylvester, R. 1988. The Fenland Project Number 3: Norfolk Survey. Marshland and Nar Valley. East Anglian Archaeology Report 45. Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, translated by Michael Grant (Penguin Classic 1971). Tacon, P.S.C., 1999. Identifying Ancient Sacred Landscapes in Australia: From Physical to Social. In W. Ashmore & A.B. Knapp, (eds), Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell, 33-57. Taylor, A.K. 1979. Three Iron Age Terret Rings from Norfolk. In Norfolk Archaeology 37.219. Taylor, J. 1997. Space and Place: some thoughts on Iron Age and Romano-British Landscapes. In A. Gwilt and C. Haselgrove (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxbow Monograph 71, 192204. Taylor, R. J. and Brailsford, J.W. 1985. British Iron age Strap Unions. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51, 247-72. Thomas, J. 2001. Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In I. Hodder (ed), Archaeological Theory Today. Oxford: Blackwell, 165-86. Thomas, J. 1993. The Politics of Vision and the Archaeologies of Landscape. In B. Bender (ed), Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Berg 19-48. Tilley, C. 1991. Material Culture and Text: The Art of Ambiguity. London: Routledge Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford: Berg. Tilley, C. 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Ulmschneider, K. 2000. Markets, Minsters and MetalDetectors: The Archaeology of Middle Saxon Lincolnshire and Hampshire Compared. British Archaeological Reports British Series 307. Van Arsdell, R. 1989. Celtic Coinage of Britain. London: Spink. Van Arsdell, R. 1996. A Statistical Analysis of Icenian Coin Hoards. In Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 15, 235-42. Van de Guchte, M, 1999. The Inca Cognition of Landscape: Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and the Aesthetic of Alterity. In W. Ashmore & A.B. Knapp, (eds), Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell, 149-168. Vita-Finzi, C. 1978. Archaeological Sites in their Setting. London: Thames and Hudson. Wacher, J. 1974. The Towns of Roman Britain. London: Batsford. Wade-Martins, P. 1974. The Linear Earthworks of West Norfolk. Norfolk Archaeology 36, 23-38. Wade-Martins, P. 1993 An Historic Atlas of Norfolk. Norfolk: Museums Service

151